Federal Lands
Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles Gao ID: GAO-09-509 June 30, 2009Off-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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-509, Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-509
entitled 'Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in
Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles' which was released on
July 30, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2009:
Federal Lands:
Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of
Off-Highway Vehicles:
GAO-09-509:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-509, a report to the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, House
of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Forest Service and BLM improve their strategic
planning and take other actions to help provide quality OHV
opportunities while protecting federal lands and resources. The
agencies generally concurred with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-509] or key
components. To view survey results, click on [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-547SP]. For more information,
contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Use of Off-Highway Vehicles Has Increased on Federal Lands, with
Varying Environmental, Social, and Safety Impacts:
Agencies' Plans for OHV Management Are Missing Some Key Elements of
Strategic Planning:
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:
Agencies Reported Facing Many Challenges in Managing OHV Use:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Frequency of Enforcement Actions and Field Unit Officials'
Assessment of Their Effectiveness:
Table 2: Various Issues Identified as a Great Challenge, by Agency:
Table 3: Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service Field Units and OHV User
and Environmental Group Representatives Selected for Site Visits and
Interviews, by Location:
Figures:
Figure 1: Federal Lands Managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park
Service:
Figure 2: Examples of OHVs:
Figure 3: Predominant Manner in Which OHVs Were Used on Federal Lands
in an Average Year, by Agency:
Figure 4: OHV-Related Soil Erosion in the Tonto National Forest:
Figure 5: Impacts of OHV Use on Soils and Vegetation in a Variety of
Ecosystems:
Figure 6: Authorized Outside Resources Used to Manage OHV Use, as
Reported by Field Unit Officials:
Figure 7: Actions Taken to Educate or Communicate with the Public, as
Reported by Field Unit Officials:
Figure 8: A Closure Sign at the BLM Moab Field Office:
Figure 9: An Entrance Sign (left) and Trailhead Sign (right) at the
Sand Flats Recreation Area in Moab, Utah:
Figure 10: An Unsigned OHV Route at the BLM Field Office in Moab, Utah:
Figure 11: Measures Taken by BLM Field Offices to Reduce Sign
Vandalism:
Figure 12: Sample of a Motor Vehicle Use Map from the Uncompahgre
National Forest, Colorado:
Figure 13: Actions Taken to Enforce OHV Regulations, as Reported by
Field Unit Officials:
Figure 14: Actions Taken to Engineer or Monitor OHV Trail Systems, as
Reported by Field Unit Officials:
Figure 15: Barriers Used to Block Problematic OHV Routes:
Figure 16: Field Unit Officials' Assessment of Whether Existing OHV
Areas Can Be Sustainably Managed:
Figure 17: A Vandalized BLM OHV Sign (left) and a BLM Official
Replacing a Pulled-Out Sign (right):
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
Park Service: National Park Service:
OHV: off-highway vehicle:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 30, 2009:
The Honorable Raśl M. Grijalva:
Chairman:
The Honorable Rob Bishop:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
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.[Footnote 1] 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.
Background:
The Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service manage more than 530 million
acres of federal lands across the country (see figure 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.
Figure 1: Federal Lands Managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park
Service:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map]
The following management of federal lands are indicated on the map:
Forest Service;
BLM;
Park Service.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Geological Survey‘s National Atlas Web
site data.
[End of figure]
While managing their respective lands, these three agencies must comply
with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).
[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4] 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.
[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6] 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 figure 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.
Figure 2: Examples of OHVs:
[Refer to PDF for image: eight illustrations]
Off-highway motorcycle;
Utility terrain vehicle;
Jeeps and other 4x4 vehicles;
Three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle[A]:
Swamp buggy[B]:
Sand rail or dune buggy;
Rock crawler[B]:
Four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle.
Source: GAO.
[A] Because of safety concerns, three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles are
no longer sold in the United States.
[B] Rock crawlers and swamp buggies are often created through after-
market modifications of more standard vehicles, such as jeeps.
