The Paiute All-Terrain Vehicle Trail
Located in central Utah, The Paiute ATV Trail (PT) is a large network of roads and “motorized trails” that have been linked and promoted for off-road vehicle recreation. PT routes range from custom-designed ATV-only tracks to paved roads through small towns; the majority of the PT uses ordinary dirt roads on federal public lands, sharing them with general traffic.
Most of the PT is located on lands within the Fishlake National Forest and parts of nearby Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. The route also crosses state, private, and town lands. It’s hard to get an accurate measure of the PT’s size; officials’ estimates range between 800 and 1500 total miles. As one off-roading website (atvutah.com) says, the PT is “a trail system with no beginning and no end.”
This endless system is not unique, but it’s older than most. In the late 1980s, the Fishlake National Forest and nearby BLM offices began mapping out a network of ATV trails. In 1990, the Fishlake announced the creation of the PT, publishing maps, signs and promotional materials, and making plans to expand the system.
The agencies initially built no new roads and so did not conduct a formal environmental analysis or public review. Many ATV facilities, new motorized trails and road improvements have been added to the PT since then. However, aside from a few small project assessments, the PT as a whole did not undergo environmental review until 2007, when the Fishlake reviewed their entire road system as part of forestwide travel planning.
The major force behind the PT is the recreation department of the Fishlake National Forest, working closely with the local Paiute ATV Trail Committee. In many arenas, such as grant applications, the Fishlake and the Committee act as one — in its early days the contact address for the Committee was c/o the Fishlake National Forest. The Richfield BLM field office, with fewer PT miles under its jurisdiction, is a lesser but still active partner.
Funding for the PT (including funds for route maintenance and construction, advertising and promotion, education, and law enforcement) comes from a variety of sources. The Forest Service itself contributes significant staff time and funds out of its general budget. The Utah State Parks Department contributes more than $50,000 a year with a matching grant for ATV rangers and route maintenance. Nearby towns and counties pay for law enforcement, advertising, road maintenance and search and rescue.
The Idea Spreads
ATV advocates across Utah and beyond boast of the PT’s economic and general success. The head of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council used it as an example of good “active management of OHV recreation” in congressional testimony on off-road vehicle abuse in June 2008. One Sierra Club brief notes, “Proponents of the Shoshone ATV Trail have repeatedly touted southern Utah’s Paiute Trail as a successful ATV trail system on which the Shoshone Trail would be modeled.”
The source of these glowing reports is not hard to pinpoint: it’s primarily the recreation department of the Fishlake National Forest. Max Reid, Natural Resources Specialist for the Fishlake, put it this way in a grant application for the Paiute Trail Rangers Program in 2003, “We get calls…wanting to know how we did it. We have participated in OHV workshops across the country telling the Paiute story.” The Fishlake also distributes an informal analysis of the PT’s impacts to local economies, claiming that the PT brings over $30 million a year to small towns in the area.
Given the PT’s reputation, it’s worth a closer look to find out whether these claims are true. Does the PT really have ecological and economic benefits? Have land managers fulfilled their responsibility to conserve natural resources and make decisions in a balanced and well-informed manner?
Costs and Benefits
When off-road vehicle advocates talk about the benefits of ATV trails, they frequently cite tourism dollars. Most of these claims can be traced back to an informal “economic white paper” written by Max Reid.
However, the paper’s conclusions, while appearing reasonable, don’t stand up to analysis. The study used unreliable methods and produced conflicting data, which was then interpreted subjectively. Estimates of PT visitors are overstated, tourism spending levels are attributed to many local users, and the economic analysis method is unorthodox [see sidebar on page 5 for more detail].
Protecting the Environment with ATV Trails
Now we return to the staffer’s suggestion: that we should create off-road vehicle play areas in order to corral damage. Users drive off-road and create new routes, so this reasoning goes, because existing routes do not provide satisfactory riding opportunities. Therefore, if we create a large enough route system, off-road vehicle damage will be negligible.
Does this hold up? One of the few objective ways to measure off-road vehicle damage is to look at the Forest Service’s own inventory of user-created routes. A 2006 inventory found 1,238 miles of unauthorized roads over the Fishlake’s 1.7 million acres. In comparison, the neighboring Dixie National Forest found 1,232 miles of unauthorized route over almost 2 million acres, a slightly lower density.
These results, put together with similar counts from other Western forests, indicate that the PT has not stopped people from driving off-road. In fact, the Fishlake has a higher density of user-created routes than do many forests without an ATV trail system. Further, this inventory of unauthorized routes does not count more generalized damage, such as areas denuded by ORV camping, mud bogging, driving in creeks and washes, or any of the habitat impacts made by the noise and general disturbance of off-road vehicles.
