2009 Update: Six Strategies For Success

2009 Update

Six Strategies for Success Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands

Copyright © 2007, 2009 Wildlands CPR. All rights reserved. The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition works to protect and restore all public lands and waters from the damage caused by dirt bikes, jet skis and all other off-road vehicles. It uses a variety of legislative, administrative, legal, media, and grassroots strategies targeted at those who manage or make decisions or policies regarding our state and federal public lands.

Wildlands CPR works to revive and protect wild places by promoting watershed restoration through road removal, preventing new road construction, and stopping off-road vehicle abuse.

Wildlands CPR

Post Office Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807 Telephone: 406.543.9551 [email protected] www.wildlandscpr.org

Six Strategies for Success

Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands

2009 Update

Writer, researcher, and publication designer: Michele L. Archie, The Harbinger Consulting Group Research Assistant: Noah Jackson Editors: Howard D Terry, The Harbinger Consulting Group Bethanie Walder, Wildlands CPR Reviewers: Kristen Brengel and Vera Smith, The Wilderness Society; Anya Schoolman, Wyss Foundation; Jason Kiely, Wildlands CPR Project Support: This report was made possible with generous support from the 444S and Lazar Foundations. Cover photos Front cover, clockwise from top right—Off-road vehicle tracks surrounding Factory Butte, Utah (Ray Bloxham/Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance); Snowmobile incursion into closed area, California (Jeff Erdoes); Muddy ruts, Utah (Dan Schroeder); Unauthorized route, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida (Brian F. Call Photography); Jeep emerging from desert water hole, Pritchett Canyon, Utah (Kevin Walker/ Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance); Snowmobiler showing off behind wilderness sign, California (Jeff Erdoes). Back cover—Chris Alcantara/Dreamstime.com. Please note: The information contained in this report was collected through telephone interviews and other correspondance with multiple parties. While numerous efforts were made to verify the information collected, that verification did not include on-the-ground field checking. For that reason, it is possible that some of the examples and case studies included here may not be exactly indicative of conditions on the ground. The 2009 report update focused on adding information to the strategies presented in the original 2007 document. The case studies were not reviewed and updated.

Printed on recycled paper.

Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 2 Introduction to the 2009 Update .................................................................................. 4 Introduction to the 2007 Edition .................................................................................. 6 Enforcement Success Strategies

#1 Make a commitment Engage in serious enforcement efforts ............................................................................... 11 #2 Lay the groundwork Create enforceable routes and regulations ......................................................................... 18 #3 See and be seen Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration ..................................................... 23 #4 Make riders responsible Promote a culture shift among peers ................................................................................ 28 #5 Use the force Incorporate technologies that work................................................................................... 33 #6 Fit the punishment to the crime Make penalties meaningful............................................................................................. 35 Conclusion Keep track: Monitor to gauge progress and fine-tune action ............................................... 40 Case Studies

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and Bridger-Teton National Forest....................... 44 Commitment to Our Recreational Environment .......................................................... 46 Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area...................................................................... 48 Ocala National Forest ................................................................................................... 50 Friends of Fourmile ...................................................................................................... 52 References .................................................................................................................... 54 Interviewees and other contributors ............................................................................ 55 1

Executive Summary Over the past two decades, advances in off-road vehicle technology have enabled riders to drive on nearly any type of terrain, up steep slopes, and onto lands that once were accessible only on foot. At the same time, the popularity of off-road vehicle recreation has soared. Together, these forces have overwhelmed the regulatory and enforcement efforts of public lands agencies. The results: An extensive network of unauthorized, usercreated routes that criss-cross the landscape and a legacy of damage to environmental and cultural resources. Safety concerns for humans and wildlife, and conflicts among motorized and non-motorized recreationists have escalated. Public land management agencies are facing these challenges with inadequate enforcement funding and staff. They are unable to protect the lands under their stewardship, and at a loss to turn around the attitude of lawlessness alarmingly common among off-road riders. The common perception among off-road riders is that

breaking the rules some of the time is all right, especially if someone else has ridden off-route before and cut a visible trail. This has become a significant public problem because of the destructive capabilities of off-road vehicles. A strong commitment and effective approaches to enforcement are critically important for land managers to take control of this situation. This report recommends six strategies for enforcement success. It is based on interviews with more than 50 public land managers, private landowners, citizen group leaders and volunteers, and law enforcement officers. A brief concluding section underscores the importance of monitoring implementation and outcomes for all six strategies. Five case studies illustrate how these strategies have been combined to create on-the-ground successes in enforcing off-road vehicle rules; protecting wildlife habitat, water quality, and terrain; enhancing recreational enjoyment and safety; and minimizing impacts on adjacent public and private lands.

Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement 1) Make a commitment—Engage in serious enforcement efforts • • • • •

Expand enforcement capacity; Target and intensify patrol efforts; Do not tolerate damage from off-road vehicles; Clarify authority for enforcing off-road vehicle rules; and Enhance funding for enforcement.

2) Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes and regulations • • • • •

Create off-road vehicle route systems with an eye toward enforceability; Confine off-road vehicle use to appropriate areas; Make the route systems clear on maps and on the ground; Implement a system that identifies off-road vehicles or limits their number; and Clarify and strengthen off-road vehicle trespass rules.

3) See and be seen—Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration • • • • •

Organize and publicize volunteer labor; Form broad coalitions for public support; Formalize law enforcement collaborations; Retask agency staff to provide a greater educational presence in the field; Create opportunities for citizen reporting;

2 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

• •

Use nonprofit status to gather money; and Publicize progress.

4) Make riders responsible—Promote a culture shift among peers •

• • • • •

Use mass media campaigns to educate riders and cultivate support; Work with off-road community leadership; Focus on common values; Promote rider responsibility; Require training and certification for riders; and Expand educational efforts.

5) Use the force—Incorporate technologies that work • • •

Use remote electronic monitoring; Track noise violations; and Track recurring problems and repeat offenders.

6) Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties meaningful • • • •

• •

Toughen penalties; Consider natural resource damage in determining fines; Add community service as a penalty; Link off-road violations with other recreational privileges; Impound vehicles; and Make a steep, escalating scale of penalties for repeat offenders.

Which Strategies Best Fit Your Situation? The six strategies offer a range of actions that may be combined for maximum effectiveness in different circumstances. Use the following chart to help focus on strategies that are most applicable to the situation in your area or agency.

Situation Illegal route creation, trespass on closed routes Known illegal play areas and entrance points

Strategy #1 Make a commitment

Strategy #2 Lay the groundwork

✓

✓

✓

✓

Repeated off-road vehicle violations, attitude of lawlessness among riders

✓

Limited budgets and capacity for enforcement and monitoring

✓

Recently changed management of off-road vehicle travel and routes

✓

Conflicts among different recreation types

✓

Areas are difficult to monitor

Shared values such as wildlife, water quality, or pride in natural areas exist

✓

Strategy #4 Make riders responsible

✓

Strategy #5 Use the force

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Strategy #6 Fit the punishment to the crime

✓

✓

✓

Volunteers are available

New or renewed agency commitment to enforcement

✓

Strategy #3 See and be seen

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

Executive Summary 3

Introduction to the 2009 Update When Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands was published in 2007, off-road riding was one of the fastest-growing forms of recreation in the country. During the 1990s and early 2000s, off-road vehicle sales grew rapidly across the country, with dramatic increases in riders across virtually every region and age group. Sales have stagnated or even slipped a bit in the past few years, yet off-road vehicles still represent a significant challenge to public land managers, who remain at a management deficit for reasons outlined in the original Six Strategies report. These include increases in off-road vehicle use and outdoor recreation use in general; the destructive capacity of these vehicles; declining and sometimes unpredictable enforcement and education budgets; penalties that are difficult to impose and that do not deter violators; and a widespread disregard among riders for strict adherence to rules and designated routes. Off-road vehicle management has garnered much attention at the state and local levels since the research for Six Strategies was completed. Much of this update explores changes that states and localities have made— or are considering—to increase the effectiveness of offroad vehicle enforcement. In addition to legislative and regulatory activity across the country, a few states have convened advisory groups and commissioned reports to recommend changes to enhance the effectiveness of off-road vehicle management and enforcement. This update reviews some of those efforts, exploring an emerging consensus about what it will take to bring off-road vehicle use into line with the protection of natural areas and wildlife, reduce conflicts among public lands users, and improve safety. Finally, this update examines monitoring as an overarching and indispensible key to effective enforcement of off-road vehicles on public lands.

Management Changes Afoot on Federal Lands Across the country, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are implementing a new 4 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

…[E]nforcement is extremely difficult given the huge increase in ATV [all-terrain vehicle] usage on state conservation land and on private property, the mobility of the machines, and their use in rural or remote locations. Even when enforcement is successful, fines for the violation of most ATV regulations are not sufficiently high to act as a deterrent.” Report by the Massachusetts Environmental Law Enforcement Review Panel, March 2005, p. 20

approach to travel management that, in many instances, restricts vehicle use to designated routes only. As new travel management plans are put into place, crosscounty vehicle travel will be largely outlawed on federal lands. This policy represents a meaningful shift toward creating a more enforceable system of off-road vehicle routes. On Forest Service lands in particular, the designatedroute management approach puts the onus on riders, who are responsible for understanding and following motor vehicle use maps, riding only on routes and in areas that have been designated as open to offroad vehicle use. These systems of designated routes are unlikely to result in meaningful changes in rider behavior if they are not created with enforcement in mind. In addition, education and enforcement are critical to ensure that new route maps and regulations translate into riders keeping their vehicles on designated routes. As noted in the original Six Strategies report, significant percentages of ATV and off-road motorcycle riders

prefer to ride off-route, and, in one study, reported doing so on their last outing (Fisher 2001). Another study suggests that even riders who are inclined to be law-abiding commonly—and who know the fundamental “stay on the trail” principle—believe it is okay to occasionally ride cross-country or off designated routes (Monaghan 2001). Recent studies suggest this picture has not changed. A 2007 survey of Montana off-road vehicle users found that: •

Nearly a quarter (23 percent) say they always or sometimes ride off-route (even though off-route riding has been illegal in Montana since 2001);

•

More than a quarter (28 percent) said they never or only sometimes avoid riverside areas and wetlands;

•

Fewer than half reported always carrying maps showing land ownership and travel restrictions; and

•

Of the 64 percent of survey respondents who had used an off-road vehicle while hunting, more than half (58 percent) reported always or sometimes breaking the law by traveling off legal routes to retrieve hunted game animals.

Because it puts the onus on riders to know where they are and where it is acceptable to ride, the success of a designated-route-only vehicle management strategy depends in large measure on changing the culture and practice of off-road vehicle riding. Education is clearly essential, especially when undergoing a significant transition to more managed off-road vehicle recreation. However, a perceptible commitment to enforcement is equally indispensable, and must be combined with effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management.

What’s New in the Updated Version? W NE Look for the “new” icon to identify information that has been added or updated since the 2007 original. And see the new section on monitoring, beginning on page 40.

W

NE

U.S. Forest Service and BLM Rangers Pessimistic about Off-Road Vehicle Management A survey of federal rangers in the southwest United States found that most believe off-road vehicle problems are getting worse, not better, and that current penalties and enforcement efforts fail to provide much of a deterrent. •

More than half (53%) feel “off-road vehicle problems in my jurisdiction are out of control.”

•

74% say that off-road abuses “are worse than they were five years ago” while fewer than one in six (15%) believe the situation is improving.

•

Nearly two out of three (65%) think current penalties for ORV violators are not tough enough.

•

67% feel they lack or are uncertain if they “have the authority to confiscate ORVs used in violations of ORV use rules.”

•

62% believe their agency is not “prepared to deal with the ORV problems we are experiencing.”

•

78% do not think their department “devotes adequate resources to cope with ORV problems.”

Source: Rangers for Responsible Recreation, 2007

5

Introduction to the 2007 Edition Unmanaged recreation made former U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth’s list of four key threats facing national forests and grasslands in the 21st century. In this category, the chief highlighted impacts from offroad vehicles. He cited dramatic increases in this type of recreation and “impressive advances” in motor vehicle technology. This threat is equally significant on Bureau of Land Management terrain. The majority of the 264 million acres it manages is open to cross-country travel by offroad vehicles. Off-road vehicles are also allowed, to varying extents, on many units of the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, and Department of Defense lands. Changing technology has allowed off-road vehicles to be driven on nearly any type of terrain, up extremely steep slopes, and onto lands that were once accessible only on foot. When initial off-road vehicle restrictions were created in the 1970s and early 1980s, vehicle technology was simpler. Land managers could rely on the terrain itself to restrict off-road vehicle use. Advancing technology soon outstripped the ability of landscapes to restrict access by more modern off-road vehicles. Today, user-created routes have proliferated on public wildands in remote, rugged, and sensitive areas once thought to be “naturally protected.” Off-road riding is one of the fastest-growing forms of recreation in the country. From 1972 to 2004, the ranks of Americans who owned or used off-road vehicles grew from five million to 51 million (U.S. Forest Service 2006). With this 920 percent increase, the numbers of off-road vehicle users grew seven times faster than the population as a whole.

Mounting Pressure on Public Lands High-quality public lands are attracting increasing residential development to their borders. Populations are booming in many regions surrounding these natural areas—and off-road pressure has mounted. According to recent studies, only about six percent of national forest visits involve the recreational use of off-

6 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

road vehicles (English et al 2004). However, this small percentage of users has a huge impact on the landscape and the quality of recreation for other forest users. The price tag for public lands is hefty. A 2004 National Park Service internal survey revealed pervasive problems with illegal off-road vehicle use. Damage to natural and cultural resources and conflicts among visitors were reported in more than 70 of the system’s 400 units. In many other units, damage likely went undetected and unreported because of a lack of staff, funding, or procedures to monitor use and enforce existing rules. The Forest Service has documented at least 60,000 miles of “unclassified” roads on its lands. Some may have been legally constructed during timber sales or other management activities, but most were likely unauthorized, created by off-road vehicle riders.

A New Western Pastime The tremendous growth in popularity of off-road riding in western states offers a glimpse into the off-road riding boom nationwide.

Total increase

Average annual increase

U.S. sales of allterrain vehicles (1992-2000)

14%

1.5%

U.S. sales of offhighway motorcycles (1992-2000)

36%

4%

154%

25%

Western states sales of all-terrain vehicles and offhighway motorcycles (1995-2000)

Source: Monaghan & Associates. Status and Summary Report: OHV Responsible Riding Campaign. (Report to the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding, November 15, 2001.)

On Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest, for example, Chief Bosworth identified more than 1,000 user-created roads, stretching for more than 650 miles. User-created, “renegade” routes are a significant problem on all national forests except those few that do not allow off-road vehicles at all (the Hoosier in Indiana, the Monongahela in West Virginia, and the Chugach in Alaska, which allows snowmobiles, but no wheeled vehicles). As these routes spider-web across our public lands, so do environmental damage and safety concerns for non-motorized recreationists and wildlife.

Enforcement: The Short Leg of the Stool In the standard mantra of recreation managers, the “three Es” are essential to managing off-road vehicle use. Engineering, education, and enforcement form the three-legged stool on which the protection of our public resources rests. Yet, at the same time that off-road vehicle use and recreation use in general has boomed, public lands management and enforcement budgets have trended downward. This has happened even while land managers have requested greater funding to keep up with growing challenges and mandates. Other challenges to improving enforcement exist. Penalties are often difficult to raise or tailor to individual circumstances. Off-road vehicle use often crosses jurisdictional boundaries, placing a premium on collaboration across levels of government and agencies. Violators can be difficult to catch in the act, so building solid cases that stand up in court is equally challenging.

