Congressional Hearings Address Off-Road Vehicle Damage
The damage that off-road vehicle use inflicts on our public forests, deserts, grasslands and wetlands is certainly no secret. Even many off-road vehicle advocates admit concerns about the growing problem, fearing that the increasing degradation of public resources will further poison public opinion against them and cause land management agencies to clamp down.
But while the problem is no secret, it has never gained the full attention of Congress — until now.
Earlier this spring, the off-road vehicle problem moved into the public spotlight when a US House of Representatives committee held oversight hearings on the issue. That hearing was a first step in long-absent congressional oversight regarding failed off-road vehicle management on federal lands. Unfortunately, the testimony from the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) representatives was less than informative about the scope of the problem and the challenges these agencies face in bringing rampant off-road vehicle abuse under control. However, testimony from several other key witnesses was very helpful in articulating the scope of the problem and making key recommendations.
It was clear from the agency and from the off-road vehicle industry representatives that their mantra about a few bad apples has not changed. Fortunately there were speakers who pointed out the profound enormity of this problem, and that real regulatory changes are needed if we are to develop a culture of responsibility. Those changes include the protection of special places, the adoption and implementation of tough, strict rules for motorized recreation on public lands, and the swift and consistent enforcement of those rules.
More recently, on June 5, the Senate followed suit with its own hearing on off-road vehicle damage to public lands. For the first time in perhaps a decade, members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee grilled leaders of the Forest Service and the BLM about why off-road vehicle use is being allowed to damage America’s national treasures.
The Senate committee hearing was convened for the purpose of finding out why the agencies are failing to grapple with the negative impacts of off-road vehicle use on America’s public lands and what the agencies might need to start doing differently. Taking center stage in the discussion was the “travel planning process” – a complex analysis and decision-making procedure with the aim of designating appropriate roads and trails. Both the Forest Service and BLM have been engaged in somewhat similar travel planning processes now for years, but some of the committee members didn’t seem to think those processes were going along so well.
“The BLM has identified travel management on its lands as ‘one of the greatest management challenges’ it faces,” stated committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-NM. “Likewise, the Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation — including ORV use — as one of the top four threats to the management and health of the National Forest System. Despite these statements, it seems to me that neither agency has been able to successfully manage off-road use.”
“Existing rules for managing off-road vehicles are not being enforced,” Bingaman added, and the agencies are ignoring unregulated use “with significant consequences for the health of our public lands and communities, and adverse effects on other authorized public land uses.”
But representatives for both the Forest Service and the BLM, while cleverly acknowledging the huge scale and complexity of the problem, seemed reluctant to admit any management failure.
BLM deputy director Henry Bisson explained that the off-road vehicle problem has been building over many years. “What was once the vast and spacious public land of the West that few knew about and fewer actively used for recreational purposes has now become something quite different.” He cited a combination of reasons to explain the dramatic increase in social conflicts and resource impacts: population increase in western towns, unauthorized user-created routes, explosive growth in the use of off-road vehicles, advances in technology and intense marketing by thrillcraft manufacturers.
Forest Service Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop called up statistics from a Forest Service telephone survey, The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, to show that the number of people “participating in OHV recreation” has grown dramatically. And indeed it has.
But sometimes the most interesting and illuminating statistics are the ones not mentioned. For instance, Holtrop seemed careful to avoid citing another, more obvious and detailed Forest Service survey completed in 2004. The National Visitor Use Monitoring Four Year Report survey reveals that even with the serious explosion in off-roading, visits by thrillcraft users still constitute less than six percent of all visits to the national forests. This tiny percentage of visitors are using and damaging a grossly disproportionate percentage of the public lands. Somehow, this fact was not mentioned.
Holtrop did say that even a few off-road vehicles can severely impact the forests. “The first motor vehicle driving across a particular meadow may not harm the land, but by the time 50 motor vehicles have crossed the same path a user-created trail will likely be left behind that causes lasting environmental impacts on soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Additionally, some visitors report that their ability to enjoy quiet recreation experiences is affected by the noise from motor vehicles.”
