Federal Lands

Executive orders were issued during the 1970s regulating the use of off-highway vehicles, including motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and four-wheel drive vehicles, on federal lands. Sometimes these vehicles damaged natural or cultural resources, or their use clashed with other outdoor recreation activities, such a hiking, picnicking, or horseback riding. Compliance by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service with the two executive orders has been mixed. According to off-highway vehicle program managers and staff at eight locations GAO visited, both agencies have given higher priority to other activities and have allocated limited funding and staffing to their off-highway vehicle programs. Further, both agencies have relied heavily on state support for their off-highway vehicle programs. Should such support waiver or cease in the future, the agencies' ability to comply with the executive orders would be further hampered. Some BLM and Forest Service locations have targeted their monitoring and enforcement to the most heavily used or the most environmentally sensitive lands. Also, some have formed coalitions with state governments, local communities, and private groups to supplement their resources for off-highway vehicle programs. As the agencies continue to inventory, map, and post signs to identify their off-highway vehicle areas, roads, and trails, they should be able to implement the executive orders more fully.

GAO found that: (1) at the 8 locations reviewed, BLM and the Forest Service restricted OHV use in their management plans, but they generally gave lower funding and staffing priority to OHV activities than to other programs; (2) in fiscal year 1993, approximately two-thirds of the estimated total funding for OHV monitoring activities came from the states; (3) only 36 percent of the agency staff assigned to OHV activities worked full-time on such activities; (4) local communities and organizations provided additional funds and volunteer services and material to support OHV activities; (5) BLM and Forest Service compliance with the executive orders at the 8 locations was mixed because of limited staff and funding and higher priority activities; (6) although all 8 locations had lands prescribed for OHV use, 5 locations did not have maps and signs ready to show the public where and under what conditions OHV could be used; (7) at all locations, OHV monitoring was casual, adverse effects were seldom documented, and needed corrective actions had not been prioritized; and (8) although citations were written for violations at all the locations, enforcement was hampered by confusion over where and when OHV restrictions applied.