Off-Road Vehicles Defined Off-road vehicles include dirt bikes, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, swamp buggies, dune buggies, air boats, four-wheel drive vehicles when used offroad, and any other vehicle designed for and/or capable of off-road travel. The wheeled vehicles in this category are often referred to as off-highway vehicles (OHVs), with snowmobiles and personal watercraft sometimes treated separately. This terminology, however, can be misleading since most off-road vehicles are not street-legal, and are prohibited from public roads and highways. Many cannot even be driven on Forest Service roads. These vehicles are built for offroad travel, not simply off-highway travel.

National Park Service staff called illegal off-road vehicle use “one of our most pernicious management problems” on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which stretches from Maine to Georgia.

Yet, without a serious commitment to enforcement, education and engineering won’t protect natural areas from damage springing from uncontrolled or inappropriate use, including the creation of renegade, user-created routes. Off-road vehicles cause erosion, add sediments and contaminants to waterways, and spread noxious weeds. They allow incursions into sensitive habitat areas, and harass, stress, and kill wildlife. Absent effective enforcement, off-road vehicle use will continue to disrupt the quiet, natural experience of other public lands users, and present ongoing safety hazards to riders, other recreationists, and wildlife. Public land agencies are challenged to minimize the

Aerial view of damage from off-road vehicles, Big Cypress National Preserve. (Brian F. Call Photography)

Introduction 7

impacts and conflicts that result from wide-ranging offroad vehicle use by a small minority of visitors.

Countering Lawlessness Although off-road vehicle riders comprise a small proportion of public lands visitors, they can make a big impact. Off-road vehicle advocates maintain that most of the problems and violations can be traced back to “a few bad apples” in their ranks. But research suggests that most riders knowingly violate rules from time to time. A Utah study reported that large proportions of offroad vehicle riders prefer to ride off established trails, and many had done so recently (Fisher et al. 2001). (See “Off-Route Riding,” at right, for details.) In another study, off-road riders in Colorado demonstrated an awareness of the rules of vehicle use on public lands. Despite identifying “stay on the trail” as a fundamental principle, as many as twothirds of study participants go off-trail from time to time. Commonly, these riders believe it is okay to occasionally ride cross-country or off designated routes especially if routes have been previously cut by other riders (Monaghan 2001). These attitudes, held by people operating vehicles capable of great damage, are part of the destructive cycle that enforcement needs to break.

Where is the Money? Across federal agencies, law enforcement functions have been chronically underfunded. As battles are waged to boost enforcement budgets—only small fractions of which are dedicated to off-road vehicle enforcement— many agency units have turned to other sources to fill gaps in off-road vehicle enforcement. The two main

People figure it out pretty quickly if we don’t patrol consistently. Linda Merigliano Recreation and Trails Manager Bridger-Teton National Forest 8 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Off-Route Riding ATV riders

Prefer to ride off-route Rode off-route on last outing

Motorcycle riders

4x4 drivers

n=335 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: Fisher, Andrea L., et al., 2001. Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.

sources are managed at the state level, usually by state parks, recreation, or conservation agencies. In some instances, funds may be used for enforcement, but most off-road vehicle funding from these sources is used to develop, construct, and maintain motorized routes. State off-road vehicle recreation grant programs State programs are funded through fuel taxes and offroad vehicle user or registraton fees. Their grants go to government agencies to fund a variety of off-road vehicle recreation activities. In most states, these activities include enforcement, as well as trail building and maintenance, education, and restoration. Many states require community support of grant applications. Recreational Trails Program Funding for grants made under this program comes from federal fuel excise taxes. Funds are granted for the development and maintenance of motorized and non-motorized recreational trails and facilities. This program provides up to $70 million annually for trails activity, through 2009. A minimum of thirty percent of these funds are allocated to motorized recreation. The program is up for reauthorization in 2010 and appropriations and allocations could change as a result.

States set funding priorities for their grant programs. Funds may be used for off-road vehicle enforcement in some states. See the Federal Highway Administration website for details, including a list of state program administrators. Funding uncertainties The state grant programs and those funded by the Recreational Trails Program are highly competitive, often receiving many more grant applications than they can fund. Even successful programs that receive funding for several years may unexpectedly be cut off, leading to uncertainty in budgeting and hiring. Some programs, such as California’s, are considering funding multiyear grants to reduce uncertainty, especially for smaller jurisdictions.

About this Report Six Strategies for Success is designed for land managers and concerned citizens. It suggests strategies for boosting the effectiveness of enforcement to: • Protect wildlife habitat, water quality, terrain, and cultural resources; • Enhance recreational enjoyment and safety on our public lands; and • Minimize trespass and other impacts to adjacent private lands. This report’s foundation is a series of interviews with public land managers, private landowners, citizen group leaders and volunteers, law enforcement officers, and

Funding for Off-Road Enforcement—An Example from Montana On the Hebgen Lake District of Montana’s Gallatin National Forest, off-road vehicle regulations are implemented by four different types of enforcement personnel, each funded differently.

Position Law enforcement officers (year-round) Off-highway vehicle ranger (six-month seasonal)

Back-country/wilderness ranger (six-month seasonal)

Snow rangers (three-month seasonal)

Montana Off-Highway Vehicle Grant Program

Forest Service Budget

100% 10%

10%

90%

Recreational Trails Program

Notes Typically spend only a small part of their time on off-road vehicle enforcement. Responsible for enforcement, education, sign maintenance along routes. Grant funding is not guaranteed. It had been received for five years, but was not renewed for the 2007 season. Residual grant funding will covered only part of that season.

90% Focuses primarily on non-motorized and

wilderness trails, but also spends time on motorized trails and at trailheads. Grant funding is not guaranteed, but was received for the six years prior to 2007.

100% Enforce winter regulations and patrol wil-

derness boundaries. Funding has not been consistent or sufficient, and the rangers’ season is sporadic.

Source: Milton Fusselman, Hebgen Lake Ranger District, personal communication, January 2007.

Introduction 9

others involved with enforcing off-road vehicle use on public land. These interviews confirmed the need for more on-the-ground resources, greater commitment, and smarter, more innovative enforcement. Where offroad vehicle use is appropriate and allowed on public lands, it must also be enforced. This report identifies six strategies for enforcement success: 1) Make a commitment—Engage in serious enforcement efforts; 2) Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes and regulations; 3) See and be seen—Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration; 4) Make riders responsible—Promote a culture shift among peers; 5) Use the force—Incorporate technologies that work; and 6) Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties meaningful.

A brief concluding section underscores the importance of monitoring implementation and outcomes for all six strategies, and offers examples of approaches to monitoring, and digesting and disseminating collected information

Most efforts weave more than one component into a more comprehensive strategy or model for improving enforcement. Thus, the report wraps up with several case studies that illustrate how organizations, agencies, and collaborations have put these models into action.

The next section details each of these six approaches, offering insights into when they are most appropriate and examples of how to implement these strategies. Stories from the field illustrate many of these action examples. New ideas and challenges round out each strategy.

Riders on an eroded trail. (Dan Schroeder)

How Federal Agencies Stack Up on Law Enforcement Acres per uniformed law enforcement officer

Visitors per uniformed law enforcement officer

Enforcement as percentage of total agency budget

National Park Service

32,000

161,000

5.9%

Bureau of Land Management

1,044,000

211,500

2.7%

U.S. Forest Service

358,000

652,000

1.8%

Data are from fiscal year 2004. (Figures represent all law enforcement activity, only a small portion of which is directed at off-road vehicle enforcement.) Source: USDA Forest Service, 2005. Internal memo proposing enhancements for the law enforcement and investigations program in fiscal year 2006. Published by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

10 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Enforcement Success Strategy #1

Make a commitment

Engage in serious enforcement efforts

Use this approach when… Illegal route creation is a persistent problem; An atmosphere of lawlessness prevails; Agency law enforcement budgets and staff are stretched thin; New rules, route designations, and other changes are being implemented; or

concentrating authority are equally important steps, as are providing sufficient funding for enforcement. Further, an interagency working group in New Mexico recommended biennial training in off-road vehicle enforcement issues for all law enforcement officers in the state.

Tactics 1) Expand enforcement capacity.

Historically, enforcement has been lax.

• Create formal agreements to clarify, share, and fund law enforcement duties. Cooperative and cost-sharing agreements may involve land Making a serious commitment to enforcement is a managers, law enforcement, funding agencies, and/ critical underpinning to success for all of the approaches or citizens groups. Agreements may be formalized outlined in this report. Without this foundational through memoranda of understanding. commitment, efforts to create enforceable off-road vehicle management systems will not get the job In some cases, land management agencies have done. This commitment is essential to effective citizen agreed to share law enforcement duties on lands collaborations, responsible riding ethics, and sustained that cross management boundaries or where more use of technologies and penalties. than one authority has jurisdiction. For instance, federal agencies have signed agreements with W In 2007, the Massachusetts state government county sheriff’s departments and state fish and NE convened a working group of off-road vehicle game agencies to add enforcement capacity. stakeholders to recommend means of improving These cooperative agreements are important education and enforcement on public and private because, while an agency may have authority to lands. Asked at its first meeting about the single enforce off-road vehicle violations, that does not most important issue to address, the working group guarantee action. This is the case in Montana, identified, with near unanimity, insufficient capacity among law enforcement agencies to deal with off-road vehicle complaints and offenses. The working group pointed out that this problem is shared by the state What’s lacking is the assurance of Office of Environmental Law Enforcement, the state tough enforcement and evidence Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and local law enforcement agencies. of backbone needed to bring this Capacity remains a critical issue across agencies and levels of government. But it is not the only issue that stands in the way of making a serious commitment to off-road vehicle enforcement. Recent recommendations and actions by states suggest that clarifying and

runaway problem under control.

—Jim Furnish Former deputy chief, U.S. Forest Service Strategy #1: Make a commitment 11

where the Fish Wildlife and Parks department adopts Forest Service travel plans into its regulations. Violations can be enforced by game wardens during hunting season. However, with its limited staff, enforcing off-road vehicle violations is not an agency priority. For example: A citizen’s group called Commitment to Our Recreational Environment (CORE) spearheaded efforts to boost enforcement on public lands in California’s Calaveras River watershed. CORE supported the local sheriff’s application for state grant funds to hire a full-time off-road vehicle deputy, and later, a half-time deputy. Grant funds have also enabled the sheriff’s department to purchase off-road vehicles for enforcement. Personnel cost: $65,000 annually for the full-time deputy $18,000 for the part-time deputy A memorandum of understanding between the sheriff’s department and the state Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Commission, which allocates the grant funds, details this arrangement. • Add agency enforcement staff by upgrading field staff to forest protection officers (FPOs). FPOs undergo a 40-hour training course to enable them to assist law enforcement officers by making public contacts and issuing citations. They are not uniformed or armed.

vehicles (including off-road vehicles) on any public land in Colorado unless that use is authorized by the controlling land management agency. It grants state peace officers authority to enforce this prohibition, effectively increasing the potential enforcement of new designated-routes-only travel plans on Colorado’s national forests and BLM lands. In Colorado, the pool of peace officers includes some 150 Division of Wildlife enforcement officers, who are the most likely to be involved in enforcing this law. The law was designed to bolster enforcement efforts of the Forest Service and BLM. In 2004, on average across the country, a uniformed Forest Service law enforcement officer covered nearly 360,000 acres, while a uniformed BLM law enforcement officer covered over 1 million acres. This legislation (which originated as 2008 Colorado House Bill 1069), included several features key to garnering support from a broad coalition of hunting, off-road vehicle, and other outdoor recreation groups, the Division of Wildlife and wildlife conservation organizations, and federal agencies. These include: 1) A statement that the act’s prohibitions do not restrict the Colorado Wildlife Commission’s authority to regulate motor vehicle use on lands it controls, nor interfere with legitimate

For example: The Ocala National Forest (Florida) trained 15 recreation technicians as forest protection officers. These staff members are now able to cite off-road vehicle riders for violations such as riding through wetlands.

W NE • Give state law enforcement officers authority to enforce off-road vehicle travel restrictions on all public lands. Especially in states with large tracts of federal land, this measure can dramatically increase law enforcement presence on public lands. For example: In 2008, Colorado set a national precedent with the passage of the Division of Wildlife Cooperative Law Enforcement act. This act makes it a state offense to operate motor 12 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Off-road vehicle riders are typically more receptive to a patroller who approaches them on a similar vehicle than on foot or in a truck. (Bridger-Teton National Forest)

motor vehicle use by Colorado businesses and individuals, including for allowed agricultural uses, ski area operations, and logging; 2) Delay in enforcing the act’s provisions until the controlling land management agency has made publicly available information about whether motor vehicles are allowed on a route (through maps, route markers, or signs); and 3) A sunset clause that repeals the act in 2013, to force review of the law’s effectiveness and revisions as needed. The law establishes violation of motor vehicle travel restrictions or destruction of signage as a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a fine of $100 outside wilderness and $200 inside wilderness areas. If the person was engaged in hunting, fishing or trapping at the time of the violation, the law specifies penalties of five to fifteen license suspension points, depending upon the violation. (In 2008, the U.S. Forest Service increased its fines in Colorado to $250 for operating a motor vehicle outside a designated route or area and $500 for motor vehicle use inside a wilderness area. Fines are now similar on other federal lands in Colorado. Offending acts may incur citations from both state and federal law enforcement officers.) Finally, the law requires an annual report to the legislature of the number of citations issued and convictions achieved under this law, and the status of Forest Service and BLM efforts to notify the public of travel restrictions. 2) Target and intensify patrol efforts. • Conduct saturation patrols to raise the profile of enforcement and to increase the likelihood that violators will be caught. Saturation patrols involve flooding an area with law enforcement personnel and sometimes using additional methods such as airplane overflights for spotting violators. Because of their intensity, saturation patrols often require participation from additional law enforcement officers from surrounding jurisdictions or other agencies. This support must be arranged through cooperative agreements, but

such patrols do not necessarily require a formal memorandum of understanding. • Use overflights to scan for violations, especially in remote areas where enforcement is difficult. Coordinate overflights with on-the-ground law enforcement efforts. For example: In eastern Montana, a large landscape with little tree cover and few natural barriers, saturation patrols on the C.M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge are often combined with annual deer and elk counts. Sometimes, they are scheduled during high-use times such as the last few days of hunting season. As state fish and wildlife staff fly over looking for animals, they also spot off-road vehicles. The spotters radio information about illegal activity to law enforcement personnel stationed near popular access points. • Boost enforcement efforts during times when violations are most likely to occur. For example: On holiday weekends, county sheriff’s deputies join law enforcement officers at Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. • Adjust the level of enforcement as new rules take effect. For example: During the first season of major changes to off-road vehicle rules on a portion of the Bighorn National Forest (Wyoming), enforcement efforts focused primarily on education about the new regulations and where to ride. Only repeat or flagrant violators were cited. Law enforcement personnel noted that most violations seemed to be due to a genuine lack of knowledge that the rules had changed. Recreation staff and law enforcement officers carried maps that identified open routes, as well as where new routes or connectors were being constructed. Staff members were able to convey the major reasons for managing motorized travel, as well as reasons for specific route designations. During the second season, education was still an important component of law enforcement contacts with off-road riders. However, formal warning notices and citations with fines attached were commonly issued, as well. Strategy #1: Make a commitment 13

3) Do not tolerate damage from off-road vehicles. • Use area protection orders to address chronic or emerging off-road vehicle problems. More than one interviewee suggested that ignoring problem situations will only lead to them becoming intractable and even more difficult to resolve. An “area protection order” is issued by agency land managers to protect the natural resources of particular areas or trails from considerable adverse effects caused by motorized vehicles. Such an order indefinitely prohibits the use of vehicles. Area protection orders are authorized under Sec. 9. Special Protection of the Public Lands from Executive Order 11989 as it amends Executive Order 11644.