Holtrop also acknowledged that many of these user-created routes are inappropriate and may need to be closed. “These user-created routes are not part of the forest transportation system, did not undergo environmental analysis, were not designed and constructed for recreational use, and do not receive routine maintenance by the Forest Service,” he said. “Some of these routes may merit consideration, with appropriate environmental analysis, as potential additions to our transportation system. Others run through wetlands, riparian areas and stream channels, and their use by motor vehicles adversely affects water quality, causes erosion, and introduces invasive species. User-created routes causing unacceptable resource damage should not be designated for motor vehicle use.”
No one could have stated it any better. User-created routes in national forest and BLM lands have absolutely no business being given the status of a designated route, published by the agency on a map and handed out to visitors. Such designated status should be reserved for routes that are planned, that meet a purpose and need, are designed to be resilient and to avoid ecological damage, and are within the agency’s ability to maintain on a sustainable basis.
Which makes it all the more curious why Holtrop avoided mentioning another Forest Service document. The Forest Service deputy chief spent a great deal of time detailing the requirements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, subpart B, that requires the agency designate a system of routes and publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). But while spending more time on that subject than just about any other, he utterly failed to mention subpart A of the 2005 Rule, which first requires the agency analyze its lands and determine what a minimum road system would look like prior to moving on to the process of designating routes and publishing them on a map.
Subpart A — identifying a minimum road system — is a crucial, necessary step if the final mapped and published system of routes is to represent a rational and planned choice. Ignoring that step implies that the end product — the MVUM map and the route system it describes — will represent an impotent caving-in to off-road vehicle abuse. The fact that Subpart A was never mentioned during the hearing ought to give committee members pause.
Trout Unlimited’s Western Energy and ORV Coordinator Bradley Powell testified on behalf of the angling community, listing a host of “OHV horror stories” from his days working for the Forest Service. “In New Mexico, on the Santa Fe National Forest, I vividly remember the deep ruts and bog holes created in prime elk habitat. On the Tonto National Forest in Arizona there are areas that look like heavy equipment has cut deep incisions into the land. On a typical weekend day in the spring there is a dust cloud over the area that can be seen for miles.”
US Geographical Survey research ecologist Jayne Belnap told the committee that current off-road use is causing soil erosion and dust pollution — even when the road or trail lies unused. “Just the presence of the roads themselves produce dust, you don’t have to drive on them,” she said.
Recent studies have shown that dust pollution increases snowpack melt and reduces the delivery of late-season water into rivers and streams.
“The dust issue is going to be a major, major issue,” Belnap said. “We are going to have profound impacts on water delivery.” She quantified the problem as representing “billions of pounds of dust a year coming off these trails.”
Other witnesses called attention to the lack of enforcement of existing off-road laws. Frank Adams, Executive Director of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, pointed to the “feeling of anonymity that many of the OHV riders have because there is no way of identifying them or their vehicles.”
“Most states do not require a license plate for such vehicles,” he said. “Those states that do require tagging, the tags are not large enough to be seen without being in almost on top of the vehicle. If you are able to determine that there is a tag on the OHV, determining the tag number is almost impossible.”
Adams went on to call for federal incentives for state-run license plate programs for off-road vehicles and increased funding for enforcement.
But when Montana’s Senator Jon Tester grilled off-road vehicle group representatives Edward Moreland, Vice President for Government Relations, American Motorcyclist Association and Greg Mumm, Executive Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition about their willingness to support such a program, both cited the expense and bureaucratic difficulties faced by off-road vehicle users as their reason for not supporting more visible registration numbers or license plates. But Tester was not to be put off. He continued to question them about what it would take for them to support such a program. And they continued to cite the expense and difficulty as their primary objection. Finally, Tester asked them, what if the licenses were made free of charge and extremely easy to obtain, would that remove their objections? Curiously, both said they would still refuse to support it. Perhaps Adams’ comments about the “feeling of anonymity” that off-roaders cherish may be a more accurate way of getting at their real objections to vehicle ID numbers.
While off-road vehicle users may remain anonymous for the time being, the impacts of their recreation are finally being exposed to the light of day. And while it’s unlikely that Congressional awareness of these impacts will translate into new legislation at this point in time, it may well prove to be one more step towards increased agency commitments to educate off-road users and enforce policies that protect public resources.
