Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles
Published: 2009-06-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on lands managed by the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (Park Service) has become popular over the past few decades. Some critics have asserted that OHV use causes adverse environmental, social, and safety impacts, while proponents have voiced concerns about retaining access to federal lands. GAO examined the (1) trends in and status of OHV use on federal lands, as well as reported environmental, social, and safety impacts; (2) agencies' strategic planning for managing OHV use; (3) actions taken by agency field units to manage OHV use; and (4) current OHV management challenges. GAO collected and analyzed related executive orders and agency OHV plans, regulations, and guidance; interviewed agency and interest group officials; and conducted a Web-based survey of all three agencies' field unit officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OHV use on federal lands--both authorized and unauthorized--increased from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, with varying environmental, social, and safety impacts, according to officials from all three agencies. All three agencies reported that OHVs are predominantly used on their lands for OHV recreation, such as trail and open-area riding. Most Park Service officials said that OHV use constitutes less than 10 percent of the recreation on their lands. Most officials from all three agencies also said that OHV-related environmental impacts occur on less than 20 percent of their lands, although a few said that such impacts occur on 80 percent or more of their lands. Most officials said that social and safety impacts, such as conflicts with nonmotorized users, occasionally or rarely occurred. Forest Service and BLM plans for OHV management are missing key elements of strategic planning, such as results-oriented goals, strategies to achieve the goals, time frames for implementing strategies, or performance measures to monitor incremental progress. For example, the Forest Service's strategic plan has no strategies to address key aspects of OHV management, such as communicating with the public or enforcing OHV regulations. Similarly, while BLM's recreation plan contains strategies addressing key aspects of OHV management, the agency has not identified time frames for implementing these strategies or performance measures for monitoring progress. The Park Service has no extensive planning for managing OHV use, but this absence seems reasonable given that its regulations limit OHV use to only a few units and OHV use is not a predominant recreational activity on its lands. While agencies' field units have taken many actions to manage OHV use, additional efforts could improve communication and enforcement. In particular, units have taken actions such as supplementing federal funds with outside resources like state grants, communicating with the public by posting signs and maps, and enforcing OHV regulations by occasionally patrolling OHV areas and writing citations for OHV violations. Few officials, however, indicated that their unit had signs and maps for nearly all of their OHV areas. Additionally, while most field unit officials said that they conduct enforcement activities, such as writing citations, about half indicated that fines are insufficient to deter illegal or unsafe OHV use. In addition, a majority of officials reported they cannot sustainably manage their existing OHV use areas; sustainable management would include having the necessary human and financial resources to ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the OHV program. Officials identified numerous challenges in managing OHV use, of which the most widely identified were insufficient financial resources, as well as staff for OHV management and enforcement. In addition, most officials cited enforcement of OHV regulations as a great challenge. Other challenges were maintaining signs, managing the public's varied expectations about how federal lands should be used, and changing long-established OHV use patterns.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the past few decades, the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) has  become a popular form of recreation nationwide, particularly on federal  lands managed by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the  Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and  National Park Service (Park Service). These federal agencies have  acknowledged that, in appropriate locations and with proper management,  use of motor vehicles—including OHVs such as all-terrain vehicles, off- road motorcycles, dune buggies, and other four-wheel-drive vehicles—is a  legitimate way for people to enjoy their federal lands. OHV riders are a  diverse group and seek a variety of recreational opportunities, including  riding OHV trails; accessing scenic vistas, hunting grounds, and fishing  sites; retrieving big game animals; and experiencing and enjoying the  outdoors with family and friends. The use of OHVs and related potential  effects, however, have come under considerable public scrutiny and  discussion. Critics of OHV use have asserted that, if left unmanaged, OHV  use causes adverse environmental, social, and safety impacts, while  proponents have voiced concerns about maintaining access to federal  lands for OHV-related recreation.
The Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service manage federal lands for a  variety of purposes. Specifically, both the Forest Service and BLM manage  their lands for multiple uses, including recreation, and provision of a  sustained yield of renewable resources, such as timber, fish and wildlife,  and forage for livestock. By contrast, the Park Service manages its land to  conserve the scenery, natural and historical objects, and wildlife so they  remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future generations.  Currently, these three agencies are operating in an environment of  constrained budgets, in which OHV use must be managed in conjunction  with issues such as providing other recreational opportunities, managing  wildland fires, preventing illegal drug activities, and responding to impacts  on resources and public safety from illegal smuggling activities along the  U.S. border. Although it has been more than 30 years since these agencies  were directed to establish policies and procedures for managing OHV use,  questions remain about how well OHV use has been managed.
In this context, this report examines (1) the trends in and status of OHV  use on federal lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park  Service from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, as well as the  reported environmental, social, and safety impacts of OHV use; (2) the  agencies’ strategic planning for managing OHV use on federal lands;   (3) actions taken by the agencies’ field units in managing OHV use on their  lands; and (4) current OHV management challenges facing these agencies.
In conducting our work, we collected and analyzed OHV-related  documentation, including applicable executive orders and agency plans,  regulations, and guidance. We also interviewed and collected  documentation from Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service headquarters  officials and national headquarters representatives of various OHV user  and environmental groups. To obtain a better understanding of ongoing  agency OHV management efforts, we visited selected Forest Service, BLM,  and Park Service field units and interviewed agency officials, as well as  representatives of OHV user and environmental groups near some of these  units. We selected these field units—located in Arizona, California,  Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, and Utah—on the basis of their  geographic and ecological diversity. The specific field units we visited are  identified in table 3 of appendix 1.
Because of a lack of historical and nationwide information about OHV use  on federal lands, we also developed and administered a Web-based survey  to gather federal land managers’ perspectives on the management and use  of OHVs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 on Forest Service,  BLM, and Park Service lands. The survey was administered to the entire  population of national forests and BLM field office units and to Park  Service field units most likely to have OHV use, either authorized or  unauthorized. To ensure the validity of survey responses, we   (1) extensively pretested the survey to ensure that questions were  understood appropriately across all three agencies, (2) pledged to report  only aggregate survey information (as opposed to information that would  identify a particular unit), and (3) conducted reliability and validity checks  of the survey responses. We obtained a 100 percent response rate for the  survey from all three agencies. A complete tabulation of the results of the  survey can be viewed at GAO-09-547SP. To characterize the results from  our survey in this report, we assigned specific meanings to the words used  to quantify the results, as follows: “a few” means 1 to 24 percent of  respondents, “some” means 25 to 44 percent of respondents, “about half”  means 45 to 55 percent of respondents, “a majority” means 56 to  74 percent of respondents, “most” means 75 to 94 percent of respondents,  and “nearly all” means 95 percent or more of respondents. Appendix I  explains our methodology in greater detail.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to June 2009, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service manage more than 530 million  acres of federal lands across the country (see fig. 1). Each agency has a  unique mission focusing on priorities that shape how they manage those  lands. Specifically,    The Forest Service manages more than 190 million acres to sustain the  health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to  meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency manages  and issues permits for activities such as recreation, timber harvesting,  mining, livestock grazing, and rights-of-way for road construction. The  Forest Service manages lands under its jurisdiction through nine regional  offices, 155 national forests, 20 grasslands, and over 600 districts (each  forest has several districts).