W NE 4) Clarify authority for enforcing off-road vehicle rules. As off-road vehicle recreation has grown and state management evolves, common-sense and sometimes simple clarifications of authority may still be needed. • Clearly designate enforcement authority. For example: In 2007, Rhode Island enacted a law that clarified the authority of state conservation officers regarding off-road vehicles. The law added

all-terrain vehicles to the list of areas over which conservation officers have enforcement power. • Centralize state off-road vehicle management and enforcement authority in a single agency, which can coordinate the state’s efforts. For example: In New Mexico, a 26-member state board is in charge of administering aspects of the state’s 2005 Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act. A 2008 state interagency advisory report, commissioned by the state legislature, found that this board “lacks the resources, authority, and complex administrative structure to address the full range of issues involved in managing off-road vehicle recreation.” The report recommends that management and enforcement be centralized in an agency such as the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, along with sufficient authority, staffing, and budget. This move would bring New Mexico in line with how off-road vehicles are managed in most states.

W NE 5) Enhance funding for enforcement. • Create a dedicated funding stream. For example: In 2008, responding to a 347 percent increase in off-road vehicle use since 1998, the Arizona legislature created an Off-Highway Vehicle User Indicia to be issued by the Arizona

Snowmobile damage to whitebark pines in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada. This area is closed to motorized travel. The slow-growing whitebark pines are an important food source for wildlife in this high-elevation area. (Jeff Erdoes)

14 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Department of Transportation. The annual $25 fee and display of the decal on the vehicle’s license plate allows an off-road vehicle to be operated off of improved and maintained roads within the state. (Vehicles operating on private land do not need to display this decal.) Seventy percent of the proceeds from annual decal fees will augment the existing Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund, creating additional resources for off-road vehicle facilities development and management, as well as enforcement. (The remaining revenues from indicia sales will go into the state’s Highway User Revenue Fund.) The Arizona Game and Fish Department receives 35 percent of the monies in the OHV Recreation Fund for off-road vehicle education and enforcement. • Boost registration compliance. For example: A 2008 report by the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement Working Group recommends directing fines recovered from off-road vehicle violations—as well as revenues from registration and other sources—to

a new Off Highway Vehicle Program fund. The fund would support enforcement, education, acquisition and management of trails and facilities, and a local grants program for enforcement and trail systems. The same report suggests boosting registration compliance and revenues by making the off-road vehicle registration process more convenient for vehicle owners. Recommendations include expanding the network of registration sites beyond the five existing offices, and authorizing dealers to register off-road vehicles. Vehicle registrations are now renewable online. • Fine-tune management and allocation of funding sources. For example: The 2008 New Mexico interagency report previously described recommended that the legislature increase the cap on registration fees from $30 to $44. This would allow the agency to be charged with managing off-road vehicle use more latitude in implementing and funding an effective program.

Legislated Division of Funds from Arizona’s Off-Highway Vehicle User Indicia Sales

60%

Ariz. State Park Board

Funds maintenance and repair of routes; construction of new off-road vehicle areas and facilities; enforcement of off-road vehicle laws; information and education programs, signage and maps; resource protection and restoration including closure of existing routes, areas, and access roads; and environmental, historical and cultural clearance and compliance activities. Not more than 35% of these funds may be used for constructing new trails.

35%

Ariz. Game & Fish Dept. Pays for seven full-time enforcement staff, and funds informational and educational programs about safety, the environment, and responsible offhighway vehicle use.

5%

Ariz. State Land Dept. Pays for costs associated with off-road vehicle use of state lands, including mitigating damage, going through necessary environmental, historical and cultural clearance or compliance activities, and enforcement.

Strategy #1: Make a commitment 15

Other funding recommendations in the report include revising how the state administers its federal Recreational Trails Program fund to allow the use of funds for enforcement. (This program is described on pages 8-9.) The New Mexico report also recommended using a portion of the State Trail Safety Fund for enforcement. The 2005 law that created the State Trail Safety Fund did not allocate funds proportionally among enforcement, promoting safety, and providing a statewide system of off-road vehicle trails. The state tourism department currently makes spending decisions for the fund. Note: Legislative and regulatory allocation of funds from off-road vehicle registration fees, indicia sales, and other sources should clearly designate a fixed or minimum percentage for enforcement and a fixed or maximum percentage for new route development and land acquisition for new riding areas. Pressure from the off-road riding community for expanded riding opportunities can skew the allocation of available funds toward route expansion and away from enforcement. Since

enforcement capacity is already sorely lacking in public land management agencies, designating funds for enforcement is essential. • Find new funding sources. While often used for route construction, funds from many state fuel tax off-road vehicle recreation grant programs can be used for enforcement. This use of funds is becoming more common, although some programs restrict the proportion of annual grant funding that may be used for enforcement. In Washington, for example, only 30 percent of the state’s Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicles Activity Program (NOVA) funding may be used for education and enforcement. For example: When the Bighorn National Forest changed its off-road vehicle rules, grant money from the Wyoming State Trails Program supported additional field enforcement and purchased patrol vehicles. Funding for the State Trails program comes from off-road vehicle registration and user fees and gas tax distributions.

Enforcement Works On the Hebgen Lake Ranger District in Montana’s Gallatin National Forest, a small investment in off-road vehicle enforcement has paid big dividends. In 2001, the district hired a seasonal off-road vehicle ranger using state grant funds. During his five-year tenure, he has seen big changes. Year 1

Year 4

Violation rate among off-road vehicles encountered

67%

4%

Most common violations

Resource damage, off-trail riding, riding in closed areas

Missing decals, children without helmets, careless and reckless riding

Additional observatons

Violations were reduced while the number of off-road vehicles encountered tripled from Year 1, due to better patrolling. Resource recovery and a significant decline in new resource damage were noted.

Activities: Enforcement, trail and sign maintenance, wilderness boundary patrol, and education in local schools and rental shops. Annual investment: $16,000 for six months. Status: Questionable due to lack of continued grant funding. 16 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

New ideas W NE • Set triggers for removing motorized route or area designation that are linked to reported or detected violations, user conflicts, or resource damage. The 2008 New Mexico interagency report recommended using triggers as a way to protect environmentally sensitive areas. They can also be used to protect areas near where motorized use causes conflicts with the majority of other uses nearby. Problem areas could be marked with a special sign letting users know that the route or area is in danger of being closed if misuse continues. • Create systems that facilitate citizen involvement in enforcement, such as statewide off-road vehicle enforcement hotlines similar to hotlines that welcome tips to help track down poachers.

Challenges Biases of local law enforcement personnel can make a big difference in how seriously enforcement is conducted. For example, on the Stanislaus National Forest (California), informal agreements between the Forest Service and one sheriff’s department have led to cooperation in off-road vehicle enforcement. But the sheriff’s department in a neighboring county takes a hands-off approach to off-road vehicle management,

and will not engage in cooperative enforcement efforts. This results in mixed messages to off-road riders. Relationships among enforcement agencies vary from state to state. Understanding these relationships is critical to the ability to change or expand them for better off-road vehicle enforcement. Roads and routes often cross agency and county jurisdictions. This places a premium on coordination among different management and enforcement agencies, as well as citizen groups and conservation organizations. If, for example, one jurisdiction allows travel off-road and the adjacent jurisdiction does not, this confuses riders and reduces enforcement capacity. Confusion can also stem from differences in regulations governing camping, game retrieval, and other activities. Routes on public lands also often pass through private lands and through public lands where grazing permittees are responsible for the safety of their livestock and for environmental damage. This scenario requires close consultation with the landowners and permittees. Additional training and support may be needed for law enforcement officers and, especially, forest protection officers. Officers can encounter potentially violent situations, and as one district ranger noted, “A lot of situations are testy to begin with, because we’ve allowed certain uses for so long that they’ve come to be seen as rights. Nine times out of ten, if you let them blow through this, you can have a reasonable conversation. Those skills are critical.”

Strategy #1: Make a commitment 17

Enforcement Success Strategy #2

Lay the groundwork

Create enforceable routes and regulations Use this approach when… Agency staff is unable to enforce and monitor widespread networks of routes and open areas; Creation of illegal routes is a persistent problem; Use of closed routes is ongoing; Natural or cultural resources, or other users, are affected by motorized use; Violators claim or appear not to understand regulations; or The agency is making a new commitment to enforcement. The Forest Service and BLM transitions to designatedroute off-road vehicle management systems provide perhaps the most sweeping example of this strategy. Other levels of government are also transforming the off-road vehicle landscape by implementing systems that control off-road vehicle use, or direct it to or away from certain areas.

Tactics 1) Create off-road vehicle route systems with an eye toward enforceability. • Designate routes and open areas based on on-theground knowledge and observation. Factors may include physical conditions; impacts to habitat, quiet recreationists, water and wildlife resources; how riders use specific routes; problem areas; and rider preferences (e.g., loop and connecting trails, access to developed facilities, and so forth). W NE For guidance in designating and managing offroad vehicle routes on forested lands, rely on best management practices detailed in the 2008 document, Best Management Practices for OffRoad Vehicle Use on Forestlands (Wildlands CPR and Wild Utah Project, 2008).

18 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

• Do not legitimize unauthorized, renegade routes by adding them to the system or even considering them for designation. • Create buffers around residential areas and ecologically sensitive zones such as streams. For example: In the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, there is a two-mile sound buffer between designated off-road vehicle routes and residential areas. • Limit motorized staging areas to a few points that law enforcement officers can quickly access and reliably find violators as they return to their passenger vehicles. • Create routes within contained areas (e.g., between ridgetops or within small watersheds). This makes enforcement easier, contains noise, and discourages the proliferation of user-created routes across the landscape. • Designate separate areas for motorized and nonmotorized recreation. For example: On the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho, winter recreation areas in the Wood River Valley are delineated by ridgelines. Some are designated for motorized or nonmotorized use only, and some are left open for shared use. Using natural features as boundaries is critical in winter, when other landmarks may be covered with snow.

Most existing roads and trails on public lands were created by use over time, rather than planned and constructed for specific activities or needs. Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum 1600 (210)/8300 (250) P

• Conduct joint planning across adjacent lands that are managed by different agencies—or different entities within the same agency—to ensure consistency in rules and enforcement methods. For example: In southern Colorado, the Forest Service and BLM have joined offices and functions under a program called Service First. As a result, they have jointly developed travel management plans for adjacent BLM and Forest Service lands, such as in the Molas Pass Winter Travel Management Plan.

W NE 2) Confine off-road vehicle use to appropriate areas. • Implement a designated-route system. For example: States are also implementing designated-route systems. A new Arizona statute (originating as 2008 Arizona Senate Bill 1167) restricts off-road vehicle operation to roads, trails, routes, or areas that are open under the regulations of a federal agency, the state of Arizona, a county, or a municipality. This law also bans off-road vehicle use where it is disallowed by federal, state, or local rules or by proper posting on private land. Violations are classified as Class C misdemeanor offenses. Further, the law specifies the following as misdemeanors: • Damaging wildlife habitat, riparian areas, cultural or natural resources, and property or improvements by driving off an existing road or route; • Violations of rules, regulations, ordinances or codes that protect the environment (including animals and plants) from damage, pollution, or impairment; and • Placing or removing a regulatory sign governing off-road vehicle use, unless acting as an agent of an appropriate authority. The legislation exempts private landowners and lessees performing normal agricultural or ranching practices on private or leased land.

• Ban off-road vehicle use where it is disruptive or creates conflicts. For example: In April 2008, the city of Huntington, West Virginia, banned off-road vehicle use on public roads and public property within city limits. The ban was prompted by concern over noise complaints, children driving without protective gear, and erosion caused by driving on the city’s flood wall. The city police department requested the ordinance. Violations are punishable by a fine of $500 and/or 30 days in jail, as well as vehicle impoundment. Though the law applies to minors, the municipal court is limited in its power to levy such hefty fines against juveniles, which likely means lesser penalties. The ordinance does not provide for accountability of parents or guardians in the case of juvenile convictions. The vehicle impoundment provision has raised concerns that the city might be stuck footing the daily fee for impounded vehicles that are left unclaimed. Further, the proposed citywide ban on off-road vehicle use was amended to apply only to public roadways and government land. Thus, the “backyard exception,” which allows off-road vehicle use to continue on private property, leaves neighbors with no protection against noise. • Make it harder to ride off designated routes. For example: Obliterate renegade routes or routes that are no longer open to off-road vehicle use. Ron Wiseman, Judith District Ranger on the Lewis and Clark National Forest (Montana), called route obliteration the only “close to 100 percent effective way to stop off-road violations and impacts.” On his district, the primary approach to route obliteration is to get rid of the road prism, drag debris over the route, and let it reseed naturally. (The prism is the primary structure or foundation of the road.) Because route obliteration benefits soils, watersheds, and wildlife, while making off-road vehicle enforcement easier, Wiseman said it is relatively easy to fund this activity from multiple parts of his district’s budget. Grouping many

Strategy #2: Lay the groundwork 19

miles of routes in proximate areas together into one obliteration contract brings costs down. In 2008, the district obliterated 22 miles of closed and renegade routes at a cost of about $70,000. In 2009, an additional 28 miles will be removed. 3) Make the route system clear on maps and on the ground. • Make signs and mapping clear and consistent system-wide. Print maps in full color and at a sufficient scale to be easily read, especially where there are multiple routes and boundaries. For example: The Forest Service and BLM manage most of the 100,000 acre “Fourmile” area of Colorado’s Arkansas river drainage. In 2000, the agencies initiated a travel planning process for the entire area to make regulations consistent across agency boundaries. One color map now shows designated roads and trails for the whole Fourmile region, with detailed maps of off-road vehicle areas. Route markers are consistent across the entire area, regardless of jurisdiction, to avoid confusion. • Institute polices that designate all routes and areas closed to off-road vehicle travel unless posted or mapped as open. • Restore or camouflage closed or problem routes, focusing on visible entrances. One study of offroad rider behavior in Colorado found that, while riders know the rules about staying on authorized routes, there is a widespread sentiment that it is acceptable to break these rules from time to time, especially if someone else had already cut a path (Monaghan 2001). When no renegade path is visible, riders may be more likely to stay on designated routes. • Install effective physical barriers to prevent access to closed areas or routes. 4) Implement a system that makes off-road vehicles easy to identify or limits their number. • Designate all routes within a management area as roads, bringing into play any state regulations concerning licensing of off-road vehicles. 20 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

For example: On Montana’s C. M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, all routes have been designated as roads. Under Montana law, off-road vehicles operated on state roads must be street-legal and display a small state license plate. Law enforcement officers are more easily able to identify vehicles that are not allowed on the refuge. This approach sends a basic message about responsible vehicle use and eliminates use by riders under 15 years of age.