It also appears that the Forest Service doesn’t really know what the state of the Fishlake’s ecosystems are. Scientific studies tend to be either cursory or too specific to a certain area or population. This does not seem to be the fault of Fishlake scientists, but is instead a result of national Forest Service policies. With budgets strapped, the available money gets pointed towards the Forest’s highest priority — in this case, that is the promotion and maintenance of the Paiute ATV Trail and the road system, with a side of logging and grazing.
The need for real environmental analysis of the PT should have been satisfied by the Fishlake’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the new Travel Plan. However, the scientific analysis in the EIS is shallow and limited. While acknowledging that the road system has environmental impacts, the EIS excuses the Forest Service from further analysis by saying that the route system is better than the previous status, where much of the forest was open to cross-country driving.
The real answer to the question of whether the PT has significant ecological impacts is this: nobody knows. That is a problem. The Forest Service should know, or should be actively trying to find out, especially since the Fishlake has been touting the PT as a model of good management.
The Motivation Behind the Curtain
Here’s something curious: the ostensible reasons for creating the PT were curbing off-road vehicle damage and bringing money to local economies. But in 1989, ATVs were a blip on the radar as an economic or political factor. Powerful vehicles were confined to NASCAR, the autobahn, or sand dunes. Plodding, unglamorous ATVs were mostly used for farm and ranch work.
It doesn’t follow that the Fishlake would go to so much trouble to create an ATV trail system (anticipating a big cash machine), or to corral out-of-control off-road vehicles. There simply weren’t enough ATVs around to push the issue. So what motivated the Fishlake, and nearby residents, to create the PT in the first place?
I didn’t realize this was the question I needed to ask until I got the answer. A Piute County administrator told me she didn’t know of much economic impact due to the PT, but remembered that “they made the Paiute Trail because everyone was afraid the Forest Service was going to close a bunch of roads.”
While ATVs weren’t a big issue in Utah in 1989, wilderness designation was. The BLM had performed a wilderness inventory that was being challenged by the up-and-coming Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Preventing wilderness designation was the goal of motorized users and their agency allies, and roads were the way to do it. They still are, and that is the reason, more than dubious tourism money or a sudden desire to preserve the environment, that many are so protective of the PT and so eager to see the idea spread.
Conclusions
Exploring the PT system, I saw that the route system itself is extremely well cared for, in stark contrast to most public lands roads in Utah. The Fishlake deserves a lot of credit for their efforts to address problems and ensure that routes are well marked. They’ve built heavy fences and dirt berms around damaged areas, complete with signs telling off-roaders which routes are open and which closed. They put American flag stickers on route signs to cut down on vandalism, and built fence openings the maximum width of the vehicles that are allowed to pass through them. The Fishlake’s physical work on their route system should serve as a model for implementing other FS and BLM travel plans.
However, the Fishlake could have done all of that without ever designating an ATV trail system. While off-road vehicle advocates may consider the PT a model to follow, conservationists should consider it as one to challenge — aggressively. The PT has not reduced off-road vehicle damage, has pushed other resource management concerns aside, has encouraged more people to engage in motorized recreation, and has not brought demonstrably significant economic benefits to its host counties. Furthermore, the PT makes it more difficult to protect the natural landscape from off-road vehicle damage. In the end, the Paiute ATV Trail accomplishes just what its creators intended: it ensures that the forest will have more roads.
Particularly in the West, we have a growing population, a threatened climate, and a changing economy. The world is making itself anew before our eyes, and the shape of the new world depends on the decisions we make now. We must make them carefully.
PT visitation numbers are speculative, and probably inflated
PT user spending estimates are vastly inflated
Conclusion
Without extensive assistance from economic experts, it is difficult for anyone to prove any assertion about the PT’s economic impact. However, a critical look at the Fishlake’s numbers shows that their economic claims are speculative and highly inflated.
Most of the PT is located on lands within the Fishlake National Forest and parts of nearby Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. The route also crosses state, private, and town lands. It’s hard to get an accurate measure of the PT’s size; officials’ estimates range between 800 and 1500 total miles. As one off-roading website (atvutah.com) says, the PT is “a trail system with no beginning and no end.”
This endless system is not unique, but it’s older than most. In the late 1980s, the Fishlake National Forest and nearby BLM offices began mapping out a network of ATV trails. In 1990, the Fishlake announced the creation of the PT, publishing maps, signs and promotional materials, and making plans to expand the system.