— Franklin Seal is Wildlands CPR’s Communications Coordinator. He lives and works in Moab, Utah.
But while the problem is no secret, it has never gained the full attention of Congress — until now.
Earlier this spring, the off-road vehicle problem moved into the public spotlight when a US House of Representatives committee held oversight hearings on the issue. That hearing was a first step in long-absent congressional oversight regarding failed off-road vehicle management on federal lands. Unfortunately, the testimony from the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) representatives was less than informative about the scope of the problem and the challenges these agencies face in bringing rampant off-road vehicle abuse under control. However, testimony from several other key witnesses was very helpful in articulating the scope of the problem and making key recommendations.
It was clear from the agency and from the off-road vehicle industry representatives that their mantra about a few bad apples has not changed. Fortunately there were speakers who pointed out the profound enormity of this problem, and that real regulatory changes are needed if we are to develop a culture of responsibility. Those changes include the protection of special places, the adoption and implementation of tough, strict rules for motorized recreation on public lands, and the swift and consistent enforcement of those rules.
More recently, on June 5, the Senate followed suit with its own hearing on off-road vehicle damage to public lands. For the first time in perhaps a decade, members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee grilled leaders of the Forest Service and the BLM about why off-road vehicle use is being allowed to damage America’s national treasures.
The Senate committee hearing was convened for the purpose of finding out why the agencies are failing to grapple with the negative impacts of off-road vehicle use on America’s public lands and what the agencies might need to start doing differently. Taking center stage in the discussion was the “travel planning process” – a complex analysis and decision-making procedure with the aim of designating appropriate roads and trails. Both the Forest Service and BLM have been engaged in somewhat similar travel planning processes now for years, but some of the committee members didn’t seem to think those processes were going along so well.
“The BLM has identified travel management on its lands as ‘one of the greatest management challenges’ it faces,” stated committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-NM. “Likewise, the Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation — including ORV use — as one of the top four threats to the management and health of the National Forest System. Despite these statements, it seems to me that neither agency has been able to successfully manage off-road use.”
“Existing rules for managing off-road vehicles are not being enforced,” Bingaman added, and the agencies are ignoring unregulated use “with significant consequences for the health of our public lands and communities, and adverse effects on other authorized public land uses.”
But representatives for both the Forest Service and the BLM, while cleverly acknowledging the huge scale and complexity of the problem, seemed reluctant to admit any management failure.
BLM deputy director Henry Bisson explained that the off-road vehicle problem has been building over many years. “What was once the vast and spacious public land of the West that few knew about and fewer actively used for recreational purposes has now become something quite different.” He cited a combination of reasons to explain the dramatic increase in social conflicts and resource impacts: population increase in western towns, unauthorized user-created routes, explosive growth in the use of off-road vehicles, advances in technology and intense marketing by thrillcraft manufacturers.
Forest Service Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop called up statistics from a Forest Service telephone survey, The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, to show that the number of people “participating in OHV recreation” has grown dramatically. And indeed it has.
But sometimes the most interesting and illuminating statistics are the ones not mentioned. For instance, Holtrop seemed careful to avoid citing another, more obvious and detailed Forest Service survey completed in 2004. The National Visitor Use Monitoring Four Year Report survey reveals that even with the serious explosion in off-roading, visits by thrillcraft users still constitute less than six percent of all visits to the national forests. This tiny percentage of visitors are using and damaging a grossly disproportionate percentage of the public lands. Somehow, this fact was not mentioned.
Holtrop did say that even a few off-road vehicles can severely impact the forests. “The first motor vehicle driving across a particular meadow may not harm the land, but by the time 50 motor vehicles have crossed the same path a user-created trail will likely be left behind that causes lasting environmental impacts on soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Additionally, some visitors report that their ability to enjoy quiet recreation experiences is affected by the noise from motor vehicles.”