[End of figure]
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.
The Use of Off-Highway Vehicles Has Increased on Federal Lands, with
Varying Environmental, Social, and Safety Impacts:
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.
Off-Highway Vehicle Use Has Increased over the Past 5 Fiscal Years:
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 figure 3).
Figure 3: Predominant Manner in Which OHVs Were Used on Federal Lands
in an Average Year, by Agency:
[Refer to PDF for image: three pie-charts]
Forest Service:
OHV recreation: 70%;
Hunting: 19%;
Activities requiring a permit: 7%;
Access to a particular area: 2%;
Other: 2%.
BLM:
OHV recreation: 68%;
Hunting: 21%;
Activities requiring a permit: 10%;
Access to a particular area: 3%;
Other: 2%.
Park Service:
OHV recreation: 35%;
Hunting: 14%;
Activities requiring a permit: 10%;
Access to a particular area: 26%;
Other: 15%.
Source: GAO.
Note: The figure illustrates the percentage of field unit officials
from each agency who reported the predominant manner in which OHVs were
used in an average year on lands they manage.
[End of figure]
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.
Environmental Impacts of OHV Use Occur on Less Than One-Fifth of
Federal Lands:
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.[Footnote 7] 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 figure 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.
Figure 4: OHV-Related Soil Erosion in the Tonto National Forest:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The severity of certain OHV-related environmental impacts, such as soil
damage, may also depend on the ecosystem in which OHV use occurs (see
figure 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.
Figure 5: Impacts of OHV Use on Soils and Vegetation in a Variety of
Ecosystems:
[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs]
Imperial Sand Dunes (Source: GAO);
Arches National Park (Source: GAO);
Big Cypress National Preserve (Source: GAO);
Manti-LaSal National Forest (Source: Department of Agriculture‘s Forest
Service).
[End of figure]
OHV Use on Federal Lands Occasionally Results in Social and Safety
Impacts, Including Fatalities:
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.
Agencies' Plans for OHV Management Are Missing Some Key Elements of
Strategic Planning:
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.[Footnote 8]
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.
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:
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.
Field Units Reported Supplementing Federal Funds with Authorized
Outside Resources:
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 figure 6).
Figure 6: Authorized Outside Resources Used to Manage OHV Use, as
Reported by Field Unit Officials:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph]
Authorized outside source: Grants from states;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 71%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 48%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 3%.
Authorized outside source: Partnerships with OHV user groups;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 65%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 56%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 0.
Authorized outside source: Partnerships with environmental and other
groups;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 23%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 32%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 0.
Authorized outside source: Federal user fees or permits;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 19%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 26%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 14%.
Authorized outside source: Grants from other sources;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 18%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 16%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 3%.
Authorized outside source: Other;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 5%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 11%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 8%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
While Field Units Reported Taking Actions to Communicate with and
Educate the Public, Additional Efforts Could Improve Communication
about OHV Areas and Trails:
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 figure
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.
Figure 7: Actions Taken to Educate or Communicate with the Public, as
Reported by Field Unit Officials:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph]
Education or communication action: Posting signs;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 91%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 88%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 72%.
Education or communication action: Attending OHV user group meetings;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 86%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 81%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 30%.
Education or communication action: Providing maps of OHV routes or use
areas;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 84%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 75%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 33%.
Education or communication action: Attending other user group meetings;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 80%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 79%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 40%.
Education or communication action: Soliciting volunteers for
maintenance or education;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 75%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 69%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 25%.
Education or communication action: Conducting public message/ad
campaigns;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 62%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 57v
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 19%.
Education or communication action: Soliciting OHV user volunteers for
peer enforcement activities;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 58%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 52%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 17%.
Education or communication action: Developing adopt-a-route programs;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 47%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 31%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 5%.
Education or communication action: Conducting workshops;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 39%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 31%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 14%.