BLM manages about 256 million acres to sustain the health, diversity, and  productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and  future generations. The agency manages and issues permits for activities  such as recreation, timber harvesting, mining, livestock grazing, and oil  and gas development. BLM manages public lands under its jurisdiction  through 12 state offices, with each state office having several subsidiary  district and field offices.
The Park Service manages 391 national park units covering more than   84 million acres to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and  wildlife of the national park system so they will remain unimpaired for the  enjoyment of this and future generations. The park units have varied  designations corresponding to the natural or cultural features they are  supposed to conserve, including national parks, monuments, lakeshores,  seashores, recreation areas, preserves, and historic sites.
While managing their respective lands, these three agencies must comply  with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). This  act shifts the focus of government decision making and accountability  away from activities that are undertaken—such as the number of plans  developed—to the results of those activities, which, for the land  management agencies, might include gains in resource protection and  quality of recreational opportunities. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the  starting point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management. As  such, these plans should include, among other things, (1) results-oriented  short- and long-term goals, (2) strategies to achieve the goals, (3) time  frames for carrying out the strategies, and (4) performance measures to  monitor incremental progress. Results-oriented goals have the potential  to help agencies focus on the outcomes of their programs, rather than on  outputs such as staffing or numbers of activities. In addition, developing  strategies is important, so that agencies can identify how they intend to  achieve their goals. Setting time frames for the strategies and developing  performance measures to monitor incremental progress ensure that  agencies make progress toward achieving their goals in a timely manner.  Finally, since one purpose of GPRA is to improve the management of  federal agencies, it is particularly important that agencies’ plans address  key management challenges.
Federal agencies’ management of OHV use on federal lands is also guided  by two executive orders issued in the 1970s. The first executive order  establishes policies and procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs  on federal lands in a manner that    protects the resources of those lands,    promotes the safety of all users,    minimizes conflicts among federal land uses,    communicates with the public about available OHV opportunities,    prescribes appropriate penalties for violating OHV regulations, and    monitors the effects of OHV use.
The executive order also directs each federal land management agency to  develop and issue regulations that designate specific areas and trails on  public lands as open or closed with respect to OHV use. In making these  designations, agencies are directed to minimize damage to the soil,  watersheds, vegetation, or other resources of the federal lands;  harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and  conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. The  second executive order directs agency heads to close areas or trails if  OHVs are causing considerable adverse effects. The Forest Service, BLM,  and Park Service initially implemented these executive orders by  designating areas as open, which allows cross-country OHV use; limited,  which allows OHV use on a specific route authorized by an agency; or  closed, which prohibits OHV use.
In recent years, the agencies have begun to reevaluate the procedures they  use to make OHV designations—or are in the process of developing  additional regulations for OHV use—in light of the recent increase in  popularity of OHV use. Specifically, in 2005, the Forest Service issued a  travel management regulation, in part to standardize the process that  individual national forests and grasslands use to designate the roads, trails,  and areas that will be open to motorized travel. This designation process  applies only to motorized vehicles and does not address other forms of  transportation, such as biking, horseback riding, and hiking. After roads,  trails, and areas are designated, the travel management regulation requires  that motorized travel be limited to designated roads, trails, and areas,  reducing the acreage within national forests that is open to cross-country  travel. The travel management regulation also requires that designated  roads, trails, and areas be displayed on a motor vehicle use map. The  Forest Service developed a schedule to complete the route designations  and to develop the required motor vehicle use maps by the end of calendar  2009. As of March 2009, the Forest Service had completed travel  management planning for 53 million acres, or about 28 percent of its lands.  In January 2009, the Forest Service updated its travel management  guidance to provide individual forests with details on how to designate  roads, trails, and areas for motorized use. This guidance, among other  things, describes the process that forests should go through to make travel  management decisions, including the criteria for making these decisions.
These criteria include effects on natural and cultural resources, effects on  public safety, provision of recreation opportunities, access needs, conflicts  among uses of national forest lands, the need for maintenance, and the  availability of resources for such maintenance.
Like the Forest Service, BLM has also begun to reevaluate the procedures  it uses to make OHV designations. Over the past 10 years, BLM has issued  increasingly detailed guidance on how its field offices should address  travel management in their resource management plans. In accordance  with the executive orders, BLM regulations require that all its lands be  given an area designation of either open, limited, or closed with respect to  motorized travel and that these designations be based on protecting  resources, promoting the safety of users, and minimizing conflicts  between users. As of March 2009, BLM had designated about 32 percent of  its lands as open to motorized travel, 48 percent as limited, and 4 percent  as closed; 16 percent are not yet designated. BLM’s most recent guidance,  issued in 2007, provided additional details related to how field units should  conduct travel planning in the context of resource management planning.  While updating a resource management plan, BLM field unit officials are to  inventory and evaluate OHV routes and area designations (such as open,  limited, and closed), seek public input, and make changes as appropriate.  For example, when BLM’s Moab Field Office in Utah finalized its resource  management plan in October 2008, the plan changed the area designations  of many lands under the field office’s jurisdiction. Specifically, open areas  were reduced from 1.2 million acres to 2,000 acres, limited areas were  increased from 600,000 acres to 1.5 million acres, and closed areas were  increased from 24,000 acres to 339,000 acres. For areas designated for  limited OHV use, BLM guidance states that the resource management plan  must include a map identifying the OHV route system. In addition, because  of recent increases in OHV use on public lands and the potential for  related resource damage, BLM’s latest guidance encourages field units not  to designate large areas as open to motorized travel. BLM headquarters  officials have estimated that in about 10 years they will complete updating  resource management plans to include travel planning.
The Park Service is currently developing regulations for OHV use for  particular units. By regulation, the Park Service prohibits OHV use except  in certain units designated as lakeshores, seashores, national recreation  areas, or preserves. To authorize OHV use in such units, the unit is  required to develop special regulations describing the areas where OHV  use is permitted. Of the 391 national park units, 50 (13 percent) fall within  one of these four designations. While many Park Service units with OHV  use have developed special regulations, some units are currently in the  process of developing their special regulations.
Many different types of OHV are operated on federal lands. For the  purposes of this report, an OHV is any motorized vehicle capable of, or  designed for, cross-country travel immediately on or over land, not  including personal watercraft, snowmobiles, or aircraft. OHVs used on  federal lands include off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, utility  terrain vehicles, dune buggies, swamp buggies, jeeps, and rock crawlers  (see fig. 2). These vehicles may be used for various purposes, ranging from  trail and open-area riding to hunting and accessing lakeshores, seashores,  or in-holdings (private or state-owned lands inside the boundaries of  federal lands). National OHV user groups have described OHV recreation  as a way to experience challenge and excitement, enjoy the outdoors, and  have fun as a family. In addition, OHV use may provide economic benefits  to local communities near recreation sites.
