This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-509 
entitled 'Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in 
Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles' which was released on 
July 30, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, 
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

June 2009: 

Federal Lands: 

Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of 
Off-Highway Vehicles: 

GAO-09-509: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-509, a report to the Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, House 
of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on lands managed by the Department of 
Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of the Interior’s 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (Park 
Service) has become popular over the past few decades. Some critics 
have asserted that OHV use causes adverse environmental, social, and 
safety impacts, while proponents have voiced concerns about retaining 
access to federal lands. GAO examined the (1) trends in and status of 
OHV use on federal lands, as well as reported environmental, social, 
and safety impacts; (2) agencies’ strategic planning for managing OHV 
use; (3) actions taken by agency field units to manage OHV use; and (4) 
current OHV management challenges. 

GAO collected and analyzed related executive orders and agency OHV 
plans, regulations, and guidance; interviewed agency and interest group 
officials; and conducted a Web-based survey of all three agencies’ 
field unit officials. 

What GAO Found: 

OHV use on federal lands—both authorized and unauthorized—increased 
from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, with varying 
environmental, social, and safety impacts, according to officials from 
all three agencies. All three agencies reported that OHVs are 
predominantly used on their lands for OHV recreation, such as trail and 
open-area riding. Most Park Service officials said that OHV use 
constitutes less than 10 percent of the recreation on their lands. Most 
officials from all three agencies also said that OHV-related 
environmental impacts occur on less than 20 percent of their lands, 
although a few said that such impacts occur on 80 percent or more of 
their lands. Most officials said that social and safety impacts, such 
as conflicts with nonmotorized users, occasionally or rarely occurred. 

Forest Service and BLM plans for OHV management are missing key 
elements of strategic planning, such as results-oriented goals, 
strategies to achieve the goals, time frames for implementing 
strategies, or performance measures to monitor incremental progress. 
For example, the Forest Service’s strategic plan has no strategies to 
address key aspects of OHV management, such as communicating with the 
public or enforcing OHV regulations. Similarly, while BLM’s recreation 
plan contains strategies addressing key aspects of OHV management, the 
agency has not identified time frames for implementing these strategies 
or performance measures for monitoring progress. The Park Service has 
no extensive planning for managing OHV use, but this absence seems 
reasonable given that its regulations limit OHV use to only a few units 
and OHV use is not a predominant recreational activity on its lands. 

While agencies’ field units have taken many actions to manage OHV use, 
additional efforts could improve communication and enforcement. In 
particular, units have taken actions such as supplementing federal 
funds with outside resources like state grants, communicating with the 
public by posting signs and maps, and enforcing OHV regulations by 
occasionally patrolling OHV areas and writing citations for OHV 
violations. Few officials, however, indicated that their unit had signs 
and maps for nearly all of their OHV areas. Additionally, while most 
field unit officials said that they conduct enforcement activities, 
such as writing citations, about half indicated that fines are 
insufficient to deter illegal or unsafe OHV use. In addition, a 
majority of officials reported they cannot sustainably manage their 
existing OHV use areas; sustainable management would include having the 
necessary human and financial resources to ensure compliance with 
regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the 
OHV program. 

Officials identified numerous challenges in managing OHV use, of which 
the most widely identified were insufficient financial resources, as 
well as staff for OHV management and enforcement. In addition, most 
officials cited enforcement of OHV regulations as a great challenge. 
Other challenges were maintaining signs, managing the public’s varied 
expectations about how federal lands should be used, and changing long-
established OHV use patterns. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Forest Service and BLM improve their strategic 
planning and take other actions to help provide quality OHV 
opportunities while protecting federal lands and resources. The 
agencies generally concurred with GAO’s findings and recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-509] or key 
components. To view survey results, click on [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-547SP]. For more information, 
contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

The Use of Off-Highway Vehicles Has Increased on Federal Lands, with 
Varying Environmental, Social, and Safety Impacts: 

Agencies' Plans for OHV Management Are Missing Some Key Elements of 
Strategic Planning: 

Agencies' Field Units Reported Taking Many Actions, but Additional 
Efforts Could Improve Communication and Enforcement; a Majority of 
Units Said They Are Unable to Sustainably Manage OHV Use: 

Agencies Reported Facing Many Challenges in Managing OHV Use: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Frequency of Enforcement Actions and Field Unit Officials' 
Assessment of Their Effectiveness: 

Table 2: Various Issues Identified as a Great Challenge, by Agency: 

Table 3: Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service Field Units and OHV User 
and Environmental Group Representatives Selected for Site Visits and 
Interviews, by Location: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Federal Lands Managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park 
Service: 

Figure 2: Examples of OHVs: 

Figure 3: Predominant Manner in Which OHVs Were Used on Federal Lands 
in an Average Year, by Agency: 

Figure 4: OHV-Related Soil Erosion in the Tonto National Forest: 

Figure 5: Impacts of OHV Use on Soils and Vegetation in a Variety of 
Ecosystems: 

Figure 6: Authorized Outside Resources Used to Manage OHV Use, as 
Reported by Field Unit Officials: 

Figure 7: Actions Taken to Educate or Communicate with the Public, as 
Reported by Field Unit Officials: 

Figure 8: A Closure Sign at the BLM Moab Field Office: 

Figure 9: An Entrance Sign (left) and Trailhead Sign (right) at the 
Sand Flats Recreation Area in Moab, Utah: 

Figure 10: An Unsigned OHV Route at the BLM Field Office in Moab, Utah: 

Figure 11: Measures Taken by BLM Field Offices to Reduce Sign 
Vandalism: 

Figure 12: Sample of a Motor Vehicle Use Map from the Uncompahgre 
National Forest, Colorado: 

Figure 13: Actions Taken to Enforce OHV Regulations, as Reported by 
Field Unit Officials: 

Figure 14: Actions Taken to Engineer or Monitor OHV Trail Systems, as 
Reported by Field Unit Officials: 

Figure 15: Barriers Used to Block Problematic OHV Routes: 

Figure 16: Field Unit Officials' Assessment of Whether Existing OHV 
Areas Can Be Sustainably Managed: 

Figure 17: A Vandalized BLM OHV Sign (left) and a BLM Official 
Replacing a Pulled-Out Sign (right): 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

Park Service: National Park Service: 

OHV: off-highway vehicle: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 30, 2009: 

The Honorable Raúl M. Grijalva: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Rob Bishop: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands: 
Committee on Natural Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

Over the past few decades, the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) has 
become a popular form of recreation nationwide, particularly on federal 
lands managed by the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 
National Park Service (Park Service). These federal agencies have 
acknowledged that, in appropriate locations and with proper management, 
use of motor vehicles--including OHVs such as all-terrain vehicles, off-
road motorcycles, dune buggies, and other four-wheel-drive vehicles--is 
a legitimate way for people to enjoy their federal lands. OHV riders 
are a diverse group and seek a variety of recreational opportunities, 
including riding OHV trails; accessing scenic vistas, hunting grounds, 
and fishing sites; retrieving big game animals; and experiencing and 
enjoying the outdoors with family and friends. The use of OHVs and 
related potential effects, however, have come under considerable public 
scrutiny and discussion. Critics of OHV use have asserted that, if left 
unmanaged, OHV use causes adverse environmental, social, and safety 
impacts, while proponents have voiced concerns about maintaining access 
to federal lands for OHV-related recreation. 

The Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service manage federal lands for a 
variety of purposes. Specifically, both the Forest Service and BLM 
manage their lands for multiple uses, including recreation, and 
provision of a sustained yield of renewable resources, such as timber, 
fish and wildlife, and forage for livestock. By contrast, the Park 
Service manages its land to conserve the scenery, natural and 
historical objects, and wildlife so they remain unimpaired for the 
enjoyment of present and future generations. Currently, these three 
agencies are operating in an environment of constrained budgets, in 
which OHV use must be managed in conjunction with issues such as 
providing other recreational opportunities, managing wildland fires, 
preventing illegal drug activities, and responding to impacts on 
resources and public safety from illegal smuggling activities along the 
U.S. border. Although it has been more than 30 years since these 
agencies were directed to establish policies and procedures for 
managing OHV use, questions remain about how well OHV use has been 
managed. 

In this context, this report examines (1) the trends in and status of 
OHV use on federal lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park 
Service from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, as well as the 
reported environmental, social, and safety impacts of OHV use; (2) the 
agencies' strategic planning for managing OHV use on federal lands; (3) 
actions taken by the agencies' field units in managing OHV use on their 
lands; and (4) current OHV management challenges facing these agencies. 

In conducting our work, we collected and analyzed OHV-related 
documentation, including applicable executive orders and agency plans, 
regulations, and guidance. We also interviewed and collected 
documentation from Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service headquarters 
officials and national headquarters representatives of various OHV user 
and environmental groups. To obtain a better understanding of ongoing 
agency OHV management efforts, we visited selected Forest Service, BLM, 
and Park Service field units and interviewed agency officials, as well 
as representatives of OHV user and environmental groups near some of 
these units. We selected these field units--located in Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, and Utah--on the basis 
of their geographic and ecological diversity. The specific field units 
we visited are identified in table 3 of appendix 1. 

Because of a lack of historical and nationwide information about OHV 
use on federal lands, we also developed and administered a Web-based 
survey to gather federal land managers' perspectives on the management 
and use of OHVs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 on 
Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service lands. The survey was 
administered to the entire population of national forests and BLM field 
office units and to Park Service field units most likely to have OHV 
use, either authorized or unauthorized.[Footnote 1] To ensure the 
validity of survey responses, we (1) extensively pretested the survey 
to ensure that questions were understood appropriately across all three 
agencies, (2) pledged to report only aggregate survey information (as 
opposed to information that would identify a particular unit), and (3) 
conducted reliability and validity checks of the survey responses. We 
obtained a 100 percent response rate for the survey from all three 
agencies. A complete tabulation of the results of the survey can be 
viewed at GAO-09-547SP. To characterize the results from our survey in 
this report, we assigned specific meanings to the words used to 
quantify the results, as follows: "a few" means 1 to 24 percent of 
respondents, "some" means 25 to 44 percent of respondents, "about half" 
means 45 to 55 percent of respondents, "a majority" means 56 to 74 
percent of respondents, "most" means 75 to 94 percent of respondents, 
and "nearly all" means 95 percent or more of respondents. Appendix I 
explains our methodology in greater detail. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to June 2009, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service manage more than 530 million 
acres of federal lands across the country (see figure 1). Each agency 
has a unique mission focusing on priorities that shape how they manage 
those lands. Specifically, 

* The Forest Service manages more than 190 million acres to sustain the 
health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and 
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The 
agency manages and issues permits for activities such as recreation, 
timber harvesting, mining, livestock grazing, and rights-of-way for 
road construction. The Forest Service manages lands under its 
jurisdiction through nine regional offices, 155 national forests, 20 
grasslands, and over 600 districts (each forest has several districts). 

* BLM manages about 256 million acres to sustain the health, diversity, 
and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 
present and future generations. The agency manages and issues permits 
for activities such as recreation, timber harvesting, mining, livestock 
grazing, and oil and gas development. BLM manages public lands under 
its jurisdiction through 12 state offices, with each state office 
having several subsidiary district and field offices. 

* The Park Service manages 391 national park units covering more than 
84 million acres to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, 
and wildlife of the national park system so they will remain unimpaired 
for the enjoyment of this and future generations. The park units have 
varied designations corresponding to the natural or cultural features 
they are supposed to conserve, including national parks, monuments, 
lakeshores, seashores, recreation areas, preserves, and historic sites. 

Figure 1: Federal Lands Managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and Park 
Service: 

[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map] 

The following management of federal lands are indicated on the map: 

Forest Service; 
BLM; 
Park Service. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Geological Survey’s National Atlas Web 
site data. 

[End of figure] 

While managing their respective lands, these three agencies must comply 
with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). 
[Footnote 2] This act shifts the focus of government decision making 
and accountability away from activities that are undertaken--such as 
the number of plans developed--to the results of those activities, 
which, for the land management agencies, might include gains in 
resource protection and quality of recreational opportunities. Under 
GPRA, strategic plans are the starting point and basic underpinning for 
results-oriented management. As such, these plans should include, among 
other things, (1) results-oriented short-and long-term goals, (2) 
strategies to achieve the goals, (3) time frames for carrying out the 
strategies, and (4) performance measures to monitor incremental 
progress.[Footnote 3] Results-oriented goals have the potential to help 
agencies focus on the outcomes of their programs, rather than on 
outputs such as staffing or numbers of activities. In addition, 
developing strategies is important, so that agencies can identify how 
they intend to achieve their goals. Setting time frames for the 
strategies and developing performance measures to monitor incremental 
progress ensure that agencies make progress toward achieving their 
goals in a timely manner. Finally, since one purpose of GPRA is to 
improve the management of federal agencies, it is particularly 
important that agencies' plans address key management challenges. 

Federal agencies' management of OHV use on federal lands is also guided 
by two executive orders issued in the 1970s.[Footnote 4] The first 
executive order establishes policies and procedures to control and 
direct the use of OHVs on federal lands in a manner that: 

* protects the resources of those lands, 

* promotes the safety of all users, 

* minimizes conflicts among federal land uses, 

* communicates with the public about available OHV opportunities, 

* prescribes appropriate penalties for violating OHV regulations, and: 

* monitors the effects of OHV use. 