Education or communication action: Conducting Internet searches about
OHV use in unauthorized areas;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 32%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 47%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 25%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 8: A Closure Sign at the BLM Moab Field Office:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 figure 9). By contrast, another OHV use area at the
same field office had fewer signs identifying which routes were open or
closed (see figure 10).
Figure 9: An Entrance Sign (left) and Trailhead Sign (right) at the
Sand Flats Recreation Area in Moab, Utah:
[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs]
Source: GAO.
Figure 52: Note: These signs inform visitors about available recreation
opportunities in the Sand Flats Recreation Area, including OHV use.
[End of figure]
Figure 53: An Unsigned OHV Route at the BLM Field Office in Moab, Utah:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 figure 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.
[Refer to PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 11: Measures Taken by BLM Field Offices to Reduce Sign
Vandalism:
[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs]
Sign with American flag, BLM Phoenix District;
Sign created by user groups, BLM El Centro Field Office.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 figure 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.
Figure 12: Sample of a Motor Vehicle Use Map from the Uncompahgre
National Forest, Colorado:
[Refer to PDF for image: map]
Printed map size: 27 inches by 30 inches.
Inset map contains the following information:
Seasonal and Special Vehicle Designations:
Route number: 402;
Legend: Roads open to all vehicles, with seasonal designation;
Seasonal designation: All highway-legal vehicles, all non-highway-legal
vehicles wider than 50 inches;
Dates allowed: 05/31-11/14.
Route number: 516;
Legend: Trails open to motorcycles, with seasonal designation;
Seasonal designation: Seasonal designation;
Dates allowed: 07/01-09/03.
Route number: 562;
Legend: Roads open to all vehicles, with seasonal designation;
Seasonal designation: All highway-legal vehicles, all non-highway-legal
vehicles wider than 50 inches;
Dates allowed: 05/31-11/14.
Legend: Symbols for:
Roads open to highway-legal vehicles only: These roads are open only to
motor vehicles licensed under state law.
Roads open to all vehicles:
Trails open to all vehicles:
Trails open to motorcycles only:
Special vehicle designation: Trails open to wheeled vehicles less than
or equal to 50 inches;
Dispersed camping: This symbol is used along with a designated road to
indicate that limited cross-country motor vehicle use is allowed within
a specific distance of that route, solely for the purpose of dispersed
camping.
Seasonal designation: This symbol, used in conjunction with one of the
other road or trail symbols, indicates that the road or trail is open
only during certain portions of the year. Refer to Seasonal and Special
Designation Vehicle table.
Source: GAO analysis of the Uncompahgre National Forest motor vehicle
use map.
Note: Each route depicted on the map has a number, which ideally
corresponds to a route marker on the ground so that OHV users can
ensure they are on the correct route. For some routes, including those
in red, there are seasonal restrictions regarding when OHVs can be
used. In such cases, OHV users must also examine the Seasonal and
Special Vehicle Designations table to identify those restrictions.
[End of figure]
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.
While Field Units Reported Taking a Number of Actions to Enforce OHV
Regulations, Additional Efforts Could Improve Enforcement:
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 figure 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.
Figure 13: Actions Taken to Enforce OHV Regulations, as Reported by
Field Unit Officials:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph]
Enforcement action: Occasionally patrolling routes or open areas;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 95%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 95%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 83%.
Enforcement action: Writing warnings or citations for OHV violations;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 95%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 79%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 80%.
Enforcement action: Routinely patrolling routes or open areas;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 71%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 74%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 65%.
Enforcement action: Developing agreements with local or state law
enforcement;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 73%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 73%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 39%.
Enforcement action: Arresting individuals for OHV violations;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 34%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 28%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 23%.
Enforcement action: Requiring permits and/or fees for OHV access;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 28%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 19%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 18%.