The environmental impacts of OHV use, both direct and indirect, have  been studied and documented over the past several decades. In fact, in  2004, the Forest Service Chief identified unmanaged motorized recreation  as one of the top four threats to national forests, estimating that there  were more than 14,000 miles of user-created trails, which can lead to long- lasting damage. Potential environmental impacts associated with OHV use  include damage to soil, vegetation, riparian areas or wetlands, water  quality, and air quality, as well as noise, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and  the spread of invasive species. For example, studies on the impacts of  OHV use indicate that soil damage can increase erosion and runoff, as well  as decrease the soil’s ability to support vegetation. Additionally, research  has shown that habitat fragmentation from OHV use alters the distribution  of wildlife species across the landscape and affects many behaviors such  as feeding, courtship, breeding, and migration; habitat fragmentation can  also negatively affect wildlife beyond the actual amount of surface area  disturbed by roads. In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that as a  result of OHV use, the size and abundance of native plants may be  reduced, which in turn may permit invasive or nonnative plants to spread  and dominate the plant community, thus diminishing overall biodiversity.  Another potential impact of OHV use is damage to cultural resources,  including archaeologically significant sites such as Native American grave  sites, historic battlefields, fossilized remains, and ruins of ancient  civilizations.
section_title: The Use of Off- Highway Vehicles Has Increased on Federal Lands, with Varying Environmental, Social, and Safety Impacts
paragraphs: OHV use on federal lands generally increased from fiscal year 2004  through fiscal year 2008, according to a majority of field unit officials from  the Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service. Most field unit officials  reported that environmental impacts associated with OHV use occurred on  less than 20 percent of the lands they manage, although a few field unit  officials reported that 80 percent or more of their lands are affected. Most  field unit officials also indicated that social and safety impacts  occasionally occurred on their lands.
subsections: section_title: Off-Highway Vehicle Use Has Increased over the Past 5 Fiscal Years
paragraphs: OHV use, including authorized and unauthorized use, increased on federal  lands from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Specifically, most  Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and some Park Service field  unit officials reported an increase in authorized OHV use. Similarly, most  BLM field unit officials, a majority of Forest Service field unit officials, and  some Park Service field unit officials reported an increase in unauthorized  OHV use. These agencies’ field unit officials attributed the increased use of  OHVs on federal lands to, among other things, a growing population in  close proximity to federal lands and the rising popularity of OHV  recreation. In addition, officials at two field units we visited said they have  seen an increase in OHV use on their units because of OHV closures on  nearby state and private lands. For example, Park Service officials from  Big Cypress National Preserve said that both private and public lands in  South Florida have been closed to OHV use, leading to increased OHV use  in the preserve. Similarly, Forest Service officials from the Tonto National  Forest said that OHV use has increased since the state of Arizona closed  lands near Phoenix to OHV use in an effort to reduce dust pollution.
Most field unit officials reported that OHV use occurred on their lands  from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Specifically, nearly all  Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and a majority of Park Service  field unit officials said that OHV use, whether authorized or unauthorized,  occurred on the lands they manage. According to field unit officials from  all three agencies, in an average year, OHVs were used on federal lands  primarily for recreational activities such as trail and open-area riding.  OHVs were also used on federal lands for hunting and game retrieval; to  access particular areas, such as beaches and lakeshores; and for activities  requiring a permit, such as geophysical exploration and ranching   (see fig. 3).
In addition, the amount of OHV use relative to other types of recreational  activities on federal lands, such as fishing, hunting, hiking, and camping,  varies by agency. For example, most Forest Service field unit officials said  that OHV use constitutes less than half the recreational activity on their  lands, while a majority of BLM field unit officials indicated that OHV use  constitutes more than half the recreational activity on their lands. Most  Park Service field unit officials, however, indicated that OHV use  constitutes less than 10 percent of the recreation taking place on their  lands, in part because OHV use is authorized only in certain Park Service  field units.
section_title: Environmental Impacts of OHV Use Occur on Less Than One-Fifth of Federal Lands
paragraphs: Most field unit officials from all three agencies indicated that  environmental impacts of OHV use occur on less than 20 percent of the  lands they manage; a few field unit officials, however, reported that   80 percent or more of their lands are affected by OHV-related  environmental impacts. Forest Service and BLM field unit officials were  more likely to report greater percentages of land with environmental  impacts than Park Service field unit officials. The OHV-related  environmental impacts that field unit officials identified as most  widespread were soil erosion, damage to vegetation, wildlife habitat  fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species. For example, officials  from the Tonto National Forest in Arizona noted that the main impact  associated with OHV use in the forest has been soil erosion, particularly in  areas with highly erodible soils (see fig. 4). Additionally, officials from  BLM’s Phoenix District in Arizona noted that OHV use has fragmented  desert tortoise habitat because the tortoise can be disturbed by OHV noise.  Other reported environmental impacts included damage to riparian zones  and harm to threatened or endangered species.
The severity of certain OHV-related environmental impacts, such as soil  damage, may also depend on the ecosystem in which OHV use occurs   (see fig. 5). For example, BLM officials from the El Centro Field Office in  southern California explained that the Imperial Sand Dunes are dynamic  and soil damage from OHV use tends to be minimal, since most tracks are  quickly erased by the wind. In contrast, certain desert ecosystems,  including those in Arches National Park, have sensitive soils, and recovery  from OHV-related disturbance to soils and plant life can be very slow.  Additionally, Forest Service officials from the Manti-LaSal National Forest  in central Utah stated that soil erosion is a major environmental impact  associated with OHV use on their forest. Damage to the forest’s soils often  occurs from OHV use in the late fall (after the first snow), when the  ground is wet but not frozen. While officials at the Manti-LaSal National  Forest said that these damaged areas could recover in about a year with  rehabilitation efforts, the areas often take 4 to 5 years to recover because  the forest lacks staff to rehabilitate the lands more quickly. Similarly, Park  Service officials in Big Cypress National Preserve said that the  environmental impacts primarily associated with OHV use include  disturbance to soils and vegetation, as well as disruption to the hydrology  of the wetland ecosystem. These officials further stated that while plant  life regenerates fast, ruts from OHV use can persist for more than a  decade.
section_title: OHV Use on Federal Lands Occasionally Results in Social and Safety Impacts, Including Fatalities
paragraphs: Social and safety impacts related to OHV use occasionally or rarely occur  on federal lands; although, an annual average of about 110 OHV-related  fatalities occurred nationwide from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year  2008 according to data provided by field unit officials. Forest Service and  BLM field unit officials reported a higher frequency of OHV-related social  and safety impacts than did Park Service field unit officials. The most  often reported of these social and safety impacts were conflicts between  OHV and nonmotorized users, displacement of nonmotorized users,  conflicts with private landowners, and irresponsible OHV operation. For  example, Forest Service officials at the Manti-LaSal National Forest said  that motorized recreationists have taken over trails managed for  nonmotorized use, resulting in conflicts between motorized and  nonmotorized users. Additionally, BLM officials at the Prineville District in  central Oregon noted that private landowners adjacent to federal lands,  frustrated with OHV users driving on their lands, have taken enforcement  into their own hands by placing cables and rocks across trails to prevent  unauthorized OHV use. BLM officials at the El Centro Field Office also  said that many OHV-related violations are due to irresponsible behavior,  such as failing to have a safety flag on an OHV or driving an OHV while  under the influence of alcohol.
