1 / 23

Progress Updating the 1979 Michigan ORV Plan

Progress Updating the 1979 Michigan ORV Plan. Dr. Chuck Nelson Dept. Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies MI State University. DNR’s Mission.

taniel
Download Presentation

Progress Updating the 1979 Michigan ORV Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Progress Updating the 1979 Michigan ORV Plan Dr. Chuck Nelson Dept. Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies MI State University

  2. DNR’s Mission • Conserve, protect and provide for public use and enjoyment Michigan’s natural resources for present and future generations of citizens and visitors. • Stewardship mission is paramount

  3. An Updated Plan for Tomorrow • Key issues for updated plan • Meet legal mandates • Provide adequate riding opportunity • Minimize social conflict • Maintain environmental integrity • Maximize rider safety and enjoyment • Make most efficient use of ORV funds • Recent new wrinkle – New FS rules • “Closed unless posted open” on all NF • Not just the Huron-Manistee • Forest certification

  4. ORV Plan Requirements • Inventory state forests • Assess their suitability for ORV use • Designate ORV system • Done between 1979 - today • Resource management to maintain system and restore ORV damage • On-going • This effort involves • Partners • Law enforcement • Maintenance • Education • ORV events • ORV technology • Conflicts and other uses of public and nearby private lands • Rider enjoyment • Funding • Safety • Environmental integrity

  5. Maintenance and Restoration Grant Workshop Input • Maintenance • Support for improved signage • Yellow backers from AuSable Pilot Project • Sign plan removing discretion for sponsors • Significant concern about liability associated with maintenance activities • Growing trail use = more trail maintenance • Costs higher than reimbursement for most • Support gas sales tax money to ORV program • Restoration • Engineering requirements are challenging • Need better ID of ORV damage sites off trails • Need more restoration interests involved

  6. Public Information Meetings • S. Michigan (Lansing 10/12/04) • 92 signed attendance sheet • Three distinct user groups represented • Motorcycles, ATV, full size truck/dune buggy • Non-trail oriented users not well represented • Want separate trails to meet differing user needs • More trails in total • Parallel trails,“play” areas for large trucks • Many want NLP forest roads open to MC/ATV • Stated need for trail restoration, relocation • Want direct access from trails to goods/services • Support using gas sales tax $ from ORV for ORV • Support hands on & written youth ORV safety ed.

  7. Grayling Meeting • 63 signed attendance sheet (10/13/04) • Again three distinct groups plus 56” width ATV • Gator, Mule, etc. • Non-trail oriented users not well represented • Want separate trails to meet differing user needs • More trails in total • Parallel trails,“play” areas for large trucks • Many want NLP forest roads open to MC/ATV • Stated need for trail restoration, relocation • Want direct access from trails to goods/services • Support using gas sales tax $ from ORV for ORV • Support hands on & written youth ORV safety ed

  8. Marquette Meeting • 100 signed attendance sheet (10/14/04) • Different character than previous meetings • Three ORV vehicle types represented • Also had vocal non-ORV riders concerned about trespass, property and environmental damage, cross-country use & beach riding • Also had hunt/fish/pick non-trail riders • Keep state/national forest roads open to ORV • Support county road shoulders open to ORV • ORV riders seen as major component of tourism • Want more designated trails for tourists • Support for ORV education focused on written to reach more youth, work through sheriffs • Want sign compatibility with snowmobile prog.

  9. MI County Sheriff Survey • 60 (72%) of 83 responded • Participate in teaching ORV safety using a model similar to marine safety education • 38 (63%) wanted to teach ORV safety education, 2 (4%) maybe, 15 (25%) not interested, 4 (7%) no response to question • 16 participated in ORV enforcement grant program in 2003 • 77% enforcement time on trails • 23% at trail heads • Key violations targeted • operation under the influence of drugs/alcohol, • operation by a non-certified youth without adult supervision, • trespass on private lands, • operation on public lands/roadways where prohibited • lack of an approved helmet/safety equipment • Participated in enforcement because • Public safety need, citizen concerns about trespass, increasing ORV use, illegal ORV use on roadways, enforcement need

  10. Sheriff Survey Results • Of the 16 in ORV enforcement: • 7 (44%) of the 16 also conduct ORV safety education • 16 (100%) do marine safety education • 9 (56%) do snowmobile safety education • 6 (38%) do hunter safety education • More counties interested in ORV enforcement if barriers overcome • Need additional money • ORV equipment • Enforcement personnel • If designated trails were in county • Other barrier may be qualifications of enforcement personnel • Do they need to be a certified police officer? • Potential for year-round recreation officers at local level • ORV, snowmobile and marine enforcement as well as safety education for all three • Strong support for having ORV safety training materials on the internet

  11. County Road Commission Manager Survey • 33(59%) of 56 counties north of Bay City to Muskegon line responded • 17 (52%) no ORVs on county road shoulder • Concerns about safety, liability, increased road maintenance costs • 6 (18%) some county shoulders open to ORVs to connect trails • Maintain balance, connect trails, promote tourism, cooperate with ORV clubs • 10 (30%) all county road shoulders open to ORV • Treat ORVs like snowmobiles, benefits agriculture and tourism, requested by residents/riders, high demand • 15% are reconsidering existing policy • Lots of flux • Looking both at opening and closing

  12. Road Commission Managers • Where illegal, citizen comments heard • Causes damage to roads/shoulders • ORVs travel at excessive speed, fleeing law • ORV fatalities occurred on county road • Leads to trespass • Where legal, citizen comments heard • Reduced speeding, not trying to flee law • Benefits service businesses • Leads to trespass • More road/shoulder damage • ORV traffic confuses motorists, safety concern

  13. Road Commission Managers • Three noted total of 4 ORV fatalities on roads • Tend to lack data on ORV accidents on roads • Similar lack of knowledge about citations for illegal ORV operation • When asked about MCCCT connectors on county roads for DNR licensed ORVs • 27% support, 39% oppose, 34% unsure/not applicable situation to them • Much more supportive of DNR/FS acquiring or designating trails/routes on public lands • 70% support, 3% oppose, 27% unsure/not applicable situation to them

  14. State Trail Coordinator Survey • State Trail Coordinators • 26 (52%) of 50 states respond • 6 (23%) have current state ORV plan • 25 (96%) of 26 reported some public land riding opportunity • 77% had federal land opportunities • 73% had state land opportunities • 46% had local public land opportunities • 52% “closed unless posted open”, 48% “open unless posted closed” • Survey was pre-Forest Service policy announcement • 80,658 trail miles reported • 79% open to all types ORV • 17% ATV/cycle only • 4% cycle only • <1% truck only • 42% states had one or more designated scramble areas

  15. Trail Maintenance/Damage Restoration for other States • Trail maintenance done by many • 69% used non-profits • 35% used for-profit contractors • 58% states did some/all maintenance • 62% had federal maintenance • 23% had some local gov. maintenance • Trail restoration done by fewer • 27% states had damage restoration prog. • Used all the above sources to implement

  16. Law Enforcement and Fatalities • Few states track ORV citations • Only 15% of states provided numbers of ORV citations • Few provided data on fatalities • 40% of states provided data on ORV fatalities, 60% stated they had no info • US Consumers Product Safety Commission (2003) reports that 1982-2002 • 224 people died in ATV accidents in Michigan • 5,239 people died nationwide • 33% of deaths nationwide were to persons <16 • Michigan State Police Office of Highway Safety Planning (2004) reported that during 1994-2003 • 2,528 ORV/ATV accidents on Michigan roadways • Resulted in 77 fatalities • Data available not comparable in quality to snowmobile fatality data which DNR LED investigates and compiles

  17. 2005 National OHV Program Managers Data – Thanks to Chair Bob Walker (MT) for compiling • Education requirement for ORV use • 17 (35%) of states require for some • Typically youth • 32 (65%) have no educational requirement • 26 (53%) have minimum age requirement to operate ORV • 23 (47%) no minimum age requirement • All states without a minimum age requirement also lack an educational requirement

  18. Michigan Trail Assessment 2004 • Fall 2004 DNR and FS personnel assessed Michigan’s ORV system • Special thanks to three MI DNR trail analysts • Wayne Wheeler (UP) • Paige Perry (E NLP) • Katie Campbell (W NLP) • Also, good participation by FS ranger districts in the Huron-Manistee NF

  19. Condition of the Designated System – Fall 2004 • 2,639 miles evaluated • 1,777 (68%) rated good (meets standards >95%) • 854 (32%) rated fair (meets standards 75-95%) • 8 (<1%) rated poor (meets standards <75%) • Key goal is bring all up to good • 7 cycle trails, 11 ORV trails, 3 routes need significant improvement • Improved brushing, signage, re-routes or boardwalks for wet areas • Comparison to 1996 system assessment where 2,097 miles were reviewed • 61% good, 27% fair, 13% poor

  20. Illegal Uses • 44 (54%) of trails/routes have reported illegal use • Main problems are non-designated spur trails • Access hunt, fish, private lands, hill climbs • Other concerns include • Illegal hill climbs • Illegal scramble areas • Riding in wetlands or on lake/river shorelines • Road riding on roads open to SOS vehicles only

  21. Conflicts • 20 (25%) of 81 trails/routes had reported conflicts • Conflicts reported include • Between ORV users and others using trail/route system • Non-motorized uses • Logging vehicles • Cycle and ATV users on the same trail • ORV users and neighbors to system • Dust, noise, trespass • Conflict with oil/gas service personnel

  22. ORV Damage to Public Lands • Considerable amount away from designated system • Many photos submitted with GIS info from DNR field staff • Serious concern of forest certification evaluators during MI visit • Want to see best management practices fully implemented • Current Operations Inventory not well suited to ID such damage • Much done during snow cover • Many land managers believe damage away from the designated system exacerbated by some LP counties opening all county road shoulders to DNR licensed ORVs • Provides access to illegal, environmentally sensitive sites

  23. Plan Action Steps, Rationale and Fiscal Implications • First set submitted to DNR 12/21/04 • DNR now reviewing 5th draft • Internal review process through FMFM • Then by DNR wide team • Then out to the public • Full review takes time, longer than I planned • Still compiling supporting material on trends, etc. during internal review

More Related