W NE 5) Clarify and strengthen off-road vehicle trespass rules • Align rules for off-road vehicles on public and private land. For example: In its discussions, the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement Working Group agreed the best way to control vehicular trespass is to treat the landscape as a whole, providing similar protections for lands managed by the state and private landowners, including conservation lands managed by nonprofit organizations. The working group’s recommendations addressed two sections of the state code—one covering motor vehicle trespass, and one specifically addressing offroad vehicles. In legislation that resulted from the group’s recommendations, the following changes clarified and strengthened vehicular trespass provisions: 1) Trespass laws were clarified to stipulate that private landowners enjoy protection from motor vehicle trespass regardless of whether their land is posted. This mirrors the existing state policy under which motorized use is authorized only on state lands that are designated and posted open to off-road vehicle use. 2) Off-road vehicle laws were amended to contain a similar provision, stating that, except in case of emergency, off-road vehicles may not be operated on private property unless: a) By the owner or an immediate family member;

Colorado’s Friends of Fourmile group relied on volunteers to put together a full-color map of motorized and mountain bike trails. A larger version is included on informational materials the group’s volunteers hand out to area users. (Friends of Fourmile chapter of the Greater Arkansas River Nature Association)

We’ve reduced our reliance on law enforcement presence through steps we’ve taken to manage off-highway vehicles —motorized area designations, a ban on alcohol outside developed areas, and permit-based, dispersed designated campsites. In 1992, we would have needed a small army to write tickets for all the violations. Everyone with any law enforcement training was called out to work 14- to16-hour days on holiday weekends. Now, it’s like night and day. Even as a supervisor, I could take a holiday weekend off if I wanted to. Sharon Stewart Dispersed Recreation Supervisor Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon Strategy #2: Lay the groundwork

21

b) The operator is carrying signed documentation of landowner permission or evidence of belonging to a group that has such permission; or c) The area is designated for off-road vehicle use and posted in a state-approved manner. 3) Off-road vehicles were restricted to crossing public ways using crossings that are designated, marked and approved by appropriate state or local authorities as part of a public or private trail system. These recommendations, along with many others from the working group, were incorporated into legislation that passed the Massachusetts Senate in 2008, but was not voted on by the house. The bulk of this legislation is now included in three separate bills being considered by the 2009 legislature. • Take the burden off private landowners by extending the protection of vehicle trespass laws to all private land, regardless of whether it is posted. For example: In October 2008, the York County (South Carolina) Council passed a law requiring those who ride off-road vehicles on private land to carry written permission from the landowner. The rule also applies to dirt bikes and larger vehicles such as Jeeps. The penalty for riding without permission is a fine of $300 to $500 or imprisonment for 30 days. The law allows deputies to charge both the violating riders and the owners of the vehicles. The ordinance also holds parents accountable for children who do not follow the rules. Under the new law, officers must have probable cause to enter private property. Most often, this would be a complaint from a landowner about illegal riding. Riverside County, California, adopted a similar ordinance in 2004. Its ordinance survived legal challenges. It establishes a sliding scale of penalties ranging from $100 for a first offense to $1,000 and/or six months in jail for third and subsequent offenses.

22 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

New ideas • Take a “landscape approach” to designating routes for off-road vehicle use in suitable and manageable areas. Make clear and system-wide route designations within specified areas that are appropriate for off-road use. These zones might be bounded by natural features such as ridgelines and waterways, or by roads that law enforcement can readily patrol. The landscape approach provides an opportunity to address multiple recreation management issues concurrently, and provides a mechanism for separating incompatible uses. Under this approach, some areas are designated for motorized use while others are managed for wildlife habitat, other recreational activities, water quality, or other values. •

Designate off-road vehicle routes based on an analysis of where the management agency has the financial and personnel resources to sign, enforce, monitor, and maintain such use.

Challenges An attachment to “the way things were” among off-road vehicle riders and other recreationists can make change difficult. The interface between public lands and adjacent private lands can make developing enforceable route systems challenging, especially if those private lands support illegal access to the public lands or vice-versa. Ensuring that no user-created routes become part of the designated route system through travel planning or similar processes is as critical as it is difficult. The creation of unplanned, unauthorized routes must not be legitimized. Funding shortages can limit the ability of land managers to appropriately study and designate routes, and fully implement their plans.

Enforcement Success Strategy #3

See and be seen

Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration Use this approach when… The same riders violate repeatedly; Patterns of violations and resource damage suggest that rules are not taken seriously; Citizen partners may enhance the agency’s commitment to, or implementation of, enforcement efforts; Agencies are implementing a new route system; or Agencies are demonstrating a new commitment to enforcement.

The tactics proposed in this strategy are unique in that most can be instigated by citizen groups, or by agency land managers. Almost all involve citizen engagement at some level. Concerned citizens may approach the agency with proposals, or agency staff may approach citizens to enlist their help. The bottom line is the same: Public engagement in enforcement can extend agencies’ capacity and help raise broad awareness about off-road vehicle issues and successes. This sends a clear message that people care about their public lands.

Tactics 1) Organize and publicize volunteer labor. • Recruit volunteers for signing routes and trailheads, constructing fences, installing barriers, and restoring sites. Include a variety of recreationoriented groups in specific projects. These groups may be fishing and hunting organizations, off-road clubs, hiking groups, horse packers, mountain bikers, and so forth. This sends the message that many people with many legitimate interests care.

For example: Colorado’s Friends of Fourmile citizen group partnered with the Forest Service to devise a restoration and fencing program at the Spanish Mill site, an area of illegal use. Friends of Fourmile engaged Trout Unlimited, off-road clubs, and the Quiet Use Coalition in its restoration efforts. In addition to generating good publicity, the Friends group was able to stretch agency and grant funds by leveraging volunteer support to construct fences and reseed. Prison crews and volunteers cut and transported fence posts, which were contributed by the Forest Service. The contractor’s work was limited to that which required heavy equipment such as constructing rock barriers. For example: In Arizona, the Bureau of Land Management is proposing reaching out to volunteers as an integral part of intensively managing recreation use at certain popular sites on the Agua Fria National Monument and BradshawHarquahala planning areas. • Include the names of volunteers or partner organizations on area information signs to improve peer compliance and enforcement.

We need to live together on these lands for the long term, and mutual trust is the key to that. With so few agency staff on the ground, actual arrest and prosecution are tools that we can’t rely upon to get the whole job done. Alan Robinson, Volunteer member, Friends of Fourmile Chapter, Greater Arkansas River Nature Association Strategy #3: See and be seen

23

• Give volunteers tools to easily and effectively monitor off-road vehicle use. Create simple trespass reporting forms. Host workshops to train volunteers to identify, interpret, and report signs of illegal activity in a safe and non-confrontational manner. • Make monitoring fun and safe by organizing group events. For example: Montana’s Great Burn Study Group conducts regular monitoring field trips throughout the year to document off-road vehicle trespass and help the Forest Service identify hot spots for enforcement. • Give volunteers informational tools to hand out in controlled settings such as trailheads or club meetings. Route maps, rules brochures, and other written tools can put volunteers more at-ease with direct contact. For example: In Colorado, the Friends of Fourmile citizen group produced a volunteer-designed brochure and map (see p. 21). It contains information on routes, recommended activities, and safety and good behavior tips. Visitor contacts generally begin with the question, “Have you received the Friends of Fourmile map yet?” They also developed a Memorial Day insert in local newspapers, aimed at expanding the information from the brochure. The papers printed extra copies that Friends volunteers handed out in field contacts with riders.

For example: Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation (MRR) has identified what it terms, “a quiet majority.” A 2001 outdoor recreation survey in St. Louis County (county seat, Duluth) confirms the existence of a large majority of residents who highly value outdoor recreation and prefer quiet pursuits. Many have stopped recreating in areas because of conflicts with other forms of recreation (especially snowmobiles, ATVs, and jet skis). MRR’s campaigns focus around the common values of quiet recreation, fairness, efficiency, and transparency in public funding of motorized recreation. • Cultivate a local and regional “enforcement ethic” so individuals and citizen groups can support each other, and see their work as an important part of a larger effort.

W NE • Convene inclusive task forces to advise on offroad vehicle policy. For example: In 2007, two state agencies convened the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement Working Group to advise the Commonwealth on issues related to off-road vehicle use on public and private lands. The group included representatives from off-road

2) Form broad coalitions for public support. • Invite participation from a variety of recreationists and other public lands users. Involving many different kinds of users—in citizen groups or in specific projects—may help create a climate in which off-road violations are treated seriously. • Build on themes or qualities that are important to many people, such as wildlife, habitat, watersheds, trails, quiet recreation opportunities, fun, stewardship of public lands, or fiscal responsibility.

24 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Volunteers doing restoration work. (Wildlands CPR)

vehicle groups and other recreation groups, state conservation and law enforcement agencies, conservation organizations, and nonprofit conservation land management organizations. The Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs are spearheading implementation of the group’s 40 action recommendations.

3) Formalize collaborations among law enforcement entities.

As recommendations requiring statutory change have been translated into proposed legislation, most recommendations have remained true to the group’s intent. However, this is not true across the board, and key legislators as well as the legislative process may amend the group’s proposals in significant ways.

• Lend citizen monitoring capacity to agency enforcement efforts. Volunteer monitoring can help law enforcement personnel pinpoint problem areas and implement more effective enforcement strategies.

An age restriction for off-road vehicle operators is an example of this. Group members spent much time talking through their varied opinions, and ultimately recommended mandatory safety education for riders under the age of 18, and immediate adult supervision for riders younger than 14. Contradicting those recommendations, a key legislator has added a provision to the legislation, prohibiting children younger than 14 from operating off-road vehicles at all. While such a prohibition enjoys support from a variety of safety advocates and others, Gary Briere, a Department of Conservation and Recreation employee involved with the working group, noted that this proposal did not come out of the working group’s deliberations. “This angered the off-road community, whose representatives had participated in this process. They felt hoodwinked by the state, when that was not our intention. This is a piece of the process we could not control. The operator age issue will end up being a lightning rod for the whole process, even though there was broad agreement on other issues.” Involving key legislators may help to avoid such conflicts in similar processes.

• Make a public commitment to enforcement by teaming up with law enforcement officials from other federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Agreements between agencies can also expand enforcement capacity.

W NE 4) Retask agency staff to provide a greater educational presence in the field. • Assign and train field workers to interact with offroad vehicle riders and other recreationists. For example: On the Lewis and Clark (Montana) National Forest’s Judith ranger district, trail crew members go out into the field with a newly expanded job description. In addition to clearing brush and downed trees, they have been assigned to interact with people they meet. Crew members provide directions, advice and a general presence in the field, as well as reminders about area rules, including for off-road vehicles.

5) Create meaningful opportunities for citizen reporting. • Give trail users tools and resources to patrol for violations. For example: In a partnership spearheaded by the Inyo National Forest, members of the California Nordic Ski Patrol monitor trails designated for non-motorized use during the winter months. Volunteer skiers carry radios that they use to report violations to Forest Service law enforcement staff who respond to patrol calls.

Strategy #3: See and be seen

25

• Enlist assistance from researchers and others already in the field. For example: Wyoming’s Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance enlists assistance from winter recreationists and wildlife researchers to monitor closed areas and report violations. These volunteers use standard monitoring forms to document their observations. • Make sure law enforcement officers respond to reported violations, and adjust patrols based on information from citizen reports. • Law enforcement officers or agency managers can follow up on reported violations with a postcard or thank you telephone call to the citizen monitor. • Post a hotline telephone number for reporting offroad vehicle violations. For example: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources maintains a law enforcement hotline for abuse reports. On the Bridger-Teton National Forest near Jackson, Wyoming, trailhead kiosks include a telephone number for reporting violations. The calls go to an interagency dispatch center staffed by the Forest Service and National Park Service. Reports are routed to the nearest enforcement officer.

W NE • Help citizens make the most of hotlines for reporting off-road vehicle violations. For example: For many years, Montana’s toll-free TIP-MONT hotline has provided a single point of contact for people calling to report violations in the forests. Familiar signs invite forest users to report illegal activity, and in 2008, TIP-MONT received more than 1,800 calls from people reporting violations ranging from poaching to vandalism. In recent years, people have started to use TIP-MONT as a place to report illegal vehicle use on public lands, often but not always, during hunting season. In 2008, the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks ran commercials inviting people to use the TIPMONT hotline to report problem use of off-road vehicles. Calls to report vehicle violations, such as 26 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

driving off-route or in closed areas, grew from an average of 84 in each of the preceding two years to more than 140 in 2008. The hotline, which is run by the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, receives funding from the Forest Service and BLM. TIP-MONT directs reports to the appropriate land management and enforcement agency. More people in the woods with cell phones can translate into more reports of violations in progress, and more accurate and complete reporting as trained hotline staff probes for pertinent information. The Forest Service and BLM also provide public education about the TIP-MONT hotline. Noting the importance of complete and accurate information, Lewis and Clark National Forest district ranger, Ron Wiseman, said that discussions were underway on his forest to run a series of radio and newspaper ads to help educate the public about the kinds of information law enforcement officials need to effectively investigate and prosecute violations. “It’s the classic who, what, where, when, why, and how, with as much detail as possible,” Wiseman said. “The best possible scenario is a report that includes a vehicle description, license plate number, and a detailed description of the person. Our law enforcement officers can investigate and often write citations based on this kind of complete information.”

6) Use nonprofit status to gather money. • Citizen groups may become, or affiliate with, a nonprofit organization to qualify for grants and donations. This status may also help them forge cooperative arrangements with or between land managers and law enforcement agencies. • Help funnel donations and grants for enforcement to land managers. Federal agencies are prohibited from soliciting funding from outside the agency. Supporting groups (often named, “Friends of…”) can work in partnership with agencies to secure funds beyond agency budgets and available enforcement grants.

7) Publicize progress.

Challenges

• Detail specific projects and accomplishments in a continual series of press releases.

Sustaining momentum and membership or interest over the long term can be difficult.

• Offer press and public tours of project sites. Include reporters, public officials, community residents, and members of relevant organizations.

Raising money can become a continual and energyintensive focus.

• Monitor progress and keep a database that includes photographs.

Shortages of agency law enforcement staff may make it impossible to respond promptly to citizen reports. Prompt response is generally a key to catching violators and to maintaining public participation in the reporting system.

For example: Friends of Fourmile is building a database of photographs that illustrate progress over time on restoration and other projects.

Recreation groups should be invited to invest labor and money only into projects where thorough resource evaluations have been completed. This helps to lessen the possibility of the public land management agency later backtracking and modifying access to these areas.

Strategy #3: See and be seen

27

Enforcement Success Strategy #4

Make riders responsible

Promote a culture shift among peers Use this approach when… Enforcement is difficult because of terrain, access, the nature of routes, or patterns of land ownership; The agency is shifting to a closed-unless-postedopen or designated-route-only management scheme for off-road vehicle use; A small geographic community allows for ongoing personal contact; Shared values exist; or Volunteers are already working in the area or are available to monitor use and violations.

Tactics

For example: Enforcement staff on Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest are building relationships with local off-road vehicle dealers to enlist their assistance in educating riders. 3) Focus on common values. • Focus media campaigns and public outreach on shared values such as stewardship, healthy wildlife populations and habitat, respect, fun, healthy watersheds, and safety. • Involve the off-road community in broader efforts that do not target off-road vehicle use specifically. Efforts such as watershed mapping, monitoring water quality, or gauging forest health can help build relationships among different recreation users.