Nearly all reported OHV-related fatalities occurred on Forest Service and  BLM lands. Although a majority of field unit officials from all three  agencies reported having no OHV-related fatalities from fiscal year 2004  through fiscal year 2008, some field unit officials did report fatalities—a  maximum total of about 570 during that time frame at 117 field units.  Specifically, Forest Service field unit officials reported about 250 fatalities  at 68 field units, BLM about 320 fatalities at 45 field units, and Park Service  5 fatalities at 4 field units. While most field units that had OHV-related  fatalities reported 5 or less, a few field unit officials reported between 10  and 75 fatalities.
section_title: Agencies’ Plans for OHV Management Are Missing Some Key Elements of Strategic Planning
paragraphs: At a national level, the Forest Service’s and BLM’s management of OHVs is  broadly guided by department-level strategic plans, as well as by more- specific agency-level plans. These plans, however, are missing some key  elements of strategic planning—such as results-oriented goals, strategies  to achieve the goals, time frames for implementing strategies, or  performance measures to monitor incremental progress—that could  improve OHV management. The Park Service has no extensive planning or  guidance for managing OHV use, but this absence seems reasonable given  that Park Service regulations limit OHV use to only a few units and that  OHV use is not a predominant recreational activity on Park Service lands.
The Department of Agriculture’s strategic plan includes a goal to protect  forests and grasslands. Within the context of this goal, the plan specifically  mentions OHV management, identifying unmanaged motorized recreation  as one of four key threats to national forests. The plan also identifies a  performance measure to develop travel plans—which designate roads,  trails, and areas that will be open to motorized travel—for all national  forests, with a target of completing these plans by 2010. In addition to this  department-level plan, the Forest Service has an agency-level strategic  plan that identifies a goal of sustaining and enhancing outdoor recreation  opportunities and, in particular, improving the management of OHV use.  The Forest Service’s strategic plan also reiterates the performance  measure identified by the department-level plan—to develop travel  management plans for all forests that designate OHV roads, trails, and  areas. While the agency plan includes a goal—improving the management  of OHV use—and one strategy to achieve the goal—designating motorized  roads, trails, and areas—the plan does not identify strategies to address— or time frames to implement—other important aspects of OHV  management as identified in the executive orders, such as implementing  motorized-travel designations on the ground, communicating with the  public, monitoring OHV trail systems, or enforcing OHV regulations. Given  that the Forest Service has identified unmanaged motorized recreation as  one of the top four threats to national forests, the agency’s strategic plan  provides insufficient direction on this management challenge.
Similar to the Forest Service, BLM’s management of OHV use is guided by  departmental planning. The Department of the Interior’s strategic plan  identifies a broad goal of improving recreation opportunities for America,  and BLM has two plans expanding on this goal for OHV-related activities.  BLM’s first plan, the “National Management Strategy for Motorized Off- Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands,” was published in 2001 as a first  step in developing a proactive approach to on-the-ground management of  OHVs. The second plan, BLM’s “Priorities for Recreation and Visitor  Services,” was developed in 2003 and reconfirmed in 2007 as the agency’s  plan for recreation management, including OHV management. This  recreation plan identifies numerous goals for OHV management, as well as  strategies the agency can use to achieve each goal. For example, the plan  identifies a goal of improving on-the-ground travel management and  identifies three strategies to achieve that goal—conducting trails surveys  to determine maintenance needs; implementing best management  practices such as signs, maps, and the presence of agency staff in the field;  and monitoring social outcomes and environmental conditions along trails.  Despite identifying numerous goals and strategies to achieve the goals,  BLM’s recreation plan does not identify any time frames for implementing  the strategies or any performance measures for monitoring incremental  progress. For example, while the agency identifies a strategy of  implementing best management practices, the agency identifies neither  performance measures that could track the use of best management  practices—such as the percentage of routes with signs or the number of  field offices with up-to-date maps—nor time frames by which some of  these best management practices should be implemented. Without  performance measures and time frames, BLM cannot ensure that it is  making progress on achieving its goals in a timely manner.
section_title: Agencies’ Field Units Reported Taking Many Actions, but Additional Efforts Could Improve Communication and Enforcement; a Majority of Units Said They Are Unable to Sustainably Manage OHV Use
paragraphs: Actions that agencies’ field units reported taking to manage OHV use  include supplementing federal funds with authorized outside resources  (such as state grants), communicating with and educating the public,  enforcing OHV regulations, and engineering and monitoring OHV trail  systems. Additional efforts could improve communication with the public  about OHV trails and areas and enforcement of OHV regulations. In  addition, a majority of field unit officials reported that they cannot  sustainably manage existing OHV areas; sustainable management would  include having the necessary human and financial resources available to  ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use  areas, and evaluate the existing OHV program.
subsections: section_title: Field Units Reported Supplementing Federal Funds with Authorized Outside Resources
paragraphs: Authorized outside resources are being used to manage OHV use,  including grants from states and other sources, partnerships with OHV and  other user groups, or user fees. Specifically, Forest Service and BLM field  unit officials were more likely than Park Service field unit officials to  report using authorized outside resources. The most commonly identified  sources of such resources for Forest Service and BLM units were grants  from states and partnerships with OHV user groups; for the Park Service,  the most commonly identified source was user fees or permits (see fig. 6).
Of the field unit officials who reported supplementing federal funds with  authorized outside resources, a majority indicated that additional funding  sources amounted to more than 20 percent of their OHV management  budgets, with some Forest Service and BLM field unit officials reporting  that these sources amounted to more than half their OHV management  budgets. At most of the field units we visited with authorized OHV use,  agency officials emphasized that outside resources are vital to OHV  management. For example, officials at the Cleveland National Forest said  that they would not have an OHV management program without the grants  they receive from the state of California. These grants funded the  development of the current OHV management program and allowed the  national forest to continue restoration, operations, and maintenance  activities on their OHV routes. Similarly, Park Service officials at  Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland said that the fees they  collect through their OHV permit program fund several year-round staff,  and without the fees, they would not be able to support OHV use on  Assateague Island. Officials at some of the field units we visited reported  that obtaining and using authorized outside resources can require a  significant investment of staff time. For example, BLM officials at the  Phoenix District said that while volunteers can be a great source of  outside resources, their labor is not free. Specifically, BLM officials spend  significant time organizing and finding meaningful projects for volunteers  that provide both a benefit to BLM and a rewarding experience for the  volunteers. Similarly, Forest Service officials at the Cleveland National  Forest said that applying for state grants is time-consuming for field unit  staff, as some grant applications are about 150 pages long.
section_title: While Field Units Reported Taking Actions to Communicate with and Educate the Public, Additional Efforts Could Improve Communication about OHV Areas and Trails
paragraphs: All three agencies reported taking actions to communicate with and  educate the public, including posting signs, providing maps, attending  meetings with OHV user and other interest groups, and soliciting  volunteers for maintenance and peer enforcement activities (see fig. 7).  Field unit officials indicated that the actions taken most often were  posting signs, attending meetings of OHV user groups and other groups,  and providing maps of OHV use areas. Forest Service and BLM field unit  officials were more likely than Park Service field unit officials to report  taking actions to communicate with and educate the public. Few Park  Service field unit officials reported taking similar actions because many  actions—such as developing adopt-a-route programs or soliciting  volunteers for maintenance—are only appropriate in areas with authorized  OHV use.