The agencies initially built no new roads and so did not conduct a formal environmental analysis or public review. Many ATV facilities, new motorized trails and road improvements have been added to the PT since then. However, aside from a few small project assessments, the PT as a whole did not undergo environmental review until 2007, when the Fishlake reviewed their entire road system as part of forestwide travel planning.
The major force behind the PT is the recreation department of the Fishlake National Forest, working closely with the local Paiute ATV Trail Committee. In many arenas, such as grant applications, the Fishlake and the Committee act as one — in its early days the contact address for the Committee was c/o the Fishlake National Forest. The Richfield BLM field office, with fewer PT miles under its jurisdiction, is a lesser but still active partner.
Funding for the PT (including funds for route maintenance and construction, advertising and promotion, education, and law enforcement) comes from a variety of sources. The Forest Service itself contributes significant staff time and funds out of its general budget. The Utah State Parks Department contributes more than $50,000 a year with a matching grant for ATV rangers and route maintenance. Nearby towns and counties pay for law enforcement, advertising, road maintenance and search and rescue.
The Idea Spreads
ATV advocates across Utah and beyond boast of the PT’s economic and general success. The head of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council used it as an example of good “active management of OHV recreation” in congressional testimony on off-road vehicle abuse in June 2008. One Sierra Club brief notes, “Proponents of the Shoshone ATV Trail have repeatedly touted southern Utah’s Paiute Trail as a successful ATV trail system on which the Shoshone Trail would be modeled.”
The source of these glowing reports is not hard to pinpoint: it’s primarily the recreation department of the Fishlake National Forest. Max Reid, Natural Resources Specialist for the Fishlake, put it this way in a grant application for the Paiute Trail Rangers Program in 2003, “We get calls…wanting to know how we did it. We have participated in OHV workshops across the country telling the Paiute story.” The Fishlake also distributes an informal analysis of the PT’s impacts to local economies, claiming that the PT brings over $30 million a year to small towns in the area.
Given the PT’s reputation, it’s worth a closer look to find out whether these claims are true. Does the PT really have ecological and economic benefits? Have land managers fulfilled their responsibility to conserve natural resources and make decisions in a balanced and well-informed manner?
Costs and Benefits
When off-road vehicle advocates talk about the benefits of ATV trails, they frequently cite tourism dollars. Most of these claims can be traced back to an informal “economic white paper” written by Max Reid.
However, the paper’s conclusions, while appearing reasonable, don’t stand up to analysis. The study used unreliable methods and produced conflicting data, which was then interpreted subjectively. Estimates of PT visitors are overstated, tourism spending levels are attributed to many local users, and the economic analysis method is unorthodox [see sidebar on page 5 for more detail].
Protecting the Environment with ATV Trails
Now we return to the staffer’s suggestion: that we should create off-road vehicle play areas in order to corral damage. Users drive off-road and create new routes, so this reasoning goes, because existing routes do not provide satisfactory riding opportunities. Therefore, if we create a large enough route system, off-road vehicle damage will be negligible.
Does this hold up? One of the few objective ways to measure off-road vehicle damage is to look at the Forest Service’s own inventory of user-created routes. A 2006 inventory found 1,238 miles of unauthorized roads over the Fishlake’s 1.7 million acres. In comparison, the neighboring Dixie National Forest found 1,232 miles of unauthorized route over almost 2 million acres, a slightly lower density.
These results, put together with similar counts from other Western forests, indicate that the PT has not stopped people from driving off-road. In fact, the Fishlake has a higher density of user-created routes than do many forests without an ATV trail system. Further, this inventory of unauthorized routes does not count more generalized damage, such as areas denuded by ORV camping, mud bogging, driving in creeks and washes, or any of the habitat impacts made by the noise and general disturbance of off-road vehicles.
It also appears that the Forest Service doesn’t really know what the state of the Fishlake’s ecosystems are. Scientific studies tend to be either cursory or too specific to a certain area or population. This does not seem to be the fault of Fishlake scientists, but is instead a result of national Forest Service policies. With budgets strapped, the available money gets pointed towards the Forest’s highest priority — in this case, that is the promotion and maintenance of the Paiute ATV Trail and the road system, with a side of logging and grazing.
The need for real environmental analysis of the PT should have been satisfied by the Fishlake’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the new Travel Plan. However, the scientific analysis in the EIS is shallow and limited. While acknowledging that the road system has environmental impacts, the EIS excuses the Forest Service from further analysis by saying that the route system is better than the previous status, where much of the forest was open to cross-country driving.