The executive order also directs each federal land management agency to 
develop and issue regulations that designate specific areas and trails 
on public lands as open or closed with respect to OHV use. In making 
these designations, agencies are directed to minimize damage to the 
soil, watersheds, vegetation, or other resources of the federal lands; 
harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; 
and conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. 
The second executive order directs agency heads to close areas or 
trails if OHVs are causing considerable adverse effects. The Forest 
Service, BLM, and Park Service initially implemented these executive 
orders by designating areas as open, which allows cross-country OHV 
use; limited, which allows OHV use on a specific route authorized by an 
agency; or closed, which prohibits OHV use. 

In recent years, the agencies have begun to reevaluate the procedures 
they use to make OHV designations--or are in the process of developing 
additional regulations for OHV use--in light of the recent increase in 
popularity of OHV use. Specifically, in 2005, the Forest Service issued 
a travel management regulation, in part to standardize the process that 
individual national forests and grasslands use to designate the roads, 
trails, and areas that will be open to motorized travel. This 
designation process applies only to motorized vehicles and does not 
address other forms of transportation, such as biking, horseback 
riding, and hiking. After roads, trails, and areas are designated, the 
travel management regulation requires that motorized travel be limited 
to designated roads, trails, and areas, reducing the acreage within 
national forests that is open to cross-country travel. The travel 
management regulation also requires that designated roads, trails, and 
areas be displayed on a motor vehicle use map. The Forest Service 
developed a schedule to complete the route designations and to develop 
the required motor vehicle use maps by the end of calendar 2009. As of 
March 2009, the Forest Service had completed travel management planning 
for 53 million acres, or about 28 percent of its lands. In January 
2009, the Forest Service updated its travel management guidance to 
provide individual forests with details on how to designate roads, 
trails, and areas for motorized use. This guidance, among other things, 
describes the process that forests should go through to make travel 
management decisions, including the criteria for making these 
decisions. These criteria include effects on natural and cultural 
resources, effects on public safety, provision of recreation 
opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of national forest 
lands, the need for maintenance, and the availability of resources for 
such maintenance. 

Like the Forest Service, BLM has also begun to reevaluate the 
procedures it uses to make OHV designations. Over the past 10 years, 
BLM has issued increasingly detailed guidance on how its field offices 
should address travel management in their resource management plans. 
[Footnote 5] In accordance with the executive orders, BLM regulations 
require that all its lands be given an area designation of either open, 
limited, or closed with respect to motorized travel and that these 
designations be based on protecting resources, promoting the safety of 
users, and minimizing conflicts between users. As of March 2009, BLM 
had designated about 32 percent of its lands as open to motorized 
travel, 48 percent as limited, and 4 percent as closed; 16 percent are 
not yet designated. BLM's most recent guidance, issued in 2007, 
provided additional details related to how field units should conduct 
travel planning in the context of resource management planning. While 
updating a resource management plan, BLM field unit officials are to 
inventory and evaluate OHV routes and area designations (such as open, 
limited, and closed), seek public input, and make changes as 
appropriate. For example, when BLM's Moab Field Office in Utah 
finalized its resource management plan in October 2008, the plan 
changed the area designations of many lands under the field office's 
jurisdiction. Specifically, open areas were reduced from 1.2 million 
acres to 2,000 acres, limited areas were increased from 600,000 acres 
to 1.5 million acres, and closed areas were increased from 24,000 acres 
to 339,000 acres. For areas designated for limited OHV use, BLM 
guidance states that the resource management plan must include a map 
identifying the OHV route system. In addition, because of recent 
increases in OHV use on public lands and the potential for related 
resource damage, BLM's latest guidance encourages field units not to 
designate large areas as open to motorized travel. BLM headquarters 
officials have estimated that in about 10 years they will complete 
updating resource management plans to include travel planning. 

The Park Service is currently developing regulations for OHV use for 
particular units. By regulation, the Park Service prohibits OHV use 
except in certain units designated as lakeshores, seashores, national 
recreation areas, or preserves. To authorize OHV use in such units, the 
unit is required to develop special regulations describing the areas 
where OHV use is permitted.[Footnote 6] Of the 391 national park units, 
50 (13 percent) fall within one of these four designations. While many 
Park Service units with OHV use have developed special regulations, 
some units are currently in the process of developing their special 
regulations. 

Many different types of OHV are operated on federal lands. For the 
purposes of this report, an OHV is any motorized vehicle capable of, or 
designed for, cross-country travel immediately on or over land, not 
including personal watercraft, snowmobiles, or aircraft. OHVs used on 
federal lands include off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, 
utility terrain vehicles, dune buggies, swamp buggies, jeeps, and rock 
crawlers (see figure 2). These vehicles may be used for various 
purposes, ranging from trail and open-area riding to hunting and 
accessing lakeshores, seashores, or in-holdings (private or state-owned 
lands inside the boundaries of federal lands). National OHV user groups 
have described OHV recreation as a way to experience challenge and 
excitement, enjoy the outdoors, and have fun as a family. In addition, 
OHV use may provide economic benefits to local communities near 
recreation sites. 

Figure 2: Examples of OHVs: 

[Refer to PDF for image: eight illustrations] 

Off-highway motorcycle; 
Utility terrain vehicle; 
Jeeps and other 4x4 vehicles; 
Three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle[A]: 
Swamp buggy[B]: 
Sand rail or dune buggy; 
Rock crawler[B]: 
Four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Because of safety concerns, three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles are 
no longer sold in the United States. 

[B] Rock crawlers and swamp buggies are often created through after-
market modifications of more standard vehicles, such as jeeps. 

[End of figure] 

The environmental impacts of OHV use, both direct and indirect, have 
been studied and documented over the past several decades. In fact, in 
2004, the Forest Service Chief identified unmanaged motorized 
recreation as one of the top four threats to national forests, 
estimating that there were more than 14,000 miles of user-created 
trails, which can lead to long-lasting damage. Potential environmental 
impacts associated with OHV use include damage to soil, vegetation, 
riparian areas or wetlands, water quality, and air quality, as well as 
noise, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive 
species. For example, studies on the impacts of OHV use indicate that 
soil damage can increase erosion and runoff, as well as decrease the 
soil's ability to support vegetation. Additionally, research has shown 
that habitat fragmentation from OHV use alters the distribution of 
wildlife species across the landscape and affects many behaviors such 
as feeding, courtship, breeding, and migration; habitat fragmentation 
can also negatively affect wildlife beyond the actual amount of surface 
area disturbed by roads. In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey reported 
that as a result of OHV use, the size and abundance of native plants 
may be reduced, which in turn may permit invasive or nonnative plants 
to spread and dominate the plant community, thus diminishing overall 
biodiversity. Another potential impact of OHV use is damage to cultural 
resources, including archaeologically significant sites such as Native 
American grave sites, historic battlefields, fossilized remains, and 
ruins of ancient civilizations. 