Enforcement action: Revoking or suspending OHV use privileges;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 15%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 14%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 16%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
Table 1: Frequency of Enforcement Actions and Field Unit Officials'
Assessment of Their Effectiveness:
Occasionally patrolling routes or open areas:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 92;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 53.
Writing warnings or citations for OHV violations:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 86;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 70.
Routinely patrolling routes or open areas:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 70;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 77.
Developing agreements with local or state law enforcement:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 64;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 58.
Arresting individuals for OHV violations:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 29;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 64.
Requiring permits or fees for OHV access:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 25;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 75.
Revoking or suspending OHV use privileges:
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 16;
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 62.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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.
Field Units Reported Taking Actions to Engineer and Monitor OHV Trail
Systems:
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 figure 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.
Figure 14: Actions Taken to Engineer or Monitor OHV Trail Systems, as
Reported by Field Unit Officials:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph]
Engineering or monitoring action: Permanently closing or relocating
problematic routes;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 81%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 78%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 36%.
Engineering or monitoring action: Seasonally closing certain routes;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 76%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 56%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 23%.
Engineering or monitoring action: Providing separate motorized and non-
motorized recreational opportunities;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 75%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 66%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 20%.
Engineering or monitoring action: Monitoring the effects of OHV use on
unit's lands;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 72%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 76%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 45%.
Engineering or monitoring action: Maintaining routes by reconstruction
or regrading;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 71%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 62%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 25%.
Engineering or monitoring action: Designing OHV trail systems with
varied opportunities;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 65%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 61%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 9%.
Engineering or monitoring action: Limiting or dispersing campsites;
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 45%;
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 44%;
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 19%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 figure 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.
Figure 15: Barriers Used to Block Problematic OHV Routes:
[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs]
Curecanti National Recreation Area;
Arches National Park;
Big Cypress National Preserve;
Ochoco National Forest.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
A Majority of Field Units Indicated They Cannot Manage Existing OHV
Areas in a Sustainable Manner:
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 figure 16).
Figure 16: Field Unit Officials' Assessment of Whether Existing OHV
Areas Can Be Sustainably Managed:
[Refer to PDF for image: three pie-charts]
Forest Service:
Probably or definitely yes: 24%;
Undecided: 21%;
Probably or definitely not: 55%.
BLM:
Probably or definitely yes: 9%;
Undecided: 12%;
Probably or definitely not: 79%.
Park Service:
Probably or definitely yes: 53%;
Undecided: 9%;
Probably or definitely not: 38%.
Source: GAO.
Note: Percentages represent field unit officials from each agency who
reported whether they could sustainably manage their existing OHV
areas.
[End of figure]
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.
Agencies Reported Facing Many Challenges in Managing OHV Use:
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[Footnote
9] (see table 2).
Table 2: Various Issues Identified as a Great Challenge, by Agency:
OHV management issue: Staff resources for enforcement;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 83;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 81;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 48;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 73.
OHV management issue: Financial resources;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 76;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 76;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 41;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 67.
OHV management issue: Enforcement;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 71;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 74;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 42;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 64.
OHV management issue: Staff resources for management;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 73;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 76;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 32;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 63.
OHV management issue: Managing varying expectations about how federal
lands should be used;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 62;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 63;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 39;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 56.
OHV management issue: Collecting reliable data on the effects of OHV
use;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 58;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 69;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 38;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 56.
OHV management issue: Changing long-established OHV use patterns;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 55;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 70;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 33;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 54.
OHV management issue: Installing and maintaining signs;
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 51;
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 71;
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 22;
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 50.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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 figure 17). Officials at Forest Service headquarters told us that
signs at some units are vandalized or taken down less than 48 hours
after installation.
Figure 17: A Vandalized BLM OHV Sign (left) and a BLM Official
Replacing a Pulled-Out Sign (right):
[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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 [hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
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.
Table 3: Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service Field Units and OHV User
and Environmental Group Representatives Selected for Site Visits and
Interviews, by Location:
Location: Arizona;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Tonto National Forest;
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter).