Holtrop also acknowledged that many of these user-created routes are inappropriate and may need to be closed. “These user-created routes are not part of the forest transportation system, did not undergo environmental analysis, were not designed and constructed for recreational use, and do not receive routine maintenance by the Forest Service,” he said. “Some of these routes may merit consideration, with appropriate environmental analysis, as potential additions to our transportation system. Others run through wetlands, riparian areas and stream channels, and their use by motor vehicles adversely affects water quality, causes erosion, and introduces invasive species. User-created routes causing unacceptable resource damage should not be designated for motor vehicle use.”
No one could have stated it any better. User-created routes in national forest and BLM lands have absolutely no business being given the status of a designated route, published by the agency on a map and handed out to visitors. Such designated status should be reserved for routes that are planned, that meet a purpose and need, are designed to be resilient and to avoid ecological damage, and are within the agency’s ability to maintain on a sustainable basis.
Which makes it all the more curious why Holtrop avoided mentioning another Forest Service document. The Forest Service deputy chief spent a great deal of time detailing the requirements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, subpart B, that requires the agency designate a system of routes and publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). But while spending more time on that subject than just about any other, he utterly failed to mention subpart A of the 2005 Rule, which first requires the agency analyze its lands and determine what a minimum road system would look like prior to moving on to the process of designating routes and publishing them on a map.
Subpart A — identifying a minimum road system — is a crucial, necessary step if the final mapped and published system of routes is to represent a rational and planned choice. Ignoring that step implies that the end product — the MVUM map and the route system it describes — will represent an impotent caving-in to off-road vehicle abuse. The fact that Subpart A was never mentioned during the hearing ought to give committee members pause.
Trout Unlimited’s Western Energy and ORV Coordinator Bradley Powell testified on behalf of the angling community, listing a host of “OHV horror stories” from his days working for the Forest Service. “In New Mexico, on the Santa Fe National Forest, I vividly remember the deep ruts and bog holes created in prime elk habitat. On the Tonto National Forest in Arizona there are areas that look like heavy equipment has cut deep incisions into the land. On a typical weekend day in the spring there is a dust cloud over the area that can be seen for miles.”
US Geographical Survey research ecologist Jayne Belnap told the committee that current off-road use is causing soil erosion and dust pollution — even when the road or trail lies unused. “Just the presence of the roads themselves produce dust, you don’t have to drive on them,” she said.
Recent studies have shown that dust pollution increases snowpack melt and reduces the delivery of late-season water into rivers and streams.
“The dust issue is going to be a major, major issue,” Belnap said. “We are going to have profound impacts on water delivery.” She quantified the problem as representing “billions of pounds of dust a year coming off these trails.”
Other witnesses called attention to the lack of enforcement of existing off-road laws. Frank Adams, Executive Director of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, pointed to the “feeling of anonymity that many of the OHV riders have because there is no way of identifying them or their vehicles.”
“Most states do not require a license plate for such vehicles,” he said. “Those states that do require tagging, the tags are not large enough to be seen without being in almost on top of the vehicle. If you are able to determine that there is a tag on the OHV, determining the tag number is almost impossible.”
Adams went on to call for federal incentives for state-run license plate programs for off-road vehicles and increased funding for enforcement.
But when Montana’s Senator Jon Tester grilled off-road vehicle group representatives Edward Moreland, Vice President for Government Relations, American Motorcyclist Association and Greg Mumm, Executive Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition about their willingness to support such a program, both cited the expense and bureaucratic difficulties faced by off-road vehicle users as their reason for not supporting more visible registration numbers or license plates. But Tester was not to be put off. He continued to question them about what it would take for them to support such a program. And they continued to cite the expense and difficulty as their primary objection. Finally, Tester asked them, what if the licenses were made free of charge and extremely easy to obtain, would that remove their objections? Curiously, both said they would still refuse to support it. Perhaps Adams’ comments about the “feeling of anonymity” that off-roaders cherish may be a more accurate way of getting at their real objections to vehicle ID numbers.
While off-road vehicle users may remain anonymous for the time being, the impacts of their recreation are finally being exposed to the light of day. And while it’s unlikely that Congressional awareness of these impacts will translate into new legislation at this point in time, it may well prove to be one more step towards increased agency commitments to educate off-road users and enforce policies that protect public resources.
— Franklin Seal is Wildlands CPR’s Communications Coordinator. He lives and works in Moab, Utah.