The Use of Off-Highway Vehicles Has Increased on Federal Lands, with 
Varying Environmental, Social, and Safety Impacts: 

OHV use on federal lands generally increased from fiscal year 2004 
through fiscal year 2008, according to a majority of field unit 
officials from the Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service. Most field 
unit officials reported that environmental impacts associated with OHV 
use occurred on less than 20 percent of the lands they manage, although 
a few field unit officials reported that 80 percent or more of their 
lands are affected. Most field unit officials also indicated that 
social and safety impacts occasionally occurred on their lands. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use Has Increased over the Past 5 Fiscal Years: 

OHV use, including authorized and unauthorized use, increased on 
federal lands from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. 
Specifically, most Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and some 
Park Service field unit officials reported an increase in authorized 
OHV use. Similarly, most BLM field unit officials, a majority of Forest 
Service field unit officials, and some Park Service field unit 
officials reported an increase in unauthorized OHV use. These agencies' 
field unit officials attributed the increased use of OHVs on federal 
lands to, among other things, a growing population in close proximity 
to federal lands and the rising popularity of OHV recreation. In 
addition, officials at two field units we visited said they have seen 
an increase in OHV use on their units because of OHV closures on nearby 
state and private lands. For example, Park Service officials from Big 
Cypress National Preserve said that both private and public lands in 
South Florida have been closed to OHV use, leading to increased OHV use 
in the preserve. Similarly, Forest Service officials from the Tonto 
National Forest said that OHV use has increased since the state of 
Arizona closed lands near Phoenix to OHV use in an effort to reduce 
dust pollution. 

Most field unit officials reported that OHV use occurred on their lands 
from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Specifically, nearly 
all Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and a majority of Park 
Service field unit officials said that OHV use, whether authorized or 
unauthorized, occurred on the lands they manage. According to field 
unit officials from all three agencies, in an average year, OHVs were 
used on federal lands primarily for recreational activities such as 
trail and open-area riding. OHVs were also used on federal lands for 
hunting and game retrieval; to access particular areas, such as beaches 
and lakeshores; and for activities requiring a permit, such as 
geophysical exploration and ranching (see figure 3). 

Figure 3: Predominant Manner in Which OHVs Were Used on Federal Lands 
in an Average Year, by Agency: 

[Refer to PDF for image: three pie-charts] 

Forest Service: 
OHV recreation: 70%; 
Hunting: 19%; 
Activities requiring a permit: 7%; 
Access to a particular area: 2%; 
Other: 2%. 

BLM: 
OHV recreation: 68%; 
Hunting: 21%; 
Activities requiring a permit: 10%; 
Access to a particular area: 3%; 
Other: 2%. 

Park Service: 
OHV recreation: 35%; 
Hunting: 14%; 
Activities requiring a permit: 10%; 
Access to a particular area: 26%; 
Other: 15%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: The figure illustrates the percentage of field unit officials 
from each agency who reported the predominant manner in which OHVs were 
used in an average year on lands they manage. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, the amount of OHV use relative to other types of 
recreational activities on federal lands, such as fishing, hunting, 
hiking, and camping, varies by agency. For example, most Forest Service 
field unit officials said that OHV use constitutes less than half the 
recreational activity on their lands, while a majority of BLM field 
unit officials indicated that OHV use constitutes more than half the 
recreational activity on their lands. Most Park Service field unit 
officials, however, indicated that OHV use constitutes less than 10 
percent of the recreation taking place on their lands, in part because 
OHV use is authorized only in certain Park Service field units. 

Environmental Impacts of OHV Use Occur on Less Than One-Fifth of 
Federal Lands: 

Most field unit officials from all three agencies indicated that 
environmental impacts of OHV use occur on less than 20 percent of the 
lands they manage; a few field unit officials, however, reported that 
80 percent or more of their lands are affected by OHV-related 
environmental impacts.[Footnote 7] Forest Service and BLM field unit 
officials were more likely to report greater percentages of land with 
environmental impacts than Park Service field unit officials. The OHV- 
related environmental impacts that field unit officials identified as 
most widespread were soil erosion, damage to vegetation, wildlife 
habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species. For example, 
officials from the Tonto National Forest in Arizona noted that the main 
impact associated with OHV use in the forest has been soil erosion, 
particularly in areas with highly erodible soils (see figure 4). 
Additionally, officials from BLM's Phoenix District in Arizona noted 
that OHV use has fragmented desert tortoise habitat because the 
tortoise can be disturbed by OHV noise. Other reported environmental 
impacts included damage to riparian zones and harm to threatened or 
endangered species. 

Figure 4: OHV-Related Soil Erosion in the Tonto National Forest: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The severity of certain OHV-related environmental impacts, such as soil 
damage, may also depend on the ecosystem in which OHV use occurs (see 
figure 5). For example, BLM officials from the El Centro Field Office 
in southern California explained that the Imperial Sand Dunes are 
dynamic and soil damage from OHV use tends to be minimal, since most 
tracks are quickly erased by the wind. In contrast, certain desert 
ecosystems, including those in Arches National Park, have sensitive 
soils, and recovery from OHV-related disturbance to soils and plant 
life can be very slow. Additionally, Forest Service officials from the 
Manti-LaSal National Forest in central Utah stated that soil erosion is 
a major environmental impact associated with OHV use on their forest. 
Damage to the forest's soils often occurs from OHV use in the late fall 
(after the first snow), when the ground is wet but not frozen. While 
officials at the Manti-LaSal National Forest said that these damaged 
areas could recover in about a year with rehabilitation efforts, the 
areas often take 4 to 5 years to recover because the forest lacks staff 
to rehabilitate the lands more quickly. Similarly, Park Service 
officials in Big Cypress National Preserve said that the environmental 
impacts primarily associated with OHV use include disturbance to soils 
and vegetation, as well as disruption to the hydrology of the wetland 
ecosystem. These officials further stated that while plant life 
regenerates fast, ruts from OHV use can persist for more than a decade. 

Figure 5: Impacts of OHV Use on Soils and Vegetation in a Variety of 
Ecosystems: 

[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs] 

Imperial Sand Dunes (Source: GAO); 
Arches National Park (Source: GAO); 
Big Cypress National Preserve (Source: GAO); 
Manti-LaSal National Forest (Source: Department of Agriculture’s Forest 
Service). 