Location: Arizona;
Agency: BLM;
Unit: Hassayampa Field Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter).
Location: Arizona;
Agency: BLM;
Unit: Kingman Field Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter).
Location: Arizona;
Agency: BLM;
Unit: Lower Sonoran Field Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter).
Location: Arizona;
Agency: Park Service;
Unit: Sunset Crater Volcano, Wupatki, and Walnut Canyon National
Monuments;
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter).
Location: California;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Cleveland National Forest;
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A.
Location: California;
Agency: BLM;
Unit: El Centro Field Office (Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area);
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A.
Location: Colorado;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison national forests;
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A.
Location: Colorado;
Agency: BLM; Unit: Grand Junction Field Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A.
Location: Colorado;
Agency: Park Service; Unit: Curecanti National Recreation Area;
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A.
Location: Florida;
Agency: Park Service;
Unit: Big Cypress National Preserve;
OHV user and environmental groups: Florida Trail Riders and Sierra Club
(Florida chapter).
Location: Florida;
Agency: Park Service;
Unit: Everglades National Park;
OHV user and environmental groups: Florida Trail Riders and Sierra Club
(Florida chapter).
Location: Maryland;
Agency: Park Service;
Unit: Assateague Island National Seashore;
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A.
Location: Oregon;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Deschutes-Ochoco National Forest and the Crooked River National
Grassland;
OHV user and environmental groups: American Hiking Society, Central
Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club, Friends of Anne's Butte, Friends of
McKay, Ochoco Trail Riders, and Sierra Club (Oregon chapter).
Location: Oregon;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Siuslaw National Forest (Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area);
OHV user and environmental groups: American Hiking Society, Central
Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club, Friends of Anne's Butte, Friends of
McKay, Ochoco Trail Riders, and Sierra Club (Oregon chapter).
Location: Oregon;
Agency: BLM; Unit:
Prineville District Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: American Hiking Society, Central
Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club, Friends of Anne's Butte, Friends of
McKay, Ochoco Trail Riders, and Sierra Club (Oregon chapter).
Location: Utah;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Manti-LaSal National Forest;
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect,
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Location: Utah;
Agency: BLM;
Unit: Moab Field Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect,
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Location: Utah;
Agency: Park Service;
Unit: Arches National Park;
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect,
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Location: Utah;
Agency: Park Service;
Unit: Canyonlands National Park;
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect,
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 10] 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[Footnote 11] 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.
[Footnote 12] 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
"Caring for the Land and Serving People"
File Code: 2350:
Date: June 19, 2009:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro, Director:
Government Accountability Office:
Natural Resources and Environment:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report, "Enhanced Planning Could
Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles." The
Agency generally agrees with the report and recommendations, but would
like you to consider the following substantive comments.
Page 36, Recommendation 1: GAO recommends that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to identify
additional strategies, timeframes, and performance measures to achieve
the Agency's goal of improving off-highway vehicle (OHV) management. On
page 15, GAO identifies other aspects of OHV management included in
Executive Orders 11.644 and 11989 that are not addressed in the Forest
Service Strategic Plan. These include implementing motor vehicle
designations, communicating with the public, monitoring OHV trail
systems, and enforcing OHV regulations.
Achieving the objectives of route and area designations for motor
vehicle use involves two aspects-planning and implementation. The
Forest Service feels that the existing strategy, timeframe, and
performance measures are appropriate for travel management planning.
The Forest Service also agrees that implementing motor vehicle
designations, communicating with the public, monitoring OHV trail
systems, and enforcing OHV regulations are important aspects of OHV
management to address strategically at the national level. The Agency's
preferred method is development of a national level plan specifically
addressing OHV management. While the Agency will soon provide guidance
to its field staff through the dissemination of an implementation
guide, in the future the Agency will also develop a strategy,
timeframes, and performance measures for implementation. Developing
strategies and timeframes for this plan will be straightforward.