The real answer to the question of whether the PT has significant ecological impacts is this: nobody knows. That is a problem. The Forest Service should know, or should be actively trying to find out, especially since the Fishlake has been touting the PT as a model of good management.
The Motivation Behind the Curtain
Here’s something curious: the ostensible reasons for creating the PT were curbing off-road vehicle damage and bringing money to local economies. But in 1989, ATVs were a blip on the radar as an economic or political factor. Powerful vehicles were confined to NASCAR, the autobahn, or sand dunes. Plodding, unglamorous ATVs were mostly used for farm and ranch work.
It doesn’t follow that the Fishlake would go to so much trouble to create an ATV trail system (anticipating a big cash machine), or to corral out-of-control off-road vehicles. There simply weren’t enough ATVs around to push the issue. So what motivated the Fishlake, and nearby residents, to create the PT in the first place?
I didn’t realize this was the question I needed to ask until I got the answer. A Piute County administrator told me she didn’t know of much economic impact due to the PT, but remembered that “they made the Paiute Trail because everyone was afraid the Forest Service was going to close a bunch of roads.”
While ATVs weren’t a big issue in Utah in 1989, wilderness designation was. The BLM had performed a wilderness inventory that was being challenged by the up-and-coming Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Preventing wilderness designation was the goal of motorized users and their agency allies, and roads were the way to do it. They still are, and that is the reason, more than dubious tourism money or a sudden desire to preserve the environment, that many are so protective of the PT and so eager to see the idea spread.
Conclusions
Exploring the PT system, I saw that the route system itself is extremely well cared for, in stark contrast to most public lands roads in Utah. The Fishlake deserves a lot of credit for their efforts to address problems and ensure that routes are well marked. They’ve built heavy fences and dirt berms around damaged areas, complete with signs telling off-roaders which routes are open and which closed. They put American flag stickers on route signs to cut down on vandalism, and built fence openings the maximum width of the vehicles that are allowed to pass through them. The Fishlake’s physical work on their route system should serve as a model for implementing other FS and BLM travel plans.
However, the Fishlake could have done all of that without ever designating an ATV trail system. While off-road vehicle advocates may consider the PT a model to follow, conservationists should consider it as one to challenge — aggressively. The PT has not reduced off-road vehicle damage, has pushed other resource management concerns aside, has encouraged more people to engage in motorized recreation, and has not brought demonstrably significant economic benefits to its host counties. Furthermore, the PT makes it more difficult to protect the natural landscape from off-road vehicle damage. In the end, the Paiute ATV Trail accomplishes just what its creators intended: it ensures that the forest will have more roads.
Particularly in the West, we have a growing population, a threatened climate, and a changing economy. The world is making itself anew before our eyes, and the shape of the new world depends on the decisions we make now. We must make them carefully.
Debunking the Paiute Trail Economic Analysis
PT visitation numbers are speculative, and probably inflated
- The Fishlake’s mechanical trail counter system has a significant “fudge factor,” and the data generated from them must go through a long process that is subject to high levels of sampling error and subjective interpretation.
- Since the PT is mostly on ordinary Forest roads, PT counters are “triggered” by people who are using those roads for purposes other than off-road vehicle recreation. However, those numbers are still counted as visitors to the PT.
- One informal survey, conducted by PT “ATV trail rangers,” found that 93% of PT users were using off-road vehicles. This number contradicts the standardized National Visitor Use Management survey conducted on the Fishlake in 2004. It found that only 11.3% of visitors to the Fishlake were there to ride off-road vehicles. This discrepancy is too large to be ignored. The Fishlake, however, does not factor its own official numbers into any analysis of the PT’s impact.
PT user spending estimates are vastly inflated
- The report estimates that a third of the users of the PT system come from local areas, a third from in-state metropolitan areas, and a third from out of state. But this estimate comes primarily from surveys conducted during the ATV Jamboree, which likely attracts a higher proportion of out-of-area riders than the PT attracts overall.
- The report’s figure of $110 per visitor per day is also derived from Jamboree surveys (which do generally jibe with state tourism figures). However, this figure should not be assigned to all PT visitors, as discussed above. Local riders bring little or no extra money to the economy, and should not be counted.
- The report uses an inflated spending “multiplier.” They do not cite their estimate that each tourism dollar “turns over” 4.5 times. A more typical multiplier for recreation dollars is 2, not 4.5.
Conclusion
Without extensive assistance from economic experts, it is difficult for anyone to prove any assertion about the PT’s economic impact. However, a critical look at the Fishlake’s numbers shows that their economic claims are speculative and highly inflated.