[End of figure] 

OHV Use on Federal Lands Occasionally Results in Social and Safety 
Impacts, Including Fatalities: 

Social and safety impacts related to OHV use occasionally or rarely 
occur on federal lands; although, an annual average of about 110 OHV-
related fatalities occurred nationwide from fiscal year 2004 through 
fiscal year 2008 according to data provided by field unit officials. 
Forest Service and BLM field unit officials reported a higher frequency 
of OHV-related social and safety impacts than did Park Service field 
unit officials. The most often reported of these social and safety 
impacts were conflicts between OHV and nonmotorized users, displacement 
of nonmotorized users, conflicts with private landowners, and 
irresponsible OHV operation. For example, Forest Service officials at 
the Manti-LaSal National Forest said that motorized recreationists have 
taken over trails managed for nonmotorized use, resulting in conflicts 
between motorized and nonmotorized users. Additionally, BLM officials 
at the Prineville District in central Oregon noted that private 
landowners adjacent to federal lands, frustrated with OHV users driving 
on their lands, have taken enforcement into their own hands by placing 
cables and rocks across trails to prevent unauthorized OHV use. BLM 
officials at the El Centro Field Office also said that many OHV- 
related violations are due to irresponsible behavior, such as failing 
to have a safety flag on an OHV or driving an OHV while under the 
influence of alcohol. 

Nearly all reported OHV-related fatalities occurred on Forest Service 
and BLM lands. Although a majority of field unit officials from all 
three agencies reported having no OHV-related fatalities from fiscal 
year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, some field unit officials did 
report fatalities--a maximum total of about 570 during that time frame 
at 117 field units. Specifically, Forest Service field unit officials 
reported about 250 fatalities at 68 field units, BLM about 320 
fatalities at 45 field units, and Park Service 5 fatalities at 4 field 
units. While most field units that had OHV-related fatalities reported 
5 or less, a few field unit officials reported between 10 and 75 
fatalities. 

Agencies' Plans for OHV Management Are Missing Some Key Elements of 
Strategic Planning: 

At a national level, the Forest Service's and BLM's management of OHVs 
is broadly guided by department-level strategic plans, as well as by 
more-specific agency-level plans. These plans, however, are missing 
some key elements of strategic planning--such as results-oriented 
goals, strategies to achieve the goals, time frames for implementing 
strategies, or performance measures to monitor incremental progress--
that could improve OHV management. The Park Service has no extensive 
planning or guidance for managing OHV use, but this absence seems 
reasonable given that Park Service regulations limit OHV use to only a 
few units and that OHV use is not a predominant recreational activity 
on Park Service lands. 

The Department of Agriculture's strategic plan includes a goal to 
protect forests and grasslands. Within the context of this goal, the 
plan specifically mentions OHV management, identifying unmanaged 
motorized recreation as one of four key threats to national forests. 
The plan also identifies a performance measure to develop travel plans--
which designate roads, trails, and areas that will be open to motorized 
travel--for all national forests, with a target of completing these 
plans by 2010. In addition to this department-level plan, the Forest 
Service has an agency-level strategic plan that identifies a goal of 
sustaining and enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities and, in 
particular, improving the management of OHV use. The Forest Service's 
strategic plan also reiterates the performance measure identified by 
the department-level plan--to develop travel management plans for all 
forests that designate OHV roads, trails, and areas. While the agency 
plan includes a goal--improving the management of OHV use--and one 
strategy to achieve the goal--designating motorized roads, trails, and 
areas--the plan does not identify strategies to address--or time frames 
to implement--other important aspects of OHV management as identified 
in the executive orders, such as implementing motorized-travel 
designations on the ground, communicating with the public, monitoring 
OHV trail systems, or enforcing OHV regulations. Given that the Forest 
Service has identified unmanaged motorized recreation as one of the top 
four threats to national forests, the agency's strategic plan provides 
insufficient direction on this management challenge. 

Similar to the Forest Service, BLM's management of OHV use is guided by 
departmental planning. The Department of the Interior's strategic plan 
identifies a broad goal of improving recreation opportunities for 
America, and BLM has two plans expanding on this goal for OHV-related 
activities. BLM's first plan, the "National Management Strategy for 
Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands," was published in 
2001 as a first step in developing a proactive approach to on-the-
ground management of OHVs. The second plan, BLM's "Priorities for 
Recreation and Visitor Services," was developed in 2003 and reconfirmed 
in 2007 as the agency's plan for recreation management, including OHV 
management. This recreation plan identifies numerous goals for OHV 
management, as well as strategies the agency can use to achieve each 
goal. For example, the plan identifies a goal of improving on-the-
ground travel management and identifies three strategies to achieve 
that goal--conducting trails surveys to determine maintenance needs; 
implementing best management practices such as signs, maps, and the 
presence of agency staff in the field; and monitoring social outcomes 
and environmental conditions along trails. Despite identifying numerous 
goals and strategies to achieve the goals, BLM's recreation plan does 
not identify any time frames for implementing the strategies or any 
performance measures for monitoring incremental progress.[Footnote 8] 
For example, while the agency identifies a strategy of implementing 
best management practices, the agency identifies neither performance 
measures that could track the use of best management practices--such as 
the percentage of routes with signs or the number of field offices with 
up-to-date maps--nor time frames by which some of these best management 
practices should be implemented. Without performance measures and time 
frames, BLM cannot ensure that it is making progress on achieving its 
goals in a timely manner. 

Agencies' Field Units Reported Taking Many Actions, but Additional 
Efforts Could Improve Communication and Enforcement; a Majority of 
Units Said They Are Unable to Sustainably Manage OHV Use: 

Actions that agencies' field units reported taking to manage OHV use 
include supplementing federal funds with authorized outside resources 
(such as state grants), communicating with and educating the public, 
enforcing OHV regulations, and engineering and monitoring OHV trail 
systems. Additional efforts could improve communication with the public 
about OHV trails and areas and enforcement of OHV regulations. In 
addition, a majority of field unit officials reported that they cannot 
sustainably manage existing OHV areas; sustainable management would 
include having the necessary human and financial resources available to 
ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use 
areas, and evaluate the existing OHV program. 

Field Units Reported Supplementing Federal Funds with Authorized 
Outside Resources: 

Authorized outside resources are being used to manage OHV use, 
including grants from states and other sources, partnerships with OHV 
and other user groups, or user fees. Specifically, Forest Service and 
BLM field unit officials were more likely than Park Service field unit 
officials to report using authorized outside resources. The most 
commonly identified sources of such resources for Forest Service and 
BLM units were grants from states and partnerships with OHV user 
groups; for the Park Service, the most commonly identified source was 
user fees or permits (see figure 6). 

Figure 6: Authorized Outside Resources Used to Manage OHV Use, as 
Reported by Field Unit Officials: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph] 

Authorized outside source: Grants from states; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 71%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 48%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 3%. 

Authorized outside source: Partnerships with OHV user groups; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 65%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 56%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 0. 

Authorized outside source: Partnerships with environmental and other 
groups; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 23%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 32%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 0. 

Authorized outside source: Federal user fees or permits; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 19%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 26%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 14%. 

Authorized outside source: Grants from other sources; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 18%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 16%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 3%. 