Most field unit officials indicated that they post signs on OHV routes to  describe the types of travel permitted on the route. A majority of officials  who post signs also said that it is an effective OHV management action.  Figure 8 shows a BLM Moab Field Office sign that stopped a vehicle from  entering a streambed closed to OHV use.
Only a few field unit officials with authorized OHV use in their units  indicated that at least 90 percent of their OHV routes have been signed.  About half of the field unit officials whose units authorize OHV use  indicated that more than 50 percent of their OHV routes have been signed.  For example, at the BLM Moab Field Office, we observed that the Sand  Flats Recreation Area was extensively signed, with signs at the entrance to  the recreation area, at parking areas, and at trailheads (see fig. 9). By  contrast, another OHV use area at the same field office had fewer signs  identifying which routes were open or closed (see fig. 10).
Officials at a few locations we visited also mentioned that, because of theft  or vandalism, maintenance of signs has been difficult, and they have  developed techniques to limit such vandalism (see fig. 11). For example,  BLM Phoenix District officials said that putting American flags on their  signs has significantly reduced vandalism. Furthermore, BLM El Centro  Field Office officials mentioned that designing signs in conjunction with  OHV user groups can also limit vandalism by giving OHV users a stake in  maintaining the signs. Similarly, a BLM Prineville District official  mentioned that OHV users often respond more positively to signs directing  them to where they can ride than to signs saying trails are closed.
Most field unit officials from the Forest Service and BLM, and some field  unit officials from the Park Service, said that they provide maps of OHV  routes or use areas. Nevertheless, only some field unit officials with  authorized OHV routes in their units indicated that they have maps for  more than 90 percent of their OHV routes or areas. About half of field unit  officials with authorized OHV routes indicated that they have maps for at  least 50 percent of their OHV routes or areas. Officials from two field  offices we visited mentioned that developing maps is expensive. To help  offset this expense, officials from the BLM Moab Field Office said they are  working with private companies to develop maps of the OHV routes; they  hope to apply for a state grant to help fund the production of those maps  for the public.
Field unit officials from the Forest Service were more likely than those  from the BLM or Park Service to indicate that they have maps for at least  50 percent of their OHV routes, possibly because the Forest Service has  been developing motor vehicle use maps in response to its 2005 travel  management regulation. While the Forest Service has acknowledged that  the motor vehicle use map is designed to display a national forest’s  designated roads, trails, and areas for enforcement purposes, rather than  as a visitor map, officials at three forests we visited expressed concerns  that the public has difficulties with motor vehicle use maps. In addition,  both OHV user groups and environmental groups have expressed similar  concerns. Specifically, a motor vehicle use map does not display all the  information that may be found on a visitor map, such as topographic lines;  landscape features such as streams; or other trails users might encounter,  such as trails closed to motor vehicles (see fig. 12). Also, although Forest  Service headquarters officials acknowledged that on-the-ground route  markers would be very helpful for OHV users’ navigation, they said that  national forests have not necessarily erected these types of signs for all  OHV routes.
A majority of field unit officials indicated that they have developed  partnerships with outside user groups. Specifically, officials at most field  units we visited indicated they had solicited volunteers for OHV route  maintenance or education activities. For example, officials at the BLM  Phoenix District said they have used volunteers from environmental  groups to help rehabilitate areas in the Lower Sonoran Desert National  Monument, which is temporarily closed to OHV use. Similarly, officials  from the BLM Moab Field Office mentioned partnerships they had  developed with local OHV user groups. In assisting with route  maintenance, the groups’ labor has accounted for more hours than those  of the field office’s paid recreation staff.
section_title: While Field Units Reported Taking a Number of Actions to Enforce OHV Regulations, Additional Efforts Could Improve Enforcement
paragraphs: Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service field units reported taking a  number of actions to enforce their OHV regulations. Most field unit  officials indicated that they have taken a number of enforcement actions  related to OHV use (see fig. 13). For example, nearly all Forest Service and  BLM field unit officials and most Park Service officials said their units  conduct occasional patrols of OHV routes or open areas. In addition,  nearly all Forest Service field unit officials, and most BLM and Park  Service officials, said their units issue written warnings or citations for  OHV violations. Some field unit officials from all three agencies had also  arrested individuals for OHV violations. Law enforcement officials at  Forest Service headquarters mentioned that such arrests are often related  to other violations, such as driving an OHV while under the influence of  alcohol.
Generally, field unit officials who took enforcement actions rated them as  effective (see table 1). The most commonly used, but least effective, OHV  enforcement action was conducting patrols of OHV routes or open areas  occasionally. By contrast, the most effective action reported by field unit  officials was conducting patrols of OHV routes or use areas routinely.  Although three of the actions—requiring permits or fees for OHV access,  arresting individuals for OHV violations, and revoking or suspending OHV  use privileges—were used by only some field units, they were rated as  more effective than the most commonly used action. For example, officials  from Tonto National Forest said their experience with requiring OHV  permits has been positive. The permits required for OHV use in certain  areas of the forest are free and provide a lock combination allowing  access into certain gated OHV areas for 6 months. Officials observed that  requiring free permits increases user accountability, since users do not  want to lose their riding privileges. The permits are also acceptable to the  public because they are free.
Only about half the field unit officials were satisfied with existing fines for  OHV violations in their units. BLM field unit officials were less likely to be  satisfied with their existing fines than Forest Service or Park Service  officials. Additionally, about half the field unit officials indicated that  existing fines were insufficient to deter illegal or unsafe OHV use. For  example, one BLM official in Utah pointed out that the fine amount for  driving in a closed area is $150. Although this fine is one of the highest  fines for an OHV violation in the Moab area, the official said the amount is  negligible when compared with the overall expense that most OHV  enthusiasts invest in their sport, including the cost of an OHV, the trailer to  transport it, and safety gear for the rider.
Consistent with applicable laws, Forest Service and BLM maximum fine  amounts for violations of OHV regulations are $500 and $1,000,  respectively. But fine amounts for specific OHV-related violations are  developed at the local level. Specifically, the 94 federal court districts  throughout the country maintain fine schedules for violations of federal  regulations. The U.S. Attorney in each federal court district is responsible  for prosecuting individuals who violate OHV regulations within that  district. Local judicial authorities, such as magistrates presiding in those  federal court districts, have discretion to increase or decrease the existing  fine schedules through local court rules. Consequently, fine amounts for  similar OHV violations can vary substantially, depending on which federal  court district the violation occurs in. For example, among California’s four  federal court districts, the fine for disturbing land or wildlife while  traveling off road in an OHV ranges from $50 in the central district up to  $250 in the eastern district. To modify the fine schedule in a particular  federal court district, agency officials must work with the relevant U.S.  Attorney to petition the local magistrate within that district.