1) Use mass media campaigns to educate riders and cultivate support. • Reach out to target audiences with an aggressive media campaign. For example: The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance responded to rampant violations of winter wildlife habitat closures with a campaign of radio spots. This “don’t poach the powder” radio campaign focused on the importance of winter range to preserving big game populations. The target audiences included hunters and people who recreated in areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest close to the towns of Wilson and Jackson. The public service announcements also note the penalties and fines for violations. 2) Work with the leadership of the offroad community to gain commitments to enforcement. • Collaborate with off-road clubs and organizations, dealers, and outfitters to encourage a culture of peer enforcement. 28 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

During the fieldwork, done by a core of about 30 volunteers from both motorized and non-motorized communities, there evolved a better understanding of each other’s perspectives, and an appreciation of the legitimacy of multiple uses, so long as there was a respect for each other and the landscape. Volunteer, commenting on the process of surveying routes for the Fourmile Travel Management Planning process, Colorado

4) Promote rider responsibility. • Encourage off-road vehicle riders to patrol their own ranks. • Place the burden of responsibility on riders to consult trail maps before they ride. Just as hunters are responsible for knowing where they are allowed to hunt, make off-road vehicle riders responsible for knowing where they are allowed to ride. This approach is part of the 2005 Forest Service travel management rule and is being implemented as route designation required under that rule takes effect.

W NE 5) Require training and certification for riders. • Mandate an off-road vehicle training course. For example: In 2007, Oregon adopted a law requiring safety training for all Oregonians operating off-road vehicles and motorcycles for recreational purposes on public lands. This requirement will be phased in over several years, beginning with operators under 16 years of age, who must meet this requirement beginning January 1, 2009. By January 1, 2014, all off-road vehicle operators will be required to have completed the safety

training and carry a certification card when riding on public land. Age groups will be phased in according to the following schedule: • Starting January 1, 2010, all persons under age 31; • Starting January 1, 2011, all persons under age 41; • Starting January 1, 2012, all persons under age 51; • Starting January 1, 2013, all persons under age 61; and • Starting January 1, 2014, all persons. For example: A similar proposal from the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement and Education Working Group would instate a safety and responsibility course for anyone born after a specified date (18 years prior to the legislation taking effect). The intent is that, in the first year after enabling legislation is passed, riders who are 18 or younger would be required to complete the course. Thereafter, all riders born after that date, regardless of age, would be required to complete the program.

Snowmobiler on a groomed trail. (Sascha Buchard/Dreamstime.com)

Strategy #4: Make riders responsible

29

A parent or the legal guardian of an operator under 16 would be required to participate in at least one section of the safety and responsibility course. Riders would be required to carry proof of successful completion of the course with them while operating an off-road vehicle. • Create driver’s license endorsements for operation of off-road vehicles For example: Concomitant with raising the legal age at which children are allowed to operate offroad vehicles on public lands to 16, the New Mexico 2008 state interagency advisory report described earlier recommends creating two new driver’s license endorsements, one for all-terrain vehicles, and one for off-road motorcycles. Operators of all legal ages would be required to carry these endorsements on their driver’s licenses.

W NE 6) Expand educational efforts. • Charge a broad-based task force with educational efforts. For example: In 2008, Kentucky adopted some changes to the state’s Recreational Trails Authority (RTA). The RTA is a governor-appointed body of representatives from motorized and nonmotorized recreation interests. It is responsible for planning and implementing programs to expand tourism opportunities for both non-motorized and motorized recreation, including pedestrians, bicycles, mountain bicycles, horses, and off-road vehicles on designated lands in Kentucky. The changes include expanding the group’s membership to include broader representation from recreation groups, private landowners, and the judiciary. This expanded group has been assigned new responsibilities including developing and implementing a strategy to promote responsible and legal recreation by all types of users including off-road vehicles on private land. This strategy is to include an information campaign for residents and out-of-staters focusing on the implications of trespass, vandalism, and littering.

30 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

• Engage off-road vehicle club members to patrol and conduct peer-to-peer education. For example: In 2007, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) established a two-year volunteer Trail Ambassador program to promote safe, environmentally responsible operation of off-road vehicles on public lands. Through the program, trained volunteers from off-highway vehicle clubs spend time in the field, making informational, educational contacts and monitoring efforts. The two-year initiative runs from 2008 through 2009. Each year, the DNR provides $250,000 in grants to qualifying organizations to cover costs associated with these off-highway vehicle safety, environmental education and trail monitoring activities. Grant funds may be spent to cover: • Staff time/labor to participate in OffHighway Vehicle Safety and Conservation program activities, with priority on educating public trail users and riders; and • Items and expenses that are directly related to the program. Individuals interested in volunteering for the Trail Ambassador program must meet the following requirements: • Be 18 years of age or older; • Be an active Certified Minnesota DNR Volunteer Youth All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Safety Training Instructor; • Submit to a thorough background investigation; • Possess a valid drivers license; • Complete the Minnesota DNR ATV Safety Training CD; • Be sponsored by a qualified organization; and • Complete a “Trail Ambassador” training session. Qualified organizations, or sponsors, are local offroad vehicle clubs that are committed to outdoor recreation, off-road vehicle safety, and education,

and that participate in the Trail Ambassador grant program through a formal agreement with the DNR. Qualified organizations are required to be members in good standing of one of the following state associations:

off-road vehicle accidents and violations occur Thursdays through Mondays between 11 a.m. and 8 p.m. Volunteer hours are concentrated during these peak times, and in areas of intensive off-road vehicle use or at events.

• Amateur Riders Motorcycle Association;

Trail ambassadors are not law enforcement officers, and cannot issue citations. Their education and monitoring roles, however, help extend the reach of the DNR, helping identify problem areas and problem riders for law enforcement intervention. The DNR has only three law enforcement officers statewide that focus on off-road vehicle issues.

• All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota; • Minnesota United Snowmobilers Association; or • Minnesota 4-Wheel Drive Association. Each trail ambassador must complete a day-long training to prepare to interact with the public in the field. The training includes a review of off-road vehicle laws; training in trail monitoring, invasive species identification, and making public contacts; first aid and GPS training; and program policies and paperwork requirements. Trail mbassadors always work in pairs for safety. Data collected by the state indicate that most

New ideas • Set triggers for closure orders based on violations. Especially for routes through sensitive areas or where illegal activity is a problem, set and publicize parameters for keeping routes open. • Make it easy to report violators. Every state advertises a telephone number for reporting poachers. A similar tool could be put in place for reporting off-road violations. Interviewees in Wyoming, Montana, and California reported that hunters are accustomed to reporting violations among their own ranks. They use cell phones and satellite phones to call poaching hotlines with reports of off-road vehicles used illegally to retrieve downed game. (See TIP-MONT example, page 26, for one way to implement this idea.)

Fresh tracks behind a route closure sign, near Paiute Trail. (Dan Schroeder)

Vermillion Cliffs National Monument. (Grand Canyon Wildlands Council)

Strategy #4: Make riders responsible 31

Challenges Fostering a peer enforcement ethic may be difficult in larger areas where media campaigns are not practical and community investment plays a minor role. Peer enforcement is more challenging if the majority of riders are visitors who lack ties to a local community. Visitors may not bear the broader consequences of illegal actions (such as the triggering of area protection orders based on violations and resource damage). Enlisting assistance from off-road vehicle outfitters and rental shops may help with visiting riders. Some studies suggest that many people ride off-road vehicles for excitement. Even knowing the rules, most riders are willing to violate them some of the time. The peer culture still needs to be backed by serious and consistent enforcement and monitoring. Remote and difficult-to-patrol areas can leave openings for undetected violations, as can limited enforcement budgets. To date, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of peer-to-peer programs such as the Minnestoa Trail Ambassadors. Some critics have expressed concern that the same clubs and riders that cause problems one day sometimes turn up functioning as trail ambassadors the next.

32 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Enforcement Success Strategy #5

Use the force

Incorporate technologies that work

Use this approach when… Illegal access routes to public lands or closed areas are a problem; Law enforcement officers are able to respond to violation alerts; Trails are out-and-back or loop trails with limited access points so officers responding to the alert are likely to catch the violator on the way out; or Areas have become well-known—albeit illegal—play areas among riders.

Tactics 1) Use remote electronic monitoring. • Employ seismic, magnetic, or infrared detectors to monitor entry points to closed areas. Devices such as these are sometimes referred to as “rangers in a can.” Law enforcement officers interviewed for this report agree that these technologies cut down on illegal entries. For example: On California’s Inyo National Forest, seismic monitors are placed near roads or trails closed to off-road vehicle use. When a vehicle passes, the electronic transmitter sends an immediate radio signal to a law enforcement officer’s receiver. Signals can be transmitted for a distance of two to five miles, or up to ten miles if a repeater is used. Equipment cost: Purchase and maintenance costs vary, depending upon terrain, the complexity of the system, distance required for transmission, and other factors.

2) Track noise violations. • Use decibel meters to limit the use of illegal or unusually loud off-road vehicles. For example: In the rural, eastern part of Kern County (California), large BLM tracts offer riding opportunities that attract significant numbers of off-road riders. The Kern County sheriff’s department uses decibel meters to help identify riders whose vehicles violate California noise standards. In its 2006/2007 California Off-Highway Vehicle Grant application, the sheriff’s department requested funds to purchase three decibel meters to respond to local community concerns about the noise associated with off-road vehicles. By enforcing noise standards, the department hopes to increase compliance and create more community acceptance of the nearby riding areas. Equipment cost:

1 decibel meter = $2,600 Maintenance for a year = $750

We know these UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles) are the wave of the future. Lance Brady, BLM geographic information systems specialist commenting on their proposed use in monitoring riparian and vegetation conditions in large, remote areas

Strategy #5: Use the force 33

3) Track recurring problems and repeat offenders. • Maintain a database of violations and problems, as well as the responsible individuals. For example: The Kern County sheriff’s department’s off-road vehicle enforcement team maintains such a database on a laptop computer at its mobile command post. Team members use the database to prioritize law enforcement responses and expedite the resolution of common violations and complaints. • Employ video surveillance equipment or automatically triggered digital or infrared cameras to enable officers to identify violators.

Challenges Remote monitoring at specific access points can push abuses to other access points or routes. Equipment is expensive, susceptible to vandalism, and needs to be regularly maintained. Many states lack effective noise standards.

34 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Enforcement Success Strategy #6

Fit the punishment to the crime Make penalties meaningful

Use this approach when… The same riders violate repeatedly; Patterns of violations and resource damage suggest that rules are not taken seriously; or Agencies are demonstrating a new commitment to consistent enforcement.

Tactics 1) Toughen penalties. • Increase penalties for off-road vehicle violations. In some places, fines for a first offense are as low as $50, generally escalating with subsequent violations. Fines must be meaningful and enforcement uniform. For example: On the Ocala National Forest (Florida) fines for off-road vehicle violations causing natural resource damage were recently raised from $100 to $500. This was done through the standard process for changing penalties (see “Challenges” section, p. 39). • Add vehicle confiscation as a possible penalty for multiple or egregious offenses. For example: Third-time offenders on the Stanislaus National Forest (California) may have their vehicles confiscated. 2) Consider natural resource damage in determining fines. • Levy fines for damage to natural resources that results from off-road vehicle violations. For example: In response to natural resource damage caused by increasing off-road violations on Pennsylvania’s Michaux State Forest, the district forester consulted with district attorneys and local law enforcement officials

in three counties covered by parts of the forest. These consultations helped the district forester devise a strategy for cracking down. A number of state regulations and laws apply, ranging from the state forest regulations to agricultural vandalism, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. The forester promised, “Anyone caught cutting trees to get around gates or closed roads, damaging gates, or damaging wetlands and vernal ponds will be charged restitution.”

W NE • Mandate a court hearing to assess damages For example: Proposed legislation in Massachusetts, based on recommendations from the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement Working Group, establishes penalties for vehicular trespass ranging from $250 to $1,000, 60 days to one year imprisonment, or both, and restitution to the property owner for damages resulting from the trespass.

When your $3,000 or $4,000 or $6,000 machine turns up missing and you come to the National Forest Service looking for it, we’ll be happy to see that you get it back. But not until you’ve gotten your ticket. Woody Lipps, U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officer commenting on seizing illegally-operated offroad vehicles as evidence Strategy #6: Fit the punishment to the crime 35

The legislation mandates a court hearing to assess damages before the final disposition of a complaint. It requires the court to order the defendant to pay restitution for all damages “including but not limited to, environmental damages such as erosion and compaction of soils, damage to wetland areas, disturbance of habitat, harassment or destruction of wildlife, and damage to crops, planted areas, forests, and fields.”

W NE • Allow for both criminal and civil penalties For example: Legislation adopted in Hawai‘i in 2008 adds criminal penalties to the existing civil process used for penalizing violations of off-road vehicle regulations. In states where assessing damages is not part of the criminal procedure (as recommended in Massachusetts, see above), preserving both criminal and civil avenues of prosecution allows for imposition of fines and other penalties, while preserving the state’s right to seek restitution and recover damages in a civil process. The law, which originated as Hawai‘i Senate Bill 1891 (2008), gives Department of Land and Natural Resources enforcement officers the power to issue criminal citations, confiscate off-road vehicles according to criminal rules of evidence, and arrest violators.

3) Add appropriate community service as a penalty. • Add community service to the list of allowable penalties for certain off-road vehicle violations. Violators could be required to contribute their time to the restoration or construction of barriers to areas damaged by motorized recreation, biological inventories, or classroom education. For example: Rather than ticketing and fining young offenders, a sheriff’s department responsible for enforcing off-road vehicle regulations on the Stanislaus National Forest worked with families of some local youth who had committed violations. A portion of the punishment included removing illegal trails, constructing berms, and restoration. 36 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

W NE • Allow community service to be substituted for other penalties. For example: New Mexico’s interagency working group recommended a statutory change to allow judges to substitute community service restoring natural areas for some or all of the jail time or fines that would typically be levied for off-road vehicle offenses.

4) Link off-road violation penalties to other recreational privileges. • Revoke hunting or fishing privileges—or assess points against hunting and fishing licenses—as a penalty for certain off-road violations. For example: The Missouri Conservation Commission added suspension of hunting and fishing privileges as a penalty for unlawful use of off-road vehicles in streams. Using procedures already in place for other wildlife-code violations, the Missouri Department of Conservation may now recommend that the Commission suspend hunting and fishing licenses for violators. One-year suspensions are the norm, but the Department may recommend longer suspensions for more egregious offenses. Because Missouri participates in the Interstate Wildlife Violator’s Compact, these suspensions may be honored in 30 other states that, thus far, have joined the compact. For example: South Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources uses a point system for violations of hunting and fishing regulations and marine resource laws. Once a certain number of points have been issued against an individual’s hunting or fishing license, those privileges are suspended. • Print the names of off-road vehicle offenders and descriptions of their violations in the local newspaper. For example: Off-road violators in California’s Inyo National Forest find their names printed

in the local paper. Peer pressure—notably from snowmobile shops and clubs—comes into play to try to avoid bad publicity. • Revoke entry privileges on public lands to penalize egregious or chronic violators. For example: Two pickup truck drivers who drove off-road around a geothermal area in Yellowstone National Park were permanently banned from the park as part of their penalty. 5) Impound vehicles. • Use criminal law and rules of evidence as a rationale for confiscating vehicles as evidence, especially in cases of egregious violations or when the violator has hidden a vehicle for illegal use. For example: In Hawai‘i, law enforcement officers are able to issue criminal citations, make arrests, and seize vehicles as evidence for violations of the state law against riding off-road vehicles on beaches.