Authorized outside source: Other; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 5%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 11%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 8%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Of the field unit officials who reported supplementing federal funds 
with authorized outside resources, a majority indicated that additional 
funding sources amounted to more than 20 percent of their OHV 
management budgets, with some Forest Service and BLM field unit 
officials reporting that these sources amounted to more than half their 
OHV management budgets. At most of the field units we visited with 
authorized OHV use, agency officials emphasized that outside resources 
are vital to OHV management. For example, officials at the Cleveland 
National Forest said that they would not have an OHV management program 
without the grants they receive from the state of California. These 
grants funded the development of the current OHV management program and 
allowed the national forest to continue restoration, operations, and 
maintenance activities on their OHV routes. Similarly, Park Service 
officials at Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland said that 
the fees they collect through their OHV permit program fund several 
year-round staff, and without the fees, they would not be able to 
support OHV use on Assateague Island. Officials at some of the field 
units we visited reported that obtaining and using authorized outside 
resources can require a significant investment of staff time. For 
example, BLM officials at the Phoenix District said that while 
volunteers can be a great source of outside resources, their labor is 
not free. Specifically, BLM officials spend significant time organizing 
and finding meaningful projects for volunteers that provide both a 
benefit to BLM and a rewarding experience for the volunteers. 
Similarly, Forest Service officials at the Cleveland National Forest 
said that applying for state grants is time-consuming for field unit 
staff, as some grant applications are about 150 pages long. 

While Field Units Reported Taking Actions to Communicate with and 
Educate the Public, Additional Efforts Could Improve Communication 
about OHV Areas and Trails: 

All three agencies reported taking actions to communicate with and 
educate the public, including posting signs, providing maps, attending 
meetings with OHV user and other interest groups, and soliciting 
volunteers for maintenance and peer enforcement activities (see figure 
7). Field unit officials indicated that the actions taken most often 
were posting signs, attending meetings of OHV user groups and other 
groups, and providing maps of OHV use areas. Forest Service and BLM 
field unit officials were more likely than Park Service field unit 
officials to report taking actions to communicate with and educate the 
public. Few Park Service field unit officials reported taking similar 
actions because many actions--such as developing adopt-a-route programs 
or soliciting volunteers for maintenance--are only appropriate in areas 
with authorized OHV use. 

Figure 7: Actions Taken to Educate or Communicate with the Public, as 
Reported by Field Unit Officials: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph] 

Education or communication action: Posting signs; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 91%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 88%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 72%. 

Education or communication action: Attending OHV user group meetings; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 86%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 81%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 30%. 

Education or communication action: Providing maps of OHV routes or use 
areas; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 84%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 75%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 33%. 

Education or communication action: Attending other user group meetings; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 80%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 79%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 40%. 

Education or communication action: Soliciting volunteers for 
maintenance or education; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 75%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 69%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 25%. 

Education or communication action: Conducting public message/ad 
campaigns; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 62%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 57v
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 19%. 

Education or communication action: Soliciting OHV user volunteers for 
peer enforcement activities; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 58%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 52%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 17%. 

Education or communication action: Developing adopt-a-route programs; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 47%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 31%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 5%. 

Education or communication action: Conducting workshops; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 39%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 31%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 14%. 

Education or communication action: Conducting Internet searches about 
OHV use in unauthorized areas; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 32%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 47%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 25%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Most field unit officials indicated that they post signs on OHV routes 
to describe the types of travel permitted on the route. A majority of 
officials who post signs also said that it is an effective OHV 
management action. Figure 8 shows a BLM Moab Field Office sign that 
stopped a vehicle from entering a streambed closed to OHV use. 

Figure 8: A Closure Sign at the BLM Moab Field Office: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Only a few field unit officials with authorized OHV use in their units 
indicated that at least 90 percent of their OHV routes have been 
signed. About half of the field unit officials whose units authorize 
OHV use indicated that more than 50 percent of their OHV routes have 
been signed. For example, at the BLM Moab Field Office, we observed 
that the Sand Flats Recreation Area was extensively signed, with signs 
at the entrance to the recreation area, at parking areas, and at 
trailheads (see figure 9). By contrast, another OHV use area at the 
same field office had fewer signs identifying which routes were open or 
closed (see figure 10). 

Figure 9: An Entrance Sign (left) and Trailhead Sign (right) at the 
Sand Flats Recreation Area in Moab, Utah: 

[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

Figure 52: Note: These signs inform visitors about available recreation 
opportunities in the Sand Flats Recreation Area, including OHV use. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 53: An Unsigned OHV Route at the BLM Field Office in Moab, Utah: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Officials at a few locations we visited also mentioned that, because of 
theft or vandalism, maintenance of signs has been difficult, and they 
have developed techniques to limit such vandalism (see figure 11). For 
example, BLM Phoenix District officials said that putting American 
flags on their signs has significantly reduced vandalism. Furthermore, 
BLM El Centro Field Office officials mentioned that designing signs in 
conjunction with OHV user groups can also limit vandalism by giving OHV 
users a stake in maintaining the signs. Similarly, a BLM Prineville 
District official mentioned that OHV users often respond more 
positively to signs directing them to where they can ride than to signs 
saying trails are closed. 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Measures Taken by BLM Field Offices to Reduce Sign 
Vandalism: 

[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs] 

Sign with American flag, BLM Phoenix District; 
Sign created by user groups, BLM El Centro Field Office. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Most field unit officials from the Forest Service and BLM, and some 
field unit officials from the Park Service, said that they provide maps 
of OHV routes or use areas. Nevertheless, only some field unit 
officials with authorized OHV routes in their units indicated that they 
have maps for more than 90 percent of their OHV routes or areas. About 
half of field unit officials with authorized OHV routes indicated that 
they have maps for at least 50 percent of their OHV routes or areas. 
Officials from two field offices we visited mentioned that developing 
maps is expensive. To help offset this expense, officials from the BLM 
Moab Field Office said they are working with private companies to 
develop maps of the OHV routes; they hope to apply for a state grant to 
help fund the production of those maps for the public. 

Field unit officials from the Forest Service were more likely than 
those from the BLM or Park Service to indicate that they have maps for 
at least 50 percent of their OHV routes, possibly because the Forest 
Service has been developing motor vehicle use maps in response to its 
2005 travel management regulation. While the Forest Service has 
acknowledged that the motor vehicle use map is designed to display a 
national forest's designated roads, trails, and areas for enforcement 
purposes, rather than as a visitor map, officials at three forests we 
visited expressed concerns that the public has difficulties with motor 
vehicle use maps. In addition, both OHV user groups and environmental 
groups have expressed similar concerns. Specifically, a motor vehicle 
use map does not display all the information that may be found on a 
visitor map, such as topographic lines; landscape features such as 
streams; or other trails users might encounter, such as trails closed 
to motor vehicles (see figure 12). Also, although Forest Service 
headquarters officials acknowledged that on-the-ground route markers 
would be very helpful for OHV users' navigation, they said that 
national forests have not necessarily erected these types of signs for 
all OHV routes. 