Identifying new performance measures will offer a challenge due to the
situational differences, at the local level, and the added costs to
collect that information in a way that is accessible and meaningful at
the national level.
Page 36, Recommendation 2: GAO recommends that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Forest Service to enhance communication with the
public about OHV trails and areas through, for example, developing user-
friendly signs and maps to improve visitors' experiences.
The Forest Service agrees that it needs to continue to provide
information to the public about OHV opportunities and that
communication with the public can always be improved. The Sign and
Poster Guidelines for the Forest Service include a chapter on travel
management signing that addresses sign placement and installation, and
includes sign drawings. This is a very helpful resource when
identifying the signs that are needed to improve visitors' experiences.
Motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) will display all National Forest System
roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest
System lands that are open to the public for OHVs and other motor
vehicles. Once the MVUM is produced, notice of its availability is
widely disseminated. The Forest Service is continually assessing and
enhancing the quality of the MVUM, including its "user-friendliness."
In October of 2008 the Agency made a number of improvements to the MVUM
guidance, including adding the following:
* Symbols for significant points of interest (campgrounds, picnic
areas, mountain peaks, and Forest Service offices) to help orient the
visitor.
* The ability to show township, range, and section lines.
* Symbols to differentiate among interstate highways, State and U.S.
highways, and other public roads.
* A symbol for political boundaries, such as county lines.
* Better guidance on producing a high quality map.
The Forest Service, through its Geospatial Services and Technology
Center, has developed a class for employees on "Policies and Procedures
to Create the U. S. Forest Service MVUM." We expect that the quality of
the MVUMs will continue to improve as more employees take this class.
Page 30, first complete paragraph, first sentence: GAO states, "About
half of the national forests that have completed the travel management
planning required by the travel management rule indicated that they
could not sustainably manage the system that they designated."
This sentence should be reworded slightly to be consistent with the
wording in the survey, which we believe provided the basis for this
statement. The phrase "current OHV route systems and/or open areas,"
which appears in the survey, is not the same as "the system that they
designated" which appears in the draft report. Designated route systems
include not only OHV route systems and/or open areas, but also routes
that are designed for motor vehicles other than OHVs, such as passenger
cars. More accurate wording would be as follows: "About half of the
national forests that have published motor vehicle use maps as required
by the travel management rule indicated that they could not sustainably
manage their current OHV route systems and/or open areas."
The Agency appreciates the professionalism of the GAO employees with
whom we worked in Washington, as well as in the field. The information
in the report will be valuable in helping the Forest Service continue
to improve our management of OHV use. If you have any additional
questions or concerns, please contact Sandy T. Coleman, Forest Service
Assistant Director for GAO/Office Inspector General (OIG) Audit Liaison
Staff, at 703-605-4699.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Illegible, for:
Abigail R. Kimbell:
Chief:
cc: Deidre S. St. Louis; Sandy T. Coleman:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
June 12, 2009:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-001:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled Federal Lands:
Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of
Off-Highway Vehicles (GAO-09-509).
The Department of the Interior appreciates the diligent work of the
team and generally agrees with the draft report findings and
recommendations. The GAO accurately and fairly points out that as Off-
Highway Vehicle (OHV) use continues to grow, federal land managers are
and will be significantly challenged by insufficient staffing levels
and financial resources available for effective and sustainable OHV
management and enforcement. The draft report also acknowledges the
importance of recreation fee collection and retention in providing
critical resources to effectively manage OHVs.
The report makes three specific recommendations for improvement to the
agency: 1) enhance the agency's existing "Priorities for Recreation and
Visitor Services" by establishing performance measures and timeframes
to carry out its stated goals for OHV recreation; 2) enhance
communication with the public about OHV trails and areas by employing a
variety of communication approaches, including developing user-friendly
signs and maps, and fostering partnerships with OHV organizations and
other user groups; and 3) 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.