• Incorporate vehicle impoundment as part of the penalties for off-road vehicle offenses. For example: New York state law bans off-road vehicle use on public lands or roads that are not designated for their use. Penalties for these violations vary by county, and many incorporate vehicle impoundment. In Suffolk County, in addition to fines for illegal off-road vehicle use, violators may be required to pay impound fees for their vehicles. These fees are $500 for first and second offenses, and run up to $3,000 or possible vehicle forfeiture for the third offense.

W NE • Mandate vehicle impoundment for repeat offenders. For example: A 2008 Delaware law enhanced penalties for off-road vehicle violations. Prior to the new law, the penalties included a fine of not less

Getting Serious about Off-Road Vehicle Penalties In 2002, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued a new policy directive on off-road vehicle use, which is prohibited on most state land. The directive was motivated by “a marked increase in the unlawful use of these vehicles on public lands,” resource damage, interference with other user groups, and other costs. It included tougher penalties for off-road vehicle violations, including the following. 1) Automatic assessment of the maximum fine of $1,000 for violations on state park and forest lands. The fine may be reduced only if: • It is a first violation involving no adverse impacts to natural resources or public safety; or • A lesser penalty is authorized in writing by a state official, due to other extraordinary circumstances. 2) Automatic assessment of the maximum fine of $200 for violations in Wildlife Management Areas. 3) Triple damage fines when the cost of restoration from damage to natural resources in Wildlife Management Areas exceeds $100. The directive also ordered the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection to work with other state authorities to develop legislation increasing penalties and authorizing vehicle impoundment for unlawful use. To expedite the assessment of restoration costs, this policy directive ordered the development of a damages table covering resource damage typical of unlawful off-road vehicle use.

Strategy #6: Fit the punishment to the crime 37

than $11.50 nor more than $345, impoundment of the vehicle for 30 days, or both. The new penalties provide higher fines and longer periods of impoundment: • First offenses are punishable by a fine of $100 and impoundment of the vehicle for up to 100 days from the time of conviction; • Subsequent offenses within two years of a prior conviction for state off-road vehicle violations or similar local laws, statutes, or ordinances are punishable by a fine of $400 and vehicle impoundment for a mandatory minimum time period of six months. Penalties for vehicular trespass are steeper for repeat offenders. Section 6821 of the Delaware Code prohibits operating an off-road vehicle on public or private property without express permission of the owner or knowingly in violation of any restrictions imposed by the property owner. Violations are punishable as follows: • First offenses are punishable by a fine of $100 and vehicle impoundment for up to 30 days, which may be suspended by the court; • Each subsequent offense within two years of the first offense earns a fine of $1,000 and vehicle impoundment for a minimum of 60 days. • The law also mandates that restitution be made for the value of damage to real or personal property resulting from vehicular trespass. Impounded vehicles are returned to the owner upon payment of the fine and impoundment costs. If the fine is appealed, and the owner or operator is found not guilty, the vehicle is returned and the owner does not have to pay impoundment costs.

W NE • Clarify whether vehicle confiscation is allowed, and under what circumstances. For example: Proposed legislation in Massachusetts, based on recommendations from the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement Working Group, provides for vehicle 38 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

impoundment as one penalty for riding on private land without permission or riding on public lands not open to off-road vehicles. A law enforcement officer may impound the vehicle “for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than one year from and after the date the owner or operator of the vehicle is convicted of such violation.”

W NE 4) Make a steep, escalating scale for penalties for repeat offenders. • Revoke riding and registration privileges for repeat offenders. For example: An Iowa law adopted in 2007 prohibits riding off-road vehicles in areas not specifically designated for their use, and creates an escalating scale of penalties for repeat offenders, including mandatory revocation of off-road vehicle registration and riding privileges. The law, which originated as Iowa House File 742 (2007), mandates a one-year revocation of off-road vehicle registrations and user permits for a person convicted twice of trespassing while operating an off-road vehicle within one year. The law allows the court to suspend or revoke one or more off-road vehicle registration or user permit privileges as part of the judgment against a person convicted of violating any off-road vehicle rule. Violation of off-road vehicle rules while a person’s registration privilege is suspended or revoked are treated as: 1) A simple misdemeanor if the person had no other convictions within the previous three years; 2) A serious misdemeanor if the person had one other conviction within the previous three years; and 3) An aggravated misdemeanor if the person had two or more convictions within the previous three years. • Mandate an escalating schedule of penalties For example: Under a 2008 law, Hawai‘i provides for a sliding scale of penalties, including mandatory minimum fines or imprisonment or both:

• For a first offense, a mandatory fine of not less than $500, or imprisonment of not more than thirty days, or both; • For a second offense within five years of a previous conviction under this section, a mandatory fine of not less than $1,000, or imprisonment of not more than thirty days, or both; and • For a third or subsequent offense within five years of two prior convictions under this section, a mandatory fine of not less than $2,000, or imprisonment of not more than thirty days, or both. • Use a “three strikes and you’re out” approach For example: The New Mexico interagency working group recommends steeply increasing penalties for repeat offenses, and using a “three strikes and you’re out” approach for certain off-road vehicle violations. These include violations involving natural resource or other damage, and riding in wilderness or other restricted areas. Penalties for repeat offenses would escalate from fines and community service to vehicle confiscation and ultimately, jail time.

New ideas • In some states, community service is an accepted penalty for operating an off-road vehicle while intoxicated. Amend statutory authority to add community service as an allowable penalty for certain other, first-time, off-road vehicle offenses.

Challenges Bond schedules, which set penalties for each type of violation, are guidelines for sentencing. Most law enforcement officers adhere to the dollar figure provided in the bond schedule when writing tickets. They have the ability to require a court appearance and request a higher penalty for serious violations. However, magistrates may reduce or increase the bond amount in court at the time of sentencing, or even dismiss the penalty altogether. Given the wide discretion of both law enforcement officers and magistrates, it is important that all parties understand the serious nature of off-road vehicle offenses. Changing penalties can be a difficult, involved, and politically challenging process. For both the Forest Service and the BLM, agency divisions may propose changes in the bond schedule to the relevant U.S. District Court through consultations with the U.S. Attorney’s office. This tends to happen infrequently, at intervals of roughly eight to ten years. In general, federal officials cannot fine or incarcerate juvenile offenders, as the states have primary authority over young offenders. Magistrates may only place these offenders on probation, in most cases. Any penalty or regulatory system establishing the need for a driver’s license or an age limit for operating an off-road vehicle would need to address this gap in federal authority.

• Similarly, some states assess points against a driver’s license for driving an off-road vehicle while intoxicated. This system could be extended to other offenses.

Strategy #6: Fit the punishment to the crime 39

W NEConclusion

Keep track

Monitor to gauge progress and fine-tune action In business, technology, and management circles, a common saying advises, “What is measured, improves.” A corollary maintains that what is measured, reported, and acted on improves more rapidly. No matter which enforcement strategy, or combination of strategies is applied, monitoring both implementation and outcomes is essential. Without monitoring, only guesses about effectiveness are possible, and adapting management approaches and tactics to respond to changing circumstances is next to impossible. This section describes two approaches to monitoring, digesting, and disseminating collected information. These are intended as examples to help generate new ideas for feedback loops about the effectiveness of offroad vehicle management. This is not a comprehensive guide to monitoring.

1) Maintain a comprehensive and publicly accessible database. For example: Among the 2008 recommendations of the New Mexico interagency working group on off-road vehicles were these: • The managing agency should establish a comprehensive database of metrics on ORV recreation including data on accidents and injuries, natural resource damage, user conflicts, registrations and permits, and prepare reports for the managing agency director. The database should include specific metrics for recreational impacts on ranchers and farmers. • Establish a centralized monitoring/reporting infrastructure which also supports synergistic use of ecological monitoring, research studies, and ecological restoration data, 40 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

between scientific institutions, non-profits, and State of New Mexico agencies and departments. Access to a central, integrated database by scientists at research institutions and state and federal entities could provide needed information without initiating costly new efforts. Rather than starting from scratch to build a centralized reporting and data collection infrastructure, the working group recommended expanding upon the existing Environmental Notification Tracking System. This system, operational at the New Mexico Department of the Environment, provides a public interface for reporting non-emergency environmental problems (see http://nmenv-it.nmenv.state.nm.us/ EnvComp/Incident/incident_hdr_list.php). This system could be expanded to allow web portals from all involved state and local agencies. It could also be used for data mining by the public and researchers. The working group noted that another effort, the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan (2004) pointed out a similar need for monitoring, research, and education on environmental issues, and proposed mechanisms for centralizing and prioritizing restoration measures. Expanding these already-proposed mechanisms to include off-road vehicle issues would further the Forest and Watershed Health Plan and serve the state’s needs related to off-road vehicles. The working group called for “distributed data collection” by public officials, researchers, and citizens yielding data on trends, problems, need for monitoring specific areas, loss of species and so on. The report noted, “On-the-ground, rapid reporting of erosion, illegal trails, damage to remote riparian areas, and other threats to ecological integrity, natural processes, and long-term resiliency” could more rapidly trigger needed restoration or revegetation efforts, point out problems to law enforcement, and inform recreationists about areas to avoid and researchers about areas to study.

2) Monitor management, maintenance, and enforcement. For example: After implementing a new designated route system in 2007, the Ocala National Forest in Florida developed a process for evaluating off-road vehicle management on the forest. (See the case study about enforcement of the Ocala’s designated route system on page 50.) The monitoring system was developed with input from off-road vehicle groups and conservation organizations. It focuses on establishing whether off-road riders are complying with the new rules, staying on designated trails, and keeping off nondesignated routes.

The monitoring plan includes 21 questions, each with an evaluation mechanism. Some evaluation mechanisms draw on reports from Forest Service staff and volunteers in the field. Others rely on special surveys or photo points for data collection. The aim of the process is quickly and economically to evaluate the effectiveness of management, produce information that could help the Forest Service target problem areas and revise management approaches, and, over time, yield data that could be used to establish trends. The Ocala provides just one example of monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of off-road vehicle management efforts.

Ocala National Forest Monitoring Framework Section 1: Designation and Implementation Question How evaluated 1. Are designated trails and mixeduse roads posted or marked on the ground? 2. Are signs or posts being vandalized or removed?

Visual survey of markers.

Reports and observations of the number of signs missing or vandalized from each trail.

3. How many OHV volunteer Forest records of volunteer hours were contributed each month hours logged. or quarter?

How reported and comments based on Year 1 monitoring experience All trails in Phase 1 of the route system had been signed. A table identifies how many signs and carsonite posts were placed on each trail. Vandalism incidence varied from trail to trail. On one trail, with 24 signs and 100 carsonite posts, 15 had been vandalized and 11 removed over the course of the year. Not reported in preliminary 2007 report.

Section 2: Education and Compliance 4. Are users staying on designated routes?

5. How much OHV use is there on each sampled trail?

Number of new or unauthorized trails off designated trails.

Three non-designated routes leading from private property onto the forest still showed signs of heavy use. A total of 45 unauthorized trails were blocked with downed trees in summer 2007. Most of the use on nondesignated roads forestwide appeared during or immediately after hunting season. Visitor counts at selected This item has not been monitored yet due trailheads, electronic counters to lack of funds to have workers stationed at on trails. trailheads to survey use, or to purchase trail counters. Installing electronic counters was to have been done by University of Florida researchers under a cooperative research agreement. This task was not completed. (Continued)

Conclusion

41

Section 2: Education and Compliance (continued) Question How evaluated 6. How many violations or warnings were written for access non-compliance in the last year?

7. Are OHV trucks and trailers parking in approved designated areas only?

8. On how many days during the year did trailhead parking reach capacity?

9. Which non-designated routes show evidence of continued motorized use?

10. Are wetland areas being impacted by users of the recreational trail system?

How reported and comments based on Year 1 monitoring experience

Number, location, and type of A table of incident reports, violation notices violations. and warning notices by type and district appears in the report. The report notes, however, that it is difficult to use violation information to establish trends because the number of violations depends on the number of users on the forest and the number of forest officers in the field.* On approximately two dozen occasions, Number of vehicles parked vehicles were observed parked in two locations along forest roads or public highways. where OHV users had been instructed to park prior to implementation of the new plan. This is not considered illegal parking, but rather part of the transition to the new plan. Occupancy of OHV trailhead A table reports that each of six monitored parking lots. parking areas (of seven total trailheads) reached capacity on four days during the year. Trailheads were over capacity on Thanksgiving weekend and the weekend just before Christmas. Photo points located at Staff compiled a Photo Points Monitoring junctions of designated trails Notebook. The report includes both notes and non-designated routes. about the biggest problem areas and a table reporting for each major trail: 1) Percent of non-designated trails still being used, and 2) Percent of non-designated trails still apparent on the landscape but not being used. Report includes notes on three wetlands areas Number and location of wetlands & degree of impact of concern, indicating the apparent success of blocking access with posts and downed trees, (emphasis on wetlands of concern within 200 feet of and reporting observations of percent ground off-road vehicle trails). cover and any evidence of continued use.

Section 3: Recovery of Non-designated Roads and Trails 11. Are non-designated roads and unmarked travelways recovering?

Percent live vegetation and total ground cover by ocular estimate.

Report includes average percentages of ground cover and live ground cover at photo points, as well as percentage of non-designated roads still being used along each designated route. (Continued)

* Despite challenges in using reported violations to establish trends, it is important to test the widely held assumption that a high level of violations in the early days of a new route system will give way to greater compliance over time as users get used to the new rules. This assumption grounds the common approach of focusing largely on education during the first year or more after a new system is designated, and gradually shifting the emphasis to enforcement over time. Keeping and comparing detailed records of each type of violation and educational encounter over time, as well as careful monitoring of other indicators such as those in Section 2 of this monitoring framework, may provide the basis for gauging the effectiveness of route designations over time and the value of the education-first approach for different types of violations.

42 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Section 4: Trail and Area Conditions and Attributes Question How evaluated 12. Which non-designated roads and unmarked travelways are being used for administrative purposes? 13. Are impacted wetland areas recovering?

Non-designated roads listed in Prescription Burn Plans, invasive plant control plans, and wildlife survey plans. Percent vegetation coverage, ocular estimate.

14. What percent of designated OHV routes have been surveyed? 15. Are invasive species spreading along designated roads and trails?

List of OHV routes surveyed by fiscal year. Location, size, and type of invasive species infestation.

16. How many OHVs exceed 96dB Decibel level at 20” of OHVs at 20”? at selected trailheads during weekends. 17. Are widths of OHV trails Number, location, and changing? If so, why? approximate lengths of trail sections experiencing widening.

18. Is the trail verge or shoulder widening? 19. Are designated routes affecting red-cockaded woodpeckers?

20. Are designated routes affecting threatened and endangered plants?

21. What is the documented level of “take” for threatened and endangered wildlife species?

Number, length and location of trail sections with expanding verge. Fledgling success for redcockaded woodpecker clusters within 200 feet of designated routes. Condition of known locations of threatened and endangered plants within 200’ of designated OHV routes compared to conditions of threatened and endangered plants on closed routes. Confirmed mortality of threatened and endangered species.