Figure 12: Sample of a Motor Vehicle Use Map from the Uncompahgre 
National Forest, Colorado: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map] 

Printed map size: 27 inches by 30 inches. 

Inset map contains the following information: 

Seasonal and Special Vehicle Designations: 

Route number: 402; 
Legend: Roads open to all vehicles, with seasonal designation; 
Seasonal designation: All highway-legal vehicles, all non-highway-legal 
vehicles wider than 50 inches; 
Dates allowed: 05/31-11/14. 

Route number: 516; 
Legend: Trails open to motorcycles, with seasonal designation; 
Seasonal designation: Seasonal designation; 
Dates allowed: 07/01-09/03. 

Route number: 562; 
Legend: Roads open to all vehicles, with seasonal designation; 
Seasonal designation: All highway-legal vehicles, all non-highway-legal 
vehicles wider than 50 inches; 
Dates allowed: 05/31-11/14. 

Legend: Symbols for: 

Roads open to highway-legal vehicles only: These roads are open only to 
motor vehicles licensed under state law. 

Roads open to all vehicles: 

Trails open to all vehicles: 

Trails open to motorcycles only: 

Special vehicle designation: Trails open to wheeled vehicles less than 
or equal to 50 inches; 

Dispersed camping: This symbol is used along with a designated road to 
indicate that limited cross-country motor vehicle use is allowed within 
a specific distance of that route, solely for the purpose of dispersed 
camping. 

Seasonal designation: This symbol, used in conjunction with one of the 
other road or trail symbols, indicates that the road or trail is open 
only during certain portions of the year. Refer to Seasonal and Special
Designation Vehicle table. 

Source: GAO analysis of the Uncompahgre National Forest motor vehicle 
use map. 

Note: Each route depicted on the map has a number, which ideally 
corresponds to a route marker on the ground so that OHV users can 
ensure they are on the correct route. For some routes, including those 
in red, there are seasonal restrictions regarding when OHVs can be 
used. In such cases, OHV users must also examine the Seasonal and 
Special Vehicle Designations table to identify those restrictions. 

[End of figure] 

A majority of field unit officials indicated that they have developed 
partnerships with outside user groups. Specifically, officials at most 
field units we visited indicated they had solicited volunteers for OHV 
route maintenance or education activities. For example, officials at 
the BLM Phoenix District said they have used volunteers from 
environmental groups to help rehabilitate areas in the Lower Sonoran 
Desert National Monument, which is temporarily closed to OHV use. 
Similarly, officials from the BLM Moab Field Office mentioned 
partnerships they had developed with local OHV user groups. In 
assisting with route maintenance, the groups' labor has accounted for 
more hours than those of the field office's paid recreation staff. 

While Field Units Reported Taking a Number of Actions to Enforce OHV 
Regulations, Additional Efforts Could Improve Enforcement: 

Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service field units reported taking a 
number of actions to enforce their OHV regulations. Most field unit 
officials indicated that they have taken a number of enforcement 
actions related to OHV use (see figure 13). For example, nearly all 
Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and most Park Service 
officials said their units conduct occasional patrols of OHV routes or 
open areas. In addition, nearly all Forest Service field unit 
officials, and most BLM and Park Service officials, said their units 
issue written warnings or citations for OHV violations. Some field unit 
officials from all three agencies had also arrested individuals for OHV 
violations. Law enforcement officials at Forest Service headquarters 
mentioned that such arrests are often related to other violations, such 
as driving an OHV while under the influence of alcohol. 

Figure 13: Actions Taken to Enforce OHV Regulations, as Reported by 
Field Unit Officials: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph] 

Enforcement action: Occasionally patrolling routes or open areas; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 95%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 95%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 83%. 

Enforcement action: Writing warnings or citations for OHV violations; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 95%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 79%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 80%. 

Enforcement action: Routinely patrolling routes or open areas; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 71%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 74%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 65%. 

Enforcement action: Developing agreements with local or state law
enforcement; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 73%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 73%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 39%. 

Enforcement action: Arresting individuals for OHV violations; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 34%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 28%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 23%. 

Enforcement action: Requiring permits and/or fees for OHV access; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 28%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 19%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 18%. 

Enforcement action: Revoking or suspending OHV use privileges; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 15%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 14%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 16%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Generally, field unit officials who took enforcement actions rated them 
as effective (see table 1). The most commonly used, but least 
effective, OHV enforcement action was conducting patrols of OHV routes 
or open areas occasionally. By contrast, the most effective action 
reported by field unit officials was conducting patrols of OHV routes 
or use areas routinely. Although three of the actions--requiring 
permits or fees for OHV access, arresting individuals for OHV 
violations, and revoking or suspending OHV use privileges--were used by 
only some field units, they were rated as more effective than the most 
commonly used action. For example, officials from Tonto National Forest 
said their experience with requiring OHV permits has been positive. The 
permits required for OHV use in certain areas of the forest are free 
and provide a lock combination allowing access into certain gated OHV 
areas for 6 months. Officials observed that requiring free permits 
increases user accountability, since users do not want to lose their 
riding privileges. The permits are also acceptable to the public 
because they are free. 

Table 1: Frequency of Enforcement Actions and Field Unit Officials' 
Assessment of Their Effectiveness: 

Occasionally patrolling routes or open areas: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 92; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 53. 

Writing warnings or citations for OHV violations: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 86; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 70. 

Routinely patrolling routes or open areas: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 70; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 77. 

Developing agreements with local or state law enforcement: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 64; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 58. 

Arresting individuals for OHV violations: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 29; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 64. 

Requiring permits or fees for OHV access: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 25; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 75. 

Revoking or suspending OHV use privileges: 
Percentage of field unit officials taking the action: 16; 
Percentage of those taking the action who found it effective: 62. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Only about half the field unit officials were satisfied with existing 
fines for OHV violations in their units. BLM field unit officials were 
less likely to be satisfied with their existing fines than Forest 
Service or Park Service officials. Additionally, about half the field 
unit officials indicated that existing fines were insufficient to deter 
illegal or unsafe OHV use. For example, one BLM official in Utah 
pointed out that the fine amount for driving in a closed area is $150. 
Although this fine is one of the highest fines for an OHV violation in 
the Moab area, the official said the amount is negligible when compared 
with the overall expense that most OHV enthusiasts invest in their 
sport, including the cost of an OHV, the trailer to transport it, and 
safety gear for the rider. 