In 2001, BLM proposed comparing fine amounts across various U.S.  district courts to determine the range of fines for motorized OHV-related  violations and then petitioning the courts to modify the fines where  appropriate. BLM officials told us, however, that this analysis has not been  conducted at a national level. In addition, officials at some of the field  units we visited said they had recently petitioned to change the fine  schedules or were planning such a petition in the future. For example,  officials from the Forest Service and Park Service in Colorado said that  they had successfully petitioned the local magistrate to raise the fines. An  Uncompahgre National Forest official said that the new fine for riding an  OHV off a designated route is $250, which he said is more appropriate.
Some OHV violations are adjudicated in federal court, either because a law  enforcement officer requires an OHV rider to make a court appearance or  because the OHV rider decides to appeal a citation. Successful prosecution  of OHV violations depends both on the availability and willingness of the  U.S. Attorney’s Office to pursue the case and on the receptiveness of the  local magistrate to hearing OHV-related violations. About half of field unit  officials indicated that the local U.S. Attorney’s Office was responsive to  OHV-related violations, and some indicated the same for federal  magistrates. For example, a law enforcement officer from the Manti-LaSal  National Forest said that he took a local magistrate on a tour of the forest  and explained some of the problems the forest is having with unauthorized  OHV use. After the tour, law enforcement officers successfully sought  restitution payments from OHV violators to remediate OHV-related  damage to the forest. By contrast, several officials at field units we visited  mentioned that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in their area has little time to  address OHV-related violations because the office is prosecuting cases  involving, for example, terrorism or violent crimes.
section_title: Field Units Reported Taking Actions to Engineer and Monitor OHV Trail Systems
paragraphs: A majority of field unit officials indicated that, to help manage OHV use,  they use engineering and monitoring actions, such as closing or relocating  problematic OHV routes, providing separate motorized and nonmotorized  recreational opportunities, monitoring the effects of OHV use, and  designing trail systems (see fig. 14). Field unit officials from the Forest  Service and BLM were more likely to use engineering and monitoring  strategies than field unit officials from the Park Service.
During our visits to field units, we observed several examples of officials’  efforts to close or relocate problematic OHV routes, such as putting up  gates or lining OHV routes with rocks (see fig. 15). For example, Curecanti  National Recreation Area in Colorado, managed by the Park Service,  allows OHV use to access the lakeshore. In some areas, access points are  near cultural resources, and officials built a barrier to protect these  resources. In two other field units we visited, officials were temporarily  closing large areas to remediate existing OHV-related damage. For  example, BLM’s Phoenix District Office closed portions of the Lower  Sonoran Desert National Monument to OHV use in June 2008. During the  closure, officials said they intended to reseed with native plants to  remediate OHV routes and reclaim areas disturbed by user-created routes.  These officials indicated that much of the remediation work would be  done by volunteers, including environmental groups and religious  organizations.
A majority of field unit officials also indicated that they have provided  separate motorized and nonmotorized recreational opportunities. For  example, the Siuslaw National Forest, which manages the Oregon Dunes  National Recreation Area, has designated separate areas on the dunes for  motorized and nonmotorized travel. When developing the boundaries  between the motorized and nonmotorized areas, officials said they took  advantage of natural barriers, such as roads and rivers, to make it easier  for OHV riders to see which areas are designated as open or closed.
About half of field unit officials indicated that they had designed OHV trail  systems to provide varied opportunities, such as loops or training areas.  For example, the Deschutes National Forest and BLM’s Prineville Field  Office in central Oregon worked together to develop several OHV route  systems, including the Millican Valley system, with 255 miles of OHV  routes, and the East Fort Rock system, with 318 miles of OHV routes. To  help OHV users select an appropriate trail, the Forest Service and BLM  have also classified each of the trails in these areas on the basis of  difficulty. Similarly, BLM’s Phoenix District Office developed the Boulders,  a designated OHV trail system that includes a 22-mile OHV route through  nearby mountains and a 10-acre staging area where OHV users can camp.  To improve safety in the staging area, BLM officials developed a design  that discourages riding OHVs within the staging area: they engineered the  staging area in an irregular shape that reduces riding in that area and also  provided a training area for children.
A majority of field unit officials reported that they have monitored the  effects of OHV use on their land, including the effects of noise or impacts  on soils, water, air, and habitats. Only a few of the field units we visited,  however, indicated that their procedures for monitoring went beyond  casual observation of OHV impacts. For example, officials from the Manti- La Sal National Forest monitor OHV impacts by surveying the condition of  existing trails, patrolling trail systems, and mapping new unauthorized  trails. These officials are developing a database that will include  qualitative information about user-created trails, such as type of off-road  travel, related impacts, how officials addressed those impacts, and the  measures officials would need to take to close an unauthorized route.  These officials stated that compiling this information in a database will  enable them to evaluate data, make decisions, and take appropriate action.
section_title: A Majority of Field Units Indicated They Cannot Manage Existing OHV Areas in a Sustainable Manner
paragraphs: Although field units are taking many management actions, a majority of  field unit officials indicated that they cannot sustainably manage existing  OHV areas; sustainable management would include having the necessary  human and financial resources available to ensure compliance with  regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the  existing OHV program. Most field unit officials who said they could not  sustainably manage their existing OHV areas indicated that they have  insufficient resources for equipment or staff for management and  enforcement. Field unit officials from BLM were more likely than Forest  Service or Park Service officials to indicate that they could not sustainably  manage their existing OHV use (see fig. 16).
About half the national forests that have published motor vehicle use  maps, as required by the travel management rule, indicated that they could  not sustainably manage the OHV route system that they designated. For  example, an official from the Uncompahgre National Forest said that the  forest’s designated system of trails cannot be sustainably managed. The  official further stated that the public’s priority for OHV use is to maintain  their long-established access to the forest, and they do not want the Forest  Service to designate a sustainable system if doing so means losing long- established routes.
A few field unit officials reported that their unit has a full-time OHV  manager to, among other things, oversee OHV use, coordinate volunteers,  and apply for state grants. Field units with a full-time OHV manager were  more likely to report that they could sustainably manage their existing  OHV use. Specifically, these field units reported taking more actions to  manage OHV use compared with field units without a full-time OHV  manager. For instance, field units with full-time OHV managers tend to  leverage authorized outside resources, such as state grants, more  extensively than units without full-time OHV managers. One BLM official  said that dedicating staff to managing OHV use full-time could provide a  benefit to overall land management. Specifically, he said the recreation  planner at his unit has a wide range of responsibilities, including managing  OHVs, permitting, signs, maintenance, campgrounds, and interpretation,  and cannot do it all very effectively. He said that OHV management is a  full-time position in itself, but since his unit has not been able to hire  someone full-time, OHV management gets attention only as time allows.
section_title: Agencies Reported Facing Many Challenges in Managing OHV Use
paragraphs: Numerous issues, including insufficient staffing levels and financial  resources, as well as enforcement of OHV regulations, were identified as  challenges by field unit officials. Generally, a larger proportion of Forest  Service and BLM field unit officials than Park Service field unit officials  rated OHV management issues as great challenges (see table 2).