How reported and comments based on Year 1 monitoring experience Report includes a list of routes and notes or questions about their use. Some of these routes have been opened by the public during hunting season. Additional photo points were established at impacted wetlands, and reported in the Photo Points Monitoring Notebook. Reporting includes average number of photo points per mile of trail. A table reports the size and GPS location of six observed infestations of invasive plants. These data will be used for establishing trends in future years. Sound meters have not yet been purchased so this item has not been monitored. An appropriate way to measure this item has not been identified. Some routes have “problem spots” and those are dealt with as they appear, through trail grooming, dozing, and relocating. The report concluded it would be ineffective to measure and count the “widened” trail segments, since widening is corrected immediately, as all trails receive grooming over their entire length on a monthly, or sometimes weekly, basis. Based on Year 1 experience, the report suggests dropping this item. (Report includes number of maintenance days per trail.) Report includes action taken to correct the problem. Similar measures could be created for any species of concern.

There are no incidences of threatened and endangered plants within 200 feet of designated routes.

None observed or confirmed.

Conclusion

43

Case study

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and Bridger-Teton National Forest Winter wildlife closure campaign Who:

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, an 1,800-member citizen group, and the Bridger-Teton National Forest

Where: Bridger-Teton National Forest and Grand Teton National Park (Wyoming) What:

A media, community education, and enforcement campaign aimed at reducing incursions into winter wildlife closure areas

The successes What began as a privately funded series of radio messages has evolved into a broad community partnership. The partnership supports protecting critical winter wildlife habitat from human intrusion on snowmobile, skis, and foot. Since 1990, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of violations of winter wildlife closures. Field researchers who monitor winter range now document one or two violations per season, down significantly from the early 1990s.

were being violated, with no effective enforcement mechanism in place. With funding from private donors, JHCA started running radio spots to educate people about the winter closures. The messages in the “Don’t Poach the Powder” campaign focused on the importance of winter closures to preserving big game populations in an area beset by rapid residential development. The wildlife closures apply to everyone—whether they use motorized or non-motorized means to access the forest. Over time, the seed of this radio campaign has grown into an impressive network of relationships and activities around the common values of protecting the area’s abundant wildlife. •

Local snowmobile clubs and outfitters support the campaign. Snowmobile outfitters now donate money toward the media spots.

•

The Forest Service and local law enforcement staff work together to assess and monitor routes. Volunteers are also involved in gathering data for route designation.

•

Volunteers provide trailhead education and patrol areas that are accessible to most forest users. Wildlife researchers working in the area help monitor for violations.

The story

•

“A cascade effect,” is how former Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance (JHCA) staffer, Fred Smith, describes the evolution of the Winter Wildlife Closure Campaign. The campaign began in 1990, when a JHCA member noticed that designated winter wildlife closures on the Bridger-Teton National Forest

Support for on-the-ground activities is subsidized by a range of organizations and agencies. These include the Teton County Conservation District, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Wyoming big game licensing fee program.

Smith noted, “The success of this ongoing program has made the acquisition of community grants feasible—for

Highlighted enforcement success strategies #3 See and be seen—Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration. #4 Make riders responsible—Promote a culture shift among peers.

44 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

research with Wyoming Game and Fish, mapping activities, trailhead signs and maps, and community monitoring.” In 1990, as now, the campaign focused on a defined geographic area, close to the town of Jackson. Here, people recreate close to home, and monitoring and enforcement are physically viable. By focusing on local forests, access points, and use, JHCA has avoided the larger conflicts about motorized winter recreation in Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding region. The campaign has also built on people’s commitment to, and pride in, their small communities. Face-to-face contact has been an important element in the success of the campaign, which has reached well beyond the norms of speaking with off-road vehicle users at trailheads. For example, the rationale for the winter wildlife closures is explained every year to students in avalanche and backcountry travel classes. The closures are now a usual topic of conversation among recreationsists, and snowmobilers often talk about the closures and discuss their importance with other riders. They are also noted on the avalanche information website. The education, collaboration, and rider responsibility components of this successful campaign are backed by enforcement. The radio spots promote the importance of respecting the winter closures for the sake of wildlife and note the penalties associated with violations— $125 for a first offense, with a likely mandatory court appearance for repeat offenders. The Bridger-Teton National Forest has played an important role in making the partnership work. The forest coordinates on-the-ground signing and patrols. Creating loop trails and limiting access points within snowmobile and cross-country ski areas has helped create an enforceable route system. Prior to 2000, patrolling the wildlife closure areas was spotty at best. Forest recreation and wildlife staff pursued enforcement grants. In 2001-2002 outside funding provided two ski patrollers for the areas close to town where skiiers and dog walkers were concentrated. Two snowmobile patrollers handled areas further away from town where motorized use was concentrated.

Funding gaps in 2003 led to a reliance on community volunteers, which met with mixed success. Now, the forest and state of Wyoming pay for four patrollers who are accompanied by other staff (all of whom are qualified as Forest Protection Officers). The forest’s FPO program is one of the most active in the nation. Community volunteers are recruited primarily to help put up closure signs each fall and to monitor use. Monitors document what they see on standardized forms. A small number of volunteers go through classroom and field training to participate in patrols. “The quality of the message and the approach makes a huge difference,” notes recreation manager Linda Merigliano. Trailhead kiosks include a telephone number for reporting violations. Calls go to an interagency dispatch center run by the Forest Service and Park Service. “We get a lot of calls on this number,” says Merigliano. “It’s increased over the past few years because people know we’re responding.

Challenges • Some parts of the larger landscape present enforcement challenges because of their remoteness and the nature of the routes that traverse them. Overflights would be necessary to effective enforcement in these areas, but the campaign does not have funding for this. • Many of the methods used in this campaign are most effective with riders who are part of the local community. Snowmobile outfitters and shops, as well as local riders in the field, can help pass along the respect for wildlife closures. Still, getting visiting riders to comply may be a challenge. • Cultivating an ethic of lawful riding and respect for the landscape and wildlife may be easier to accomplish in a local setting than it is in larger areas where media campaigns may not be practical. Reaching off-road vehicle riders who are not part of a recognizable group or community, as well as riders who are prone to showing off, is a challenge with this approach. Interviewees noted that, without consistent enforcement, whatever positive peer ethic exists is easily eroded.

Case studies 45

Case study

CORE (Commitment to Our Recreational Environment) Citizen organization spearheads improvements in local enforcement Who:

Commitment to Our Recreational Environment, a 100-member citizens organization working in concert with a local sheriff’s department and land managers

Where:

Stanislaus National Forest (California) and a patchwork of BLM and private timber lands within Calaveras County

What:

An effort to use state off-road vehicle grant money to fund enforcement, mediation, and other activities

The successes Collaborative efforts by a citizen group and local and federal law enforcement agencies have led to a marked decline in illegal off-road vehicle use in an “interface” area where hundreds of residences are in close proximity to the forest. Hikers, mountain bikers, and dog walkers have returned to the area. Gates installed to close a road near these residences are no longer being ripped out under cover of night.

Highlighted enforcement success strategies #1 Make a commitment—Engage in serious enforcement efforts. #2 Lay the groundwork— Create enforceable routes and regulations. #3 See and be seen—Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration. #6 Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties meaningful.

46 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

The story Commitment to Our Recreational Environment (CORE) involves about 100 committed residents of four small Sierra Nevada towns, including several smalllot subdivisions. It was formed in 1998 in response to a decade of complaints about off-road vehicle violations on a patchwork of public and private lands in the Calaveras River watershed. CORE’s mission is to promote responsible management of off-highway vehicle recreation on public lands. CORE has successfully worked with California’s OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Grants and Cooperative Agreements program to fund off-road vehicle enforcement and create leverage to promote better offroad vehicle management on Forest Service lands. Each year, between $16 and $18 million dollars are awarded through this program. The program receives some 200 applications annually, requesting a total of $40 million. In 2001, CORE supported the application of the Calaveras County sheriff’s department for funding to hire additional staff for off-road vehicle enforcement. Most of the funds from this state OHV program are granted to federal agencies, and trail-building projects had long been favored over enforcement, conservation, and restoration. According to Judith Spencer, CORE’s president, “For 25-30 years, the seven-member, politically appointed commission that administers these grants was dominated by off-highway vehicle interests.” CORE supported the sheriff’s application through letters and participation in commission meetings. Spencer says, “It was a few private landowners fighting a belief that paying vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes could buy riders complete access to public lands, and that the funds should be used primarily to enhance that privilege rather than to prevent and repair damage.”

The success of this application was part of a sea change in off-road vehicle program funding in California. Ongoing funding through the program has, for five years, allowed the sheriff’s department to hire a full-time deputy. Last year, it added a half-time law enforcement officer to patrol for off-road vehicle violations. Since 2005, a portion of California’s OHV program funds is required to be granted to enforcement, conservation, and restoration projects. The makeup of the commission has changed, too. A majority of its members now support environmental accountability. CORE succeeded in convincing this commission to stop grant funding for the Stanislaus National Forest until agency staff implemented an acceptable plan for managing off-road vehicles in the residential interface area and other parts of the forest. Now that this plan is in place, CORE supports Stanislaus grant proposals, and these proposals are again successful. A protracted 8-year process of responding to Forest Service environmental reports and proposals without resolution led to a different approach. With the help of a state-funded mediator, CORE and other individuals and groups with varied recreational interests developed a community agreement that was accepted by the Forest Service. This agreement outlined recreational management of an urban interface area of the Stanislaus that had been the source of marked conflict for many years. The process resulted in buffer areas protecting homes and watersheds from off-road vehicle recreation impacts, and a separate off-road vehicle use area in the interface zone. The OHV area can be accessed without entering any subdivisions and is located behind a ridge that blocks noise from nearby residences.

CORE’s collaborative approach characterizes other enforcement activities in the area. Sheriff’s deputies and Forest Service personnel communicate often and work together to improve enforcement strategies for the large areas of public and private land affected by off-road vehicle activities. The deputy sheriff teaches off-road vehicle safety to local youth and attends homeowners’ meetings by request to provide information and hear concerns. In some cases involving youth offenses, the deputy has opted to work with families of some local youth who had committed violations. Together, they craft alternative punishments including removing illegal trails, constructing berms, and restoration.

Challenges • While many states have similar programs to fund off-road vehicle activities, California has the largest funding program (and also the largest state population) in the country. Rules regarding the allowed use of grant funds and the politics of receiving grants differ from state to state. In addition, many states also receive matching funds from the Recreational Trails Program, funded through the Federal Highway Administration (see p. 6). • Funding through competitive grant programs is uncertain, leaving the potential for uneven enforcement efforts and presence. Some members of the California commission support multi-year grants to help smaller communities with long-term planning and hiring. • Illegal off-road vehicle use in other sections of the county and on private timberland is growing.

While much of CORE’s activity has centered on the funding program, the group has been involved in many other aspects of off-road vehicle enforcement. Members helped build signs for an interim route system while new off-road vehicle routes were being constructed. They helped close the old system when the new system was completed. While they do not actively patrol areas, members do report their observations to law enforcement officers.

Case studies 47

Case study

Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Wholesale changes reduce violations and damage Who:

U.S. Forest Service working in collaboration with local law enforcement agencies

Where:

Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area

riding areas for off-road vehicles; areas open on designated routes only; and closed areas including buffers near sensitive coastal habitats and residential areas.

What:

A complete overhaul of routes, management, and enforcement strategies reduces negative impacts and lawlessness associated with off-road vehicle use

In the early years, implementation focused on eliminating off-road vehicle use on paved roads, developing new staging areas and camping facilities, signing closed areas, and monitoring sound levels.

The successes Law enforcement officers, previously unable to keep up with all the violations, are now able to address most problems. The visitor profile has shifted from party groups of young adults to family groups. There has been a dramatic drop in litter and resource damage, as well as fewer complaints from residents. Forest areas and wetlands that punctuate the dunes have revegetated rapidly.

Highlighted enforcement success strategies #1 Make a commitment—Engage in serious enforcement efforts. #2 Lay the groundwork— Create enforceable routes and regulations. #5 Use the force—Incorporate technologies that work.

The story In the early 1990s, the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area had become known as a party place. “When summer brought scorching temperatures to popular party and off-road riding areas such as Glamis,” noted Siuslaw National Forest recreation supervisor, Sharon Stewart, “this was the party spot.” The 1994 Oregon Dunes Management Plan attempted to address some of the issues related with off-road vehicle use. The plan established open cross-country 48 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Sound levels had been identified in the planning process as a significant concern for adjacent communities and non-motorized recreationists. The terrain and conditions such as wind and inversions allow sound to travel great distances. In response, Oregon Dunes set a decibel limit below state standards. Law enforcement staff use decibel meters to monitor for noise violations. These violations can lead to citations, and, if noise problems continue, possibly to area closures. Despite these measures, problems persisted. By 2001, Stewart estimated the area was used by several thousand more riders than it could support, especially on busy holiday weekends. Unlawful and destructive behavior by off-road vehicle riders escalated. To get a handle on

2001-2004 Monitoring Results Area Closures Generally Observed Generally, most off-road vehicle operators observed the posted closures. Less than five percent of users violated the closures. Off-Highway Vehicle Noise a Problem Only about half of the off-highway vehicles that were tested met the current decibel limit of 93 dB, with an additional 2dB allowed for field testing conditions. Many newer off-road vehicles with larger engines, often equipped with aftermarket exhaust systems, have difficulty meeting the Oregon Dunes decibel limit (Siuslaw National Forest).

an increasingly out-of-control situation, forest officials next took a step that was relatively easy to implement— banning alcohol consumption except in developed areas.

includes funding for two FPOs and an off-highway vehicle coordinator.

In 2005, officials took another step—one that had been outlined in the 1994 management plan—by replacing unregulated sand camping with a system of designated, dispersed campsites available by permit only. Alcohol consumption is not allowed in these campsites. Permits can be revoked for breaking rules, including the alcohol ban and limits on the number of occupants.

• Accidents involving off-road vehicles are a continuing challenge. The Forest Service is supporting an Oregon proposal for increasing safety education, helmets for all riders, prohibition against riding double on single seat vehicles, as well as titling ATVs.

Other changes include the following. • Law enforcement officers and forest protection officers patrol year-round, with enhanced numbers during busy summer months. Booths at key access points are staffed to provide information and collect fees. Decibel meters are used at these access points to monitor for noise violations. • The Oregon Dunes Patrol, an off-road vehicle group, has a memorandum of understanding with the Forest Service to help educate, monitor, and report violations. A liaison from the Forest Service helps maintain consistency as the group’s leadership changes over time, and provides training to members. • The three county agencies in the area receive state off-highway vehicle program grants. This money pays deputies to provide law enforcement services at Oregon Dunes. Forest Service staff meet with the county officers annually. • A riding curfew is monitored by recreation personnel and law enforcement officers. Oregon Dunes has long relied on a combination of forest protection officers (FPOs) and law enforcement officers. Four FPOs do most of the patrolling, with backup by law enforcement officers as needed. Additional forest staff are trained as FPOs to provide needed coverage on busy holiday weekends. The Forest Service receives funding from Oregon’s off-highway vehicle grant program for aspects of offroad vehicle management and enforcement. Roughly $40,000 supplements law enforcement officers’ pay, while a $288,000 operations and maintenance grant

Challenges

• Noise levels pose ongoing problems for nearby communities and non-motorized recreationists. Continued noise-related conflicts could lead to the closure of currently-open areas of the Oregon Dunes. About half of the recreation area is now managed for off-road vehicle use. • Great progress has been made in setting and enforcing area closures to protect habitat, reduce user conflicts, and limit the impacts of off-road vehicle noise. Still monitoring results from 20012004 suggest that up to five percent of off-road riders may violate these closures. • Problematic off-road vehicle use is now more intense on BLM and other adjacent areas where enforcement and management are less restrictive.