Consistent with applicable laws, Forest Service and BLM maximum fine 
amounts for violations of OHV regulations are $500 and $1,000, 
respectively. But fine amounts for specific OHV-related violations are 
developed at the local level. Specifically, the 94 federal court 
districts throughout the country maintain fine schedules for violations 
of federal regulations. The U.S. Attorney in each federal court 
district is responsible for prosecuting individuals who violate OHV 
regulations within that district. Local judicial authorities, such as 
magistrates presiding in those federal court districts, have discretion 
to increase or decrease the existing fine schedules through local court 
rules. Consequently, fine amounts for similar OHV violations can vary 
substantially, depending on which federal court district the violation 
occurs in. For example, among California's four federal court 
districts, the fine for disturbing land or wildlife while traveling off 
road in an OHV ranges from $50 in the central district up to $250 in 
the eastern district. To modify the fine schedule in a particular 
federal court district, agency officials must work with the relevant 
U.S. Attorney to petition the local magistrate within that district. 

In 2001, BLM proposed comparing fine amounts across various U.S. 
district courts to determine the range of fines for motorized OHV- 
related violations and then petitioning the courts to modify the fines 
where appropriate. BLM officials told us, however, that this analysis 
has not been conducted at a national level. In addition, officials at 
some of the field units we visited said they had recently petitioned to 
change the fine schedules or were planning such a petition in the 
future. For example, officials from the Forest Service and Park Service 
in Colorado said that they had successfully petitioned the local 
magistrate to raise the fines. An Uncompahgre National Forest official 
said that the new fine for riding an OHV off a designated route is 
$250, which he said is more appropriate. 

Some OHV violations are adjudicated in federal court, either because a 
law enforcement officer requires an OHV rider to make a court 
appearance or because the OHV rider decides to appeal a citation. 
Successful prosecution of OHV violations depends both on the 
availability and willingness of the U.S. Attorney's Office to pursue 
the case and on the receptiveness of the local magistrate to hearing 
OHV-related violations. About half of field unit officials indicated 
that the local U.S. Attorney's Office was responsive to OHV-related 
violations, and some indicated the same for federal magistrates. For 
example, a law enforcement officer from the Manti-LaSal National Forest 
said that he took a local magistrate on a tour of the forest and 
explained some of the problems the forest is having with unauthorized 
OHV use. After the tour, law enforcement officers successfully sought 
restitution payments from OHV violators to remediate OHV-related damage 
to the forest. By contrast, several officials at field units we visited 
mentioned that the U.S. Attorney's Office in their area has little time 
to address OHV-related violations because the office is prosecuting 
cases involving, for example, terrorism or violent crimes. 

Field Units Reported Taking Actions to Engineer and Monitor OHV Trail 
Systems: 

A majority of field unit officials indicated that, to help manage OHV 
use, they use engineering and monitoring actions, such as closing or 
relocating problematic OHV routes, providing separate motorized and 
nonmotorized recreational opportunities, monitoring the effects of OHV 
use, and designing trail systems (see figure 14). Field unit officials 
from the Forest Service and BLM were more likely to use engineering and 
monitoring strategies than field unit officials from the Park Service. 

Figure 14: Actions Taken to Engineer or Monitor OHV Trail Systems, as 
Reported by Field Unit Officials: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph] 

Engineering or monitoring action: Permanently closing or relocating 
problematic routes; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 81%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 78%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 36%. 

Engineering or monitoring action: Seasonally closing certain routes; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 76%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 56%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 23%. 

Engineering or monitoring action: Providing separate motorized and non-
motorized recreational opportunities; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 75%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 66%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 20%. 

Engineering or monitoring action: Monitoring the effects of OHV use on 
unit's lands; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 72%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 76%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 45%. 

Engineering or monitoring action: Maintaining routes by reconstruction 
or regrading; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 71%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 62%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 25%. 

Engineering or monitoring action: Designing OHV trail systems with 
varied opportunities; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 65%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 61%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 9%. 

Engineering or monitoring action: Limiting or dispersing campsites; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Forest Service: 45%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, BLM: 44%; 
Percentage of field unit officials, Park Service: 19%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

During our visits to field units, we observed several examples of 
officials' efforts to close or relocate problematic OHV routes, such as 
putting up gates or lining OHV routes with rocks (see figure 15). For 
example, Curecanti National Recreation Area in Colorado, managed by the 
Park Service, allows OHV use to access the lakeshore. In some areas, 
access points are near cultural resources, and officials built a 
barrier to protect these resources. In two other field units we 
visited, officials were temporarily closing large areas to remediate 
existing OHV-related damage. For example, BLM's Phoenix District Office 
closed portions of the Lower Sonoran Desert National Monument to OHV 
use in June 2008. During the closure, officials said they intended to 
reseed with native plants to remediate OHV routes and reclaim areas 
disturbed by user-created routes. These officials indicated that much 
of the remediation work would be done by volunteers, including 
environmental groups and religious organizations. 

Figure 15: Barriers Used to Block Problematic OHV Routes: 

[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs] 

Curecanti National Recreation Area; 
Arches National Park; 
Big Cypress National Preserve; 
Ochoco National Forest. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

A majority of field unit officials also indicated that they have 
provided separate motorized and nonmotorized recreational 
opportunities. For example, the Siuslaw National Forest, which manages 
the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, has designated separate 
areas on the dunes for motorized and nonmotorized travel. When 
developing the boundaries between the motorized and nonmotorized areas, 
officials said they took advantage of natural barriers, such as roads 
and rivers, to make it easier for OHV riders to see which areas are 
designated as open or closed. 

About half of field unit officials indicated that they had designed OHV 
trail systems to provide varied opportunities, such as loops or 
training areas. For example, the Deschutes National Forest and BLM's 
Prineville Field Office in central Oregon worked together to develop 
several OHV route systems, including the Millican Valley system, with 
255 miles of OHV routes, and the East Fort Rock system, with 318 miles 
of OHV routes. To help OHV users select an appropriate trail, the 
Forest Service and BLM have also classified each of the trails in these 
areas on the basis of difficulty. Similarly, BLM's Phoenix District 
Office developed the Boulders, a designated OHV trail system that 
includes a 22-mile OHV route through nearby mountains and a 10-acre 
staging area where OHV users can camp. To improve safety in the staging 
area, BLM officials developed a design that discourages riding OHVs 
within the staging area: they engineered the staging area in an 
irregular shape that reduces riding in that area and also provided a 
training area for children. 

A majority of field unit officials reported that they have monitored 
the effects of OHV use on their land, including the effects of noise or 
impacts on soils, water, air, and habitats. Only a few of the field 
units we visited, however, indicated that their procedures for 
monitoring went beyond casual observation of OHV impacts. For example, 
officials from the Manti-La Sal National Forest monitor OHV impacts by 
surveying the condition of existing trails, patrolling trail systems, 
and mapping new unauthorized