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 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 yield 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 recreation. The section on recreation usually designates the areas within the resource area that are open, open with restrictions, 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. 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 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. In fiscal year 1993, the OHV programs at the eight locations we reviewed received an estimated $1.8 million in federal and state funding. (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. 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. 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 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. At two locations—the Boise Front Special Recreation Management Area within the Cascade Resource Area in Idaho and the Paiute ATV Trail in Utah—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.