Staff resources for enforcement, such as a limited number of officials and  limited financial resources, were reported as a great challenge by most  Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and by about half of Park  Service officials. BLM headquarters officials explained that BLM has 195  uniformed law enforcement officers, which is an average of about 1 officer  for every 1.2 million acres of land. For example, an official from BLM’s  Grand Junction Field Office in Colorado told us that a single law  enforcement officer patrols 1.3 million acres and that OHV users are aware  of this minimal law enforcement presence. Although officials at some field  units we visited said they would like to increase the number of law  enforcement officers, they explained that even when they have approval  for additional officers, they do not have enough funding to fill the  positions. Officials from BLM’s Grand Junction Field Office also noted that  law enforcement officers are the most expensive component of the  workforce, because they require background checks, security clearances,  extensive training, and expensive equipment such as firearms.
Forest Service and BLM officials said they have attempted to mitigate their  insufficient number of law enforcement officials. For example, the Forest  Service has developed a Forest Protection Officer program, which allows  non-law-enforcement staff to fulfill some law enforcement functions, such  as issuing warnings and citations. Similarly, BLM officials said they  attempted to mitigate enforcement challenges at particular BLM field  offices by bringing in additional law enforcement officers from other BLM  field offices, as well as from states and nearby counties. For example,  BLM’s El Centro Field Office officials said that they try to bring in about  100 additional federal and local law enforcement officers for busy holiday  weekends. On the other hand, a BLM law enforcement officer from the  Grand Junction Field Office said that his deployment to the El Centro  Field Office led to gaps in enforcement in Grand Junction during such  weekends.
A limited number of staff for OHV management was identified as a great  challenge for a majority of Forest Service field unit officials, most BLM  field unit officials, and some Park Service officials. Field staff who work  on OHV issues work in various capacities, such as managing volunteers,  creating route systems, maintaining routes, educating users, and writing  state grant applications, but most units do not have such staff. For  example, at BLM’s Phoenix District Office, OHV management staff  maintain an ambassador program, which coordinates volunteers to  educate users and promote safe, sustainable OHV use in the area.  Managing this program requires one full-time manager plus 10 to 20  percent of the time of two additional staff. Officials from four field units  we visited stated that although volunteers and partnerships can enhance  OHV management, taking advantage of their labor requires a significant  investment of management staff resources. Officials from two of the field  units that we visited noted that, with additional OHV management staff,  they could better leverage resources such as volunteers and state grants.
Most BLM and Forest Service units reported insufficient financial  resources as a great challenge to managing OHV use in their units,  although only some Park Service units reported the same. Similarly, a  majority of the field units we visited also cited insufficient financial  resources as a challenge. For example, Forest Service officials from the  Cleveland National Forest said that even though recreational OHV use has  increased, funds allocated for recreation have failed to keep pace.
In addition to staffing and financial challenges, a majority of field unit  officials cited enforcement of OHV regulations as a great challenge as well.  One reason for this challenge may be that law enforcement officers have  many responsibilities including, among others, enforcing OHV regulations,  controlling gang activity, preventing illegal drug activities, and responding  to impacts on resources and public safety from illegal smuggling activities  along the U.S. border. For example, BLM officials at the Lower Sonoran  Desert National Monument said that border issues, including the  smuggling of illegal drugs and people, have placed increased demands on  law enforcement officers, reducing their capacity to deal with OHV  recreation issues. Additionally, enforcement may be a challenge where a  unit’s lands are difficult for law enforcement officers to reach. For  example, Park Service officials from Assateague Island National Seashore  said that getting to portions of their OHV area is difficult because law  enforcement officers must travel 12 miles over sand. Similarly, BLM  officials at the Moab Field Office stated that because of the distance a law  enforcement officer must travel, it can take several hours just to get to  certain OHV areas in their unit, making enforcement in those areas  difficult.
Another challenge reported by agency officials in managing OHV use is  variation in laws pertaining to OHV safety. Specifically, while agencies set  minimum safety standards in their regulations—for example, by requiring  vehicles to have brakes, spark arresters, and lights for night use—the  regulations provide that state safety laws, as well as licensing and  registration laws, generally apply to motorized vehicles on federal lands.  For example, federal Forest Service regulations specify that riders may not  operate a vehicle (1) without a valid license as required by state law, (2) in  violation of any state noise emission standard, or (3) in violation of any  state law regulating the use of vehicles off roads. But state laws regulating  the use of OHVs vary significantly. For example, Utah generally prohibits  children under 8 years old from riding OHVs on public land and requires  children 8 to 15 years old to successfully complete an education course. In  contrast, neighboring Colorado has not set minimum age requirements for  riding OHVs on public land. A few units have created their own, area- specific rules for OHV use that supersede state laws. For example, BLM’s  El Centro Field Office has special rules for OHV riders on the Imperial  Sand Dunes. These rules require that vehicles have a flag at least 8 feet  from the ground so that other riders can more easily see oncoming  vehicles. In addition, the rules set speed limits in camping areas and  prohibit other dangerous activities.
An additional challenge faced by a majority of BLM officials and about half  of Forest Service officials is installing and maintaining signs. For example,  field unit officials said that signs are often shot at, pulled out, or driven  over and that signs must frequently be replaced (see fig. 17). Officials at  Forest Service headquarters told us that signs at some units are vandalized  or taken down less than 48 hours after installation.
Other challenges identified by field unit officials include managing varied  public expectations about how public lands should be used and altering  long-established OHV use patterns. A majority of Forest Service and BLM  field unit officials, and some Park Service field unit officials, reported that  managing varying expectations about how federal lands should be used is  a great challenge. For example, BLM officials from the Moab Field Office  said they received public input at 11 meetings when developing their  recently finalized resource management plan, with both OHV user groups  and environmental groups opposing aspects of the plan. Generally, user  groups sought to open more areas to cross-country travel, while  environmental groups generally opposed the designation of routes in areas  they contended were not suitable for OHV use. Additionally, even within  user groups, expectations can vary. For example, a BLM official from the  Grand Junction Field Office said that while some hunters expect to use  their OHVs to retrieve game, other hunters prefer that OHVs not be used,  so that game are not scared away by the sound of OHVs.