The marriage between law enforcement officers and forest protection officers is important. LEOs provide the support, and the FPOs do most of the patrolling, public contact, and monitoring for compliance. They can write citations for some offenses, but when it’s more serious—like alcohol use at a campsite—they back off and report the situation to the LEO. Sharon Stewart Dispersed Recreation Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon Case studies 49

Case study

Ocala National Forest

Serious commitment to enforcement yields progress Who:

U.S. Forest Service working in collaboration with the state wildlife agency and volunteers

Where:

Ocala National Forest (Florida)

What:

Forest-wide changes in enforcement, education, and off-road vehicle route designation address a range of law enforcement problems

The successes Early results suggest that a new commitment to enforcement on an urban national forest in proximity to 8 million people has yielded change. Families are returning to the forest to recreate. Most off-road vehicle riders adhere to new route designations. Residents of adjacent communities are beginning to step into leadership roles as they see the Forest Service take enforcement and resource protection seriously.

Highlighted enforcement success strategies #1 Make a commitment—Engage in serious enforcement efforts. #2 Lay the groundwork— Create enforceable routes and regulations. #6 Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties meaningful.

The story The process of designating off-road vehicle routes on the Ocala National Forest began in 2000. Implementation started in May 2006, beginning with laying out routes and letting contracts for new trailhead construction. Enforcement of the nascent designated route system began in September 2006.

50 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Initially, enforcement focused on areas with severe natural resource damage. The early focus on education involved volunteer patrols, forest protection officers, and law enforcement officers. They employed a map of the new trail system and temporary trailhead parking areas, and exercised a willingness to work through testy situations with riders, accustomed to far fewer restrictions. District Ranger, Rick Lint, noted that many enforcement contact situations are touchy to begin with. He points out that the ability to listen and offer reasonable explanations is critical. “We’ve permitted virtually unrestricted access to the forest for so long that it’s come to be seen as a right. But nine times out of ten, a situation that starts with, ‘I’m a taxpayer and you work for me, buddy,’ can end on a reasonable note. You just have to let them blow through that initial reaction.” Lint says that increased attention to off-road vehicle management and enforcement was part of a forest-wide effort to “provide more structure for all visitors, not just for motorized users.” Lint calls the Ocala an “urban forest,” and points to an intensifying range of problems including squatters, methamphetamine labs, off-road vehicle problems, and other recreation concerns. In the face of these problems, forest staff appealed to higher levels of administration. Vacant law enforcement postions from elsewhere in the country were reallocated to the Ocala. Enforcement capacity was further expanded by training 15 recreation technicians as forest protection officers (FPOs). These unarmed officers are able to make public contacts and write citations for violations that include resource damage and riding in closed areas. Grant funding from Florida’s off-highway vehicle recreation program pays off-duty state wildlife enforcement officers to patrol the forest. These officers

enforce state laws, including those that prohibit damaging public lands and riding off-road vehicles on public roads. Safety for volunteers and FPOs is a concern that the forest addresses in a variety of ways, including sending them out in pairs. If a volunteer is working an area, an FPO will be assigned there, too. A law enforcement officer may be assigned to the same area, as well. Law enforcement vehicles are equipped with cameras that record interactions among officers and visitors. This helps to substantiate cases that go to court. Lint notes that the forest’s “excellent working relationships with the U.S. Attorneys and magistrate” exist in large part because forest law enforcement officers are careful to take them well-documented, strong cases. Through the standard process (see p. 23), the forest boosted fines for off-road vehicle violations involving natural resource damage from $100 to $500. “Most people want to follow the rules,” noted Rick Lint, “So within a few months we were down to only a few hard cases. Those people get tickets and mandatory court appearances. The magistrate has banned one from the forest altogether.”

Lint noted that increased off-road vehicle enforcement went hand-in-hand with efforts to provide an improved network of motorized vehicle routes. The Ocala now provides new trailheads, 140 miles of routes, and grooming equipment for motorized recreation. The forest has relied on state grants and volunteer labor to sign routes, construct trailheads, and patrol trails. According to Lint, when enforcement efforts are part of this bigger picture, they are more effective.

Challenges • Significant visitor turnover from season to season and year to year means that the process of educating off-road vehicle riders is continuous. • The Ocala is implementing significant recreation management changes that will take some time to be accepted. These changes have been welcomed by some area residents and forest visitors, and blasted by others. • The changes on the Ocala are recent, and sustained success is not assured.

What you permit, you promote. We’ve permitted largely uninhibited access to public lands for so long that it’s come to be seen as a right. We’re putting in a structure to manage motorized use to sustain the quality of the land over time. What we’re doing now is analogous to what happened 70 years ago when there weren’t any laws protecting game animals—and consequently there wasn’t any game. When the Ocala became a no-hunting game preserve, it was during the Depression, and people were doing anything they could to feed themselves. This was a big change, and nobody liked it. But now we’re all thankful. It might take 70 years before people appreciate what we’re doing, but that’s the kind of thing we’re starting today. Rick Lint, District Ranger Ocala National Forest, Florida

Case studies 51

Case study

Friends of Fourmile

Citizen volunteers collaborate to craft and help implement a travel plan Who:

Friends of Fourmile, a small group of 15-plus motorized and non-motorized recreationists

Where:

100,000-acre area managed primarily by the San Isabel National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management (Colorado)

What:

A collaboration among motorized and nonmotorized recreationists and land managers to create and implement a single travel plan that crosses agency boundaries

The successes A collaborative effort to create a “citizens alternative” for a travel planning process in a popular recreation area has continued with a commitment to help land managers implement the plan. Agency staff members have observed increasing respect for designated routes. They receive positive feedback from most users, and observe increased tolerance among user groups, decreased erosion and soil problems, and acceptance of seasonal closures that protect wildlife habitat.

Highlighted enforcement success strategies #2 Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes and regulations. #3 See and be seen—Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration.

The story Beginning about 1980, recreational pressure in the Fourmile area near Buena Vista, Colorado, began to intensify. Growing numbers of off-road vehicle riders discovered its easily accessible, yet rugged terrain, as did hikers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers. 52 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

By the mid-1990s, users—primarily off-road vehicle riders—exploring off-trail had created an unmanageable web of new user-created routes. Land managers became concerned about these unapproved routes fragmenting habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, and deer. They also observed increased erosion and siltation in streams, especially in play areas near streambeds and in hillclimbing areas. The Forest Service and BLM together manage almost 90 percent of the Fourmile’s 100,000 acres. Responding to mounting recreation pressures, they kicked off a joint travel management planning process for the entire area. Early on, the land managers asked for a citizens’ alternative—inviting collaboration among agency staff and recreators of all stripes. That collaboration began with a thorough survey of 260 miles of approved and user-created routes. The volunteers and agency staff involved assessed the recreational purpose, condition, and maintainability of each route. They identified routes that were problematic because of erosion, steepness, duplication, or proximity to wetlands or important habitat areas. Nearly two years of study set the stage for a citizens’ alternative that was hammered out by different user groups. The plan was submitted to the agencies for environmental analysis, and ultimately adopted with very little revision. During this process, a number of citizen participants started a service group called Friends of Fourmile. They wanted to ensure that the plan they had worked so hard to formulate would have public support and funding required for implementation. Sheryl Archuleta, the group’s current president, notes, “We organized at first loosely, thinking of ourselves just as a labor pool. Later, we became a chapter of a well-established conservation education organization, the Greater Arkansas River Nature Association. It was then we realized the need for

status as a nonprofit organization, especially to qualify for grants.” From 2001-2006, Friends of Fourmile: • Secured almost $110,000 in grant funding from sources supporting both off-road vehicle and nonmotorized trails; • Helped develop and distribute 8,000 maps and brochures and installed eight entrance panels with maps and information; • Reworked 30 miles of existing two-track roads into off-road vehicle routes (mountain bikes and horses also allowed) and extended a motorcycle single track; • Refurbished and re-signed 20 miles of a route popular with mountain bikers, hikers, and horseback riders; • Closed user-created routes, reseeded disturbed track, installed winter closure gates, and fenced, reshaped, and reseeded unapproved play areas; • Purchased and put into use an all-terrain vehicle for making public contacts and assisting in maintenance projects; • Facilitated a major hiking trail reconstruction project by a statewide volunteer group; • Successfully attracted participation of members from off-road vehicle, fishing, horseback, and quiet use groups; and • Contributed more than 3,000 volunteer hours. The Forest Service and BLM have stepped up their commitment of uniformed staff to patrol the Fourmile area. However, law enforcement staffing is stretched thin in both agencies. Each agency has one full-time law enforcement officer in the area, but each officer covers about 500,000 acres, of which the Fourmile is a small—albeit heavily used—part. Two seasonal employees help patrol, but they are at the level of forest protection officers.

They wear Forest Service or BLM hats and other gear identifying them as official volunteers, and engage in other practices to enhance safety. Volunteers often use an all-terrain vehicle when they make contacts. This approach puts other riders more at ease, and is even more effective than using a four-wheel drive truck. These volunteers act primarily as educators on current regulations and good behavior. Although they do not have law enforcement authority, they help extend the enforcement presence by passing along information to the agency or county sheriff when they see serious violations. Fourmile trail maps make it clear which system routes are open to specific uses. They state that routes are monitored by the land management agencies and by volunteers. On holidays and high-use weekends such as Memorial Day weekend, the agencies and Friends collaborate to get out a maximum number of uniformed agency staff along with volunteers to demonstrate a commitment to patrolling.

Challenges • Promoting compliance among young off-road vehicle riders and mountain bikers who are not members of organized groups has proven difficult. • With strict requirements for eye-witness accounts and other acceptable evidence, agency law enforcement staff members sometimes find it difficult, or are reticent, to try to enforce and prosecute obvious violations. • Many sources of funding focused on off-road vehicles tend to focus on projects that provide additional routes and riding opportunities, rather than supporting a well managed multiple-use recreational approach. • After a plan is put on the ground, motivating, maintaining, and expanding active membership is an ongoing challenge.

Friends of Fourmile members are registered volunteers with the Forest Service and BLM, and have received training in safe, effective visitor contacts. Volunteers are instructed not to make visitor contacts after dark. Case studies 53

References English, Donald B.K., Susan M. Kocis, and Derek P. Hales, 2004. Off-Highway Vehicle Use on National Forests: Volume and Characteristics of Visitors, Special Report to the National OHV Implementation Team. Athens, Georgia: USDA Forest Service.

Monaghan & Associates, 2001. Status and Summary Report: OHV Responsible Riding Campaign. Colorado. (Report to the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding, November 15, 2001.)

Fisher, Andrea L., Dale J. Blahna, and Rosalind Bahr, 2001. Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2008. Off-Road Vehicle Recreation in New Mexico: The Senate Joint Memorial 40 Report. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Department of Agriculture, and Tourism Department. (http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/main/sjm40/SJM40report-01-0709.pdf )

Massachusetts Environmental Law Enforcement Review Panel, 2005. Final Report. Boston, Massachusetts: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement and Education Working Group, 2007. Final Recommendations. Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Office of Conservation and Recreation and Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (http://www.mass.gov/dcr/recreate/ohv/OHV%20Enforce ment%20Working%20Group%20Final%20Recommendations%2 0March%207-08.pdf )

Rangers for Responsible Recreation. Survey of BLM and Forest Service rangers and supervisors. Reported December 11, 2007, by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Siuslaw National Forest. Forest Plan Monitoring Report, 20012004. (www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/planmonitoring/20012004/social.shtml). U.S. Forest Service. Four Threats—Quick Facts, 2006 (www.fs.fed. us/projects/four-threats/facts/unmanaged-recreation.shtml).

Photos of closed area taken in 1990 and 2004 show dramatic recovery from motorized vehicle damage. (© Mark Alan Wilson)

54 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Interviewees and other contributors Thank you to all who offered their time, experience and invaluable insights in interviews and e-mail correspondance. Gary Barnett Tahoe National Forest, California

Jeffrey Hunter American Hiking Society, Tennessee

Alan Robinson Friends of Fourmile, Colorado

Bill Berg C.M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Jerry Ingersoll U.S. Forest Service, Recreation and Heritage Resources, Washington, DC

Karen Schambach Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, California

Ray Bloxham Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah

Mike Knight Brevard County Endangered Lands Program, Florida

Brian Scherf Florida Biodiversity Project

Mark Booth Craig Cope Bighorn National Forest, Wyoming Gary Briere Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Jeff Brown Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation Ramesh Bush Alachua County Forever, Florida Jerry Cimino Ray Watt Inyo National Forest, California Aaron Clark Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance, Colorado Jack Duggan Landowner, Oregon Sally Ferguson Winter Wildlands, Idaho Karl Forsgaard Attorney, Washington Jim Furnish Retired Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Maryland Milton Fusselman Gallatin National Forest, Montana David Govus Wayne Jenkins Georgia Forest Watch, Inc. David Harris Rick Lint Ocala National Forest, Florida

Chris Leeman Big Wood Backcountry Trails, Idaho

Carl Schneebeck Blue Water Network, California

Paul MacFarland Friends of the Inyo, California

Fred Smith Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Wyoming

Rosalind McLellan Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative, Colorado

Judith Spencer Commitment to Our Recreational Environment, California

Linda Merigliano David Wilkinson Ray Spencer Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming

Sharon Stewart José Lineras John Pino Jay Power Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon

Sarah Michael Idaho’s Nordic and Backcountry Skiers Alliance

Mike Sugaski San Isabel National Forest, Colorado

Greg Munther Former U.S. Forest Service, Montana

David Vandenberg Friends of Pathways, Wyoming

John Nohomenuk Bureau of Land Management, Colorado

Dave Walker Royal Gorge Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado

Jim Northup Forest Watch, Vermont Chris O’Hare Brevard County Parks and Recreation Department, Florida Ray Paige Brian Shinn Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Lisa Philipps Quiet Use Coalition, Montana

Andrew Walters ATV-Free New Hampshire Ron Wiseman Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana George Wuerthner Writer, photographer, Vermont Patrick Zurcher Bureau of Land Management, Butte Office, Montana

Tom Quinn Stanislaus National Forest, California Randy Rasmussen Natural Trails and Waters Coalition, Oregon

Interviewees and other contributors 55

2009 Update

Six Strategies for Success Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands Designed as a resource for public land management agency staff, law enforcement officials, and citizen groups, this report documents six strategies for effective enforcement of off-road vehicle use. Five case studies illustrate how these strategies have been combined to create on-the-ground successes in enforcing off-road vehicle rules; protecting wildlife habitat, water quality, and terrain; enhancing recreational enjoyment and safety; and minimizing impacts on adjacent public and private lands. Six Strategies for Success is based on interviews and correspondence with more than 50 public lands managers, private landowners, citizen group leaders and volunteers, and law enforcement officers. This 2009 updated version includes new information about changes that states and localities have made—or are considering—to increase the effectiveness of off-road vehicle management and enforcement.

Wildlands CPR

Post Office Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807 Telephone: 406.543.9551 [email protected] www.wildlandscpr.org