In response to recommendation 1, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
acknowledges the need for additional performance measures and
timeframes to track progress. While the BLM already has strategic plan
performance measures and travel plan implementation timeframes in
place, we are in the process of developing additional measures.
The BLM concurs with recommendation 2, and we are currently drafting
our Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management (CTTM) manual
and handbook to provide detailed guidance to our field offices on how
to improve travel planning, signing, mapping and travel information,
including the use of web sites to provide visitor information and maps.
The pending CTTM manual and handbook will address planning and
management of all modes of travel and all public access needs including
administrative, commercial permitted activities, emergency services and
fire access, rights-of-ways management, as well as recreational
activities. The BLM will continue to forge even more partnerships and
alliances with a variety of user groups, local governments, and other
land management agencies to promote responsible, ethical use of the
public lands.
With respect to GAO recommendation 3, the BLM will continue its ongoing
efforts to examine fine amounts across various U.S. district courts to
determine the range of fines for OHV-related violations to improve
consistency and determine appropriate penalty amounts. In certain
circumstances, the BLM will petition the appropriate judicial
authorities to make modifications to fines where warranted.
We are enclosing additional technical comments on the draft report. We
hope the comments will assist you in preparing the final report. If you
have any questions about this response, please contact Bob Ratcliffe,
Chief, Division of Recreation and Visitor Services at 202-452-5040 or
LaVanna Stevenson-Harris, BLM Audit Liaison Officer, at 202-785-6580.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Ned Farquhar:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
Land and Minerals Management:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] By regulation, OHV use is allowed only in certain Park Service
units. We selected all park units that could allow OHV use, as well as
units that could have unauthorized OHV use. These selected units
comprise about 97 percent of the total Park Service land area. The
final list of Park Service units included in our survey was vetted with
Park Service officials.
[2] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L No. 103-62,
107 Stat. 285.
[3] GAO, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-10.1.16] (Washington, D.C.: May
1997), and GAO, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving
Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-180] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
16, 1997).
[4] Exec. Order No. 11,644, 37 Fed. Reg. 2877 (Feb. 8, 1972) (as
amended by Exec. Order No. 11,989, 42 Fed. Reg. 26,959 (May 24, 1977).
[5] The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 96-
579, 90 Stat. 243, as amended, requires BLM to develop, maintain and,
when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide for the use of the
public lands in accordance with principles of multiple use and
sustained yield. These plans are known as resource management plans.
[6] In addition, the enabling legislation for a few national parks and
monuments allows OHV use under certain circumstances.
[7] Specifically, 31 field unit officials (7 percent of units that
reported having OHV use) indicated that at least one environmental
impact of OHV use affected more than 80 percent of their lands.
[8] BLM officials indicated that they do track the percentage of their
lands that have travel plans, but this performance measure is not
directly linked to goals or strategies identified in the recreation
plan. In addition, the agency has not identified a time frame by which
all field units will have travel plans.
[9] In this section, the term "great challenge" includes field units
officials who responded that a challenge was either great or very
great.
[10] The selected park units included all lakeshores, seashores,
national recreation areas, and preserves, and almost all parks and
monuments. Fourteen parks and monuments were excluded for one of the
following reasons: the unit is in a U.S. territory (4 units); is
inaccessible to OHVs, either because it is in the middle of an urban
area or on an island (8); is part of a larger unit already surveyed
(1); or is managed by state agencies rather than the Park Service (1).
The units that were selected were the most likely to have OHV use and
comprise about 97 percent of the total Park Service land area. The
final list of Park Service units included in the survey was vetted with
Park Service officials.
[11] GAO, Federal Lands: Information on the Use and Impact of Off-
Highway Vehicles, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-95-209] (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
18, 1995).
[12] Although two surveys were sent out, only one survey was completed
for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, which covered all the
land managed by both forests. Similarly, although two surveys were sent
out, only one survey was completed for the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest, which covered all the land managed by both forests.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