Finally, a majority of BLM field unit officials, about half of Forest Service  field unit officials, and some Park Service field unit officials reported that  altering long-established OHV use patterns is challenging. For example,  Park Service officials at Big Cypress National Preserve said that the use of  swamp buggies predates the 1974 creation of the preserve. Swamp buggies  have been used for generations to travel to in-holdings and hunting camps,  which are otherwise inaccessible because of deep mud, water, and dense  foliage. According to Park Service officials, as OHV use has become more  popular in the preserve, officials have recognized the need for  comprehensive OHV management, yet changing long-established use  patterns has been difficult.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Over the past 5 years, OHV use has increased on federal lands and has  emerged as a national issue. Federal land management agencies have only  recently begun to respond to this trend by revising their plans and how  they manage OHV use, but they are having to do so in an environment of  constrained budgetary and staff resources and other competing  management priorities. Although they reported taking a variety of actions  to manage OHV use in this environment, agency field unit officials  reported that they cannot sustainably manage their OHV route systems.  The likelihood that the Forest Service and BLM, in particular, will succeed  in their efforts to enhance management of OHV use could be increased by  improving the agencies’ planning to include key strategic planning  elements. Such enhancements could also help the agencies to more  effectively address and manage some of the challenges that their field unit  officials reported in managing OHV use on their lands, such as insufficient  staffing levels and financial resources. In addition, developing more user- friendly maps and signs for their route systems and seeking more  appropriate fines to deter violations of OHV regulations could provide all  federal land users, including OHV users, a more enjoyable, quality  experience while also potentially lessening environmental, social, and  safety impacts resulting from OHV use.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help provide quality OHV recreational opportunities while protecting  natural and cultural resources on federal lands, we recommend that:  the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to  identify additional strategies to achieve the agency’s goal of improving  OHV management, as well as time frames for carrying out the strategies  and performance measures for monitoring incremental progress; and the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of BLM to enhance the  agency’s existing “Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services” by  establishing performance measures and time frames for carrying out its  stated goals for OHV recreation.
Additionally, to improve communication with the public and enhance law  enforcement efforts regarding OHV use on federal lands, we recommend  that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior direct the Forest  Service and BLM, respectively, to take the following actions:    enhance communication with the public about OHV trails and areas  through, for example, developing user-friendly signs and maps to improve  visitors’ experiences; and   examine fine amounts across various U.S. district courts to determine the  range of fines for OHV-related violations and petition appropriate judicial  authorities to make modifications where warranted.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior with a draft  of this report for review and comment. The Departments of Agriculture  and the Interior generally agreed with our findings and recommendations;  their written comments appear in appendixes II and III, respectively. The  departments also provided technical comments that we incorporated into  the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Chief of  the Forest Service, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the  Director of the National Park Service, and other interested parties. The  report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the trends in and status  of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on federal lands managed by the  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of the  Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service  (Park Service) from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, as well as the  reported environmental, social, and safety impacts of OHV use; (2) the  agencies’ strategic planning for managing OHV use on federal lands;   (3) actions taken by the agencies’ field units in managing OHV use on their  lands; and (4) current OHV management challenges facing these agencies.  For this report, we defined an OHV, also commonly referred to as an off- road vehicle, as any motorized vehicle capable of or designed for cross- country travel or travel immediately on or over land. Examples of OHVs  include but are not limited to 4 x 4 street-legal vehicles; all-terrain vehicles  such as three-wheelers, four-wheelers, and side-by-sides; rock crawlers;  sand rails; dune buggies; swamp buggies; and off-road motorcycles. We did  not include personal watercraft, snowmobiles, aircraft, official agency use  of OHVs, or use of street-legal vehicles on paved roads.
To address our objectives, we collected and analyzed OHV-related  documentation, including applicable executive orders and agency plans,  regulations, and guidance. We also interviewed officials from Forest  Service, BLM, and Park Service headquarters. To gain external  perspective, we interviewed national headquarters representatives of  various OHV user and environmental groups, including the Blue Ribbon  Coalition, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Motorcycle  Industry Council, Off-Road Business Association, Tread Lightly!, The  Wilderness Society, and Center for Biological Diversity. In addition, we  visited selected Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service field units and  interviewed agency officials, and OHV user and environmental group  representatives near some of those units, to obtain a better understanding  of ongoing agency OHV management efforts. These field units, located in  Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, and Utah, were  selected, using a nonprobability sample, on the basis of their geographic  and ecological diversity. Table 3 lists these sites and the groups we  interviewed.
Because of the lack of historical and nationwide information about OHV  use on federal lands, we also developed and administered a Web-based  survey to gather land managers’ perspectives on the management and use  of OHVs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 on Forest Service,  BLM, and Park Service lands. The survey was administered to the entire  population of National Forests and BLM field office units and to Park  Service field units most likely to have OHV use, whether authorized or  unauthorized. The survey included questions about the perceived trends  in OHV use; potential environmental, social, and safety impacts of OHV  use; how OHVs are being managed; the enforcement of OHV regulations;  and challenges facing federal land managers in addressing OHV use.
To develop the survey questions, we reviewed several national studies and  a related GAO report to identify issues pertaining to OHV use on federal  lands. We also analyzed agency documentation to identify the proper  terminology used by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service.  Furthermore, on the basis of interviews with officials at field units we  visited, we identified issues related to OHV management. Finally, we  examined related surveys administered to these agencies to identify  relevant issues pertaining to OHV use on federal lands.
The survey was pretested with potential respondents from national  forests, BLM field offices, and Park Service units to ensure that (1) the  questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were  precise, (3) the survey did not place an undue burden on the agency  officials completing it, and (4) the survey was independent and unbiased.  In addition, the survey was reviewed three times by two separate internal,  independent survey experts. We took steps in survey design, data  collection, and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, we  worked with headquarters and field officials at all three agencies to  identify the appropriate level of analysis—congressionally designated  forests and grasslands, national park units, and BLM field offices—and the  appropriate survey respondents—field-level OHV managers (or if there  was no OHV manager, the field-level recreation manager). To minimize  measurement error that might occur from respondents interpreting our  questions differently from our intended purpose, we extensively pretested  the survey and followed up with nonresponding units and with units  whose responses violated certain validity checks. Finally, to eliminate  data-processing errors, we independently verified the computer program  that generated the survey results. Our results are not subject to sampling  error because we administered our survey to all OHV-relevant units of all  three agencies.
The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic  questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent e-mail  notifications to 480 respondents (177 national forest units, 136 BLM field  offices, and 167 selected Park Service units). We also e-mailed each  potential respondent a unique password and username to ensure that only  members of the target population could participate in the survey. To  encourage respondents to complete the survey, we sent an e-mail  reminder to each nonrespondent about 2 weeks after our initial e-mail  message. The survey data were collected from October 2008 through  February 2009. We received a total of 478 responses that accounted for the  480 units surveyed, for an overall response rate of 100 percent.  This  “collective perspective” obtained from each of the agencies helps to  mitigate individual respondent bias by aggregating information across the  range of different viewpoints. Additionally, to encourage honest and open  responses, in the introduction to the survey, we pledged that we would  report information in the aggregate and not report data that would identify  a particular unit. For purposes of characterizing the results of our survey,  we identified specific meanings for the words we used to quantify the  results, as follows: “a few” means between 1 and 24 percent of  respondents, “some” means between 25 and 44 percent of respondents,  “about half” means between 45 and 55 percent of respondents, “a majority”  means between 56 and 74 percent of respondents, “most” means between  75 and 94 percent of respondents, and “nearly all” means 95 percent or  more of respondents. This report does not contain all the results from the  survey; the survey and a more complete tabulation of the results are  provided in a supplement to this report (see GAO-09-547SP).
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to June 2009, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant  Director; Kevin Bray; Ellen W. Chu; Melinda Cordero; Emily Eischen; Ying  Long; Janice Poling; Kim Raheb; Matthew Reinhart; Chris Riddick; and  Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this report.