Michigan Draft ORV Plan: 2005

1. Michigan Draft ORV Plan: 2005 Dr. Chuck Nelson Dept. Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies MI State University

2. ORV Plan is Under the DNR’s Umbrella Mission • Conserve, protect and provide for public use and enjoyment Michigan’s natural resources for present and future citizens and visitors. • Stewardship is paramount • Err on the side of maintaining the productive capability of the environment

3. What is an Off-Road Vehicle (ORV)? • Motor driven vehicle capable of cross country travel without the benefit of a road or trail • Motorcycle (24” wide at handlebars) • All-terrain vehicle (48” wide at handlebars) • Recently larger crossover vehicles (54-56” wide e.g. John Deere Gator, Kawasaki Mule, Polaris Ranger, etc.) • Large 4 wheel drive truck, SUV, specialty vehicle like dune buggy • Not a single, homogeneous market • ORVs don’t include snowmobiles, airplanes, boats • In 1998: 104,000 MI licensed ORVs • In 2004: 171,000 MI licensed ORVs (64% increase)

4. MI’s First and Only ORV Plan • Mandated by PA 319 of 1975 • Approved by NRC in 1978 • Part of the 1979 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan • Sought to separate ORV activity and other uses where conflict occurred • ORV riding allowed on • Designated ORV trails, routes and areas • Forest road system open to ORVs • Forest road defined as a way capable of travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle • Develop designated riding opportunities in S. MI • Protect the resources of the state from pollution or impairment • Two main types ORVs • Motorcycles and large 4 wheel drive vehicles, no ATVs

5. Evolution Since 1979 • 1980 DNR promulgates administrative rules • Close state forest land to ORV use except for forest roads and designated trails, routes and areas • Need 1,500 miles designated trail on the ground • DNR unsuccessful in creating S MI ORV areas • 1989 statewide ORV study (Nelson 1989) • ORV has risen dramatically from the 1976 study • Less than 1 million ORV days to 4 million ORV days • ATVs are the most common ORV • Nelson presentation to 1989 MI SAF meeting that open unless posted closed isn’t working • First cross country rider illegal, second is following a way capable of travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle • 1990 DNR finishes 1,500 miles/rules effective • ORV Trail Improvement Fund authorized • 1991 NRC approves the system of ORV trails, routes, areas

6. Evolution Continued • 1991 Public Act 17 • On Lower Peninsula state forest lands • Closed unless posted open • Huron-Manistee National Forests adopted same rules • UP state forests stay open for use on forest roads and designated trails/areas/routes unless posted closed • Task force of citizens/DNR key in making this decision • 1992 ORV season rules in effect for first time • Eliminates MI registration • Money to DNR, not Secretary of State • ORV Trail Improvement Fund distribution authorized • Grants to non-profits, units of government to maintain trails, enforce rules, restore environmental damage • Forest Recreation 2000 (NRC approval 1995) • Drafted by State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee • Strategic Plan for MI state forest recreation system • Goal is a high quality forest recreation program as part of a working, multiple use state forest system • Campgrounds, trails (motorized and non-motorized) and areas with forest recreation as the key value

7. Evolution Continued • Public Act 58 of 1995 • Use annual licensing to provide ORV program funding • Residents and non-residents pay $16.25/year/ORV • Re-Create ORV Trail Improvement Fund, rigid distribution formula • Restricted fund with carry-over authority • Grants to governmental agencies, non-profits for: • > 50% revenues for trail, area, route construction, maintenance, acquisition • >31.125% for trail, route and area enforcement • > 12.125% for ORV damage restoration on public lands • < 3.125% for administration

8. Evolution Continued • 1997 ORV Trail/Route Assessment (Lynch and Nelson 1997) • System of 2,531 miles (not including MCCCT) • 86% on MI state forest land • 14% on National forest land • DNR System condition (not including some segments of MCCCT) • Of 2,097 miles rated by DNR • 61% good (trail/route in compliance with trail standards > 95% of trail mileage) • 27% fair (trail/route in compliance with trail standards 75%-95% of trail mileage) • 11% poor (trail/route in compliance with trail standards for <75% of trail mileage)

9. Evolution Continued • 1997 Trail Maintenance Costs/Reimbursement Rates • Workshop with cooperators • Out of pocket costs (gasoline, equipment, etc.)/mile • $29.04 ORV trails • $21.69 ORV routes • If labor is considered a reimbursable cost/mile labor costs (@ $6/hour) • $104.05 for ORV trails • $ 55.05 for ORV routes • DNR used the following rates, providing little $ for labor • In 1998 Trails @ $45/mile, raised to $54 in 2002 • In 1998 Routes @ $34/mile, raised to $40 in 2002

10. Evolution Continued • 1998 Public Act 418 Forest Recreation Act • Based on Forest Recreation 2000 Plan • Mandates DNR to “develop, operate, maintain and promote an integrated system that provides opportunities for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, snowmobiling, ORV use,…w/in each state forest” • 2000 ORV licensee use and user study (Nelson et al. 2000) • First study to use ORV license info • Key trends 1975-2000 (Nelson and Lynch 2001) • ORV use has shifted northward • Proportional and absolute use of the designated system has increased • Minority of ORV use is on designated, public trail system • Trail system has been created, grown, matured

11. Key 2000 Findings • 57% licenses ATV, 23% MC, 19% SUV • 21% from UP, 21% from NLP, 58% from SLP • 4.2 million ORV days per year • 44% private land ride, 31% public land ride, 25% hunt/ice fish • In average ORV household 2/3 family members ride • 71% of 12-15 aged kids operate ORV, only 1/3 riders completed mandated ORV safety course • 57% of 10-11 aged kids operate ORV, only 1/6 riders completed mandated ORV safety course • 54% of licensees used the designated trail system • 46% did not use the designated system • 29% of licensees used a designated ORV scramble area • Silver Lake SP, Bull Gap, St. Helens, Mounds • Key changes desired in response to open-end questions • More riding opportunities, better signage, legal on road shoulders, reduce fee for non-trail users

12. AuSable Pilot Project (Nelson and Lynch 2002) • Does more law enforcement and more visible signage lead to improved ORV rule compliance • Clare, Gladwin, Roscommon and Ogemaw Cos. • Improved signage appreciated by riders • Area with improved signage and additional enforcement had a 30% decline in ORV violations per contact by DNR enforcement personnel • Signage had relatively few apparent vandalism problems • Strong support for linking MCCCT loops with designated ORV trail/route connectors • Anecdotal evidence the outlaws moved north

13. Now, an Updated Plan for 2005 • Key issues for updated plan • Meet legal mandates • Provide adequate riding opportunity • Different vehicle user segments seek different riding situations • Minimize social conflict • Maintain environmental integrity • Maximize rider safety and enjoyment • Make most efficient use of ORV funds • Currently $4 million + fund balance in ORV Trail Fund • Recent new wrinkle – New FS rules • “Closed unless posted open” on all NF • Not just the Huron-Manistee • Forest certification • Visible implementation of Best Management Practices throughout state forest system • Unrestored ORV damage consistently noted as a problem

14. ORV Plan Legal 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 • Citizen and manager need for ORV trend data • Use • Users • Licenses • Grants

15. Public Input Sessions with ORV Grant Recipients • Maintenance (9/21/04) • Support for more visible signage • Want DNRsign 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 • Restoration (9/15/04) • Engineering requirements are challenging/onerous • Need better ID of ORV damage sites off trails • Need more restoration interests involved • Restoration job not getting done

16. Public Information Meetings • Lansing, Grayling, Marquette (10/12-14/04) • About 300 attended • Four distinct ORV user groups represented • Motorcycles, ATV, large ATV-like vehicles (Gator, Ranger, etc.), full size truck/dune buggy • Non-users (typically private landowners) • Users 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 hands on & written youth ORV safety ed. • Non-users stories about trespass, environmental damage to public and private lands and facilities • Message is get rid of bad actors

17. MI County Sheriff Survey: Fall 2004 • 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

18. 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

19. County Road Commission Manager Survey: Fall 2004 • 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

20. State Trail Coordinator Survey: Fall 2004 • 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

21. 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 • Environmental damage restoration by fewer • 27% states had damage restoration program • Used all the above sources to implement

22. Law Enforcement and Fatalities for other States • 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

23. 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

24. Condition of the Designated System: Fall 2004 • Trail analysts provided majority of data/work • 2,705 miles evaluated (inc. Huron-Man. NF des. trails) • 1,815 (67%) rated good (meets standards >95%) • 844 (32%) rated fair (meets standards 75-95%) • 46 (2%) rated poor (meets standards <75%) • Key goal is bring all up to good • 7 cycle trails, 12 ATV trails, 3 routes need significant improvement • Improved brushing, signage, re-routes or boardwalks for wet areas • Comparison to 1997 system assessment where 2,097 miles were reviewed • 61% good, 27% fair, 13% poor

25. 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

26. 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 vs. ATV users on the same trail • ORV users vs. neighbors to system • Dust, noise, trespass • Conflict with oil/gas service personnel

27. 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 visits • Want to see best management practices fully implemented • Current Operations Inventory not well suited to ID such damage • Much done during snow cover • DNR land managers connect damage away from designated system with some counties opening all county road shoulders to DNR licensed ORVs • Provides access to illegal, environmentally sensitive riding locations

28. Action Recommendations • Designated System • System Maintenance • ORV Damage Restoration • ORV Safety Education • ORV Enforcement • ORV Events, Licensing and Administration

29. Action Recommendations: Designated System • Upgrade system to all trails/routes to “good” maintenance rating • More than 95% of a trail’s mileage meets maintenance standards • Implement 2004 assessment trail-by-trail recommendations • Develop additional cycle and ATV trail and ORV route and scramble area with partner land managers to meet increasing demand • Destination point-to-point and loop routes • Parallel ATV or cycle trails in existing trail corridors of influence • Fully implement St. Helen’s Motorsport Area development plan • Develop one or more new scramble areas

30. Action Recommendations: Designated System • DNR use nationally recognized Forest Service standards for motorized trail signage • Have no net loss of ORV trail quality and quantity from timber management • DNR maintain current “closed unless posted open” approach in Lower Peninsula • DNR maintain current forest roads open to ORV use without posting in the UP

31. Action Recommendations: Designated System • Encourage local units to target ORV use only to selected county road shoulders • Access to designated system • Access to goods/services • DNR annually monitor the condition of the designated system • Use 2004 assessment instrument • DNR conduct assessment of ORV use and users every 5 years • Include economic impact study

32. Action Recommendations: System Maintenance • Increase the maximum rate of reimbursement based on 1997 estimated costs including labor + inflation • $154 per mile for cycle and ATV trails maintenance • Up from current $54 per mile • $89 per mile for ORV routes • Up from current $40 mile • Strictly enforce maintenance standards • Explore multi-year and competitive bid options for trail maintenance • Open eligibility for trail maintenance grants to for-profit entities

33. Action Recommendations: System Maintenance • DNR to complete regulatory sign plan for each trail • Follow Forest Service motorized trail signing standards • Limit maintenance cooperator discretion • DNR to provide ORV trailhead maintenance throughout snow free months • May be contracted, may be internal

34. Action Recommendations: ORV Damage Restoration • Better and more systematically identify ORV damage on public lands • Broaden operations inventory to focus on full land stewardship mission • Seek partners and provide information conduits for reporting and locating ORV damage • Immediate needs, long term systematic approach • More efficiently and effectively restore identified environmental damage • Use known techniques e.g. agricultural erosion control and wildlife habitat restoration • Use timber sale/contract process • Administer at the FMFM district level through recreation specialists • All have soil and sedimentation control certification • All located closer to problem locations than staff • Part of district land management team

35. Action Recommendations: ORV Safety Education • Use model similar to marine safety education • County sheriffs are lead provider, educational and non-profit organizations can also provide • Classroom education mandatory with a focus on ORV safety and laws • Written, proctored exam mandatory • “Hands-on” training/test optional but encouraged • County sheriffs, educational and non-profit organizations eligible to apply to and receive ORV Safety Education Fund grants • Maximum of $20 per student reimbursement • Reimbursement for costs • Both classroom and hands-on eligible for reimbursement

36. Action Recommendations: ORV Safety Education • ORV Safety Education certification required of all born on or after December 31, 1988 to ride an ORV on public lands or waters of Michigan • DNR Law Enforcement Division to design and implement a system to track ORV fatalities patterned after current snowmobile fatality tracking system • DNR comprehensive ORV safety education and training materials available on the internet at the DNR’s website

37. Action Recommendations: ORV Enforcement • Strengthen ORV enforcement by: • Fund additional MI Cons. Off. patrol at straight time • Fund additional sheriff patrol hours and reinstate ORV patrol equipment grants for eligible sheriffs • Forest Service becoming eligible to receive ORV enforcement grants for patrol • DNR State Parks (Silver Lake SP) becoming eligible to receive ORV enforcement grants for patrol • Involve Forest officers in ORV patrol at ORV trailheads to educate riders pre-ride and to provide safety checks • Enforce ORV youth certification requirements • After ORV safety education classes available in a majority (42) of Michigan counties

38. Action Recommendations: Events, Admin. & Licensing • Enduro Motorcycle Events • Locate events at sites of proposed timber harvest (1-2 years out) • Program Administration • Clarify responsibilities and strengthen working relationships among DNR personnel/divisions involved in ORV program delivery • Investigate streamlining grant processes to gain efficiency and cooperators • Licensing • All ORV licensing should be done through the electronic license system • All ORV license dealers shall provide a copy of the ORV rules and safety information to each licensee annually on their purchase of their ORV license

39. Plan Process Forward • First set recommendations submitted to DNR 12/21/04 • Six iterations since that time with FMFM • Internal DNR-wide review July-August 2005 • Public review begins 8/10/05 with ORV Advisory Board presentation • Draft plan posted on DNR web site 8/11/05 • 30 day public comment period beginning 8/11/05 • Revise draft plan based on public, ORV Advisory Board and DNR review after September 12, 2005 • Final Draft presented to ORV Advisory Board for endorsement November 9, 2005 • Final Draft to NRC for information January 2006 • 30 day public comment period • Final Draft to NRC for action February 2006