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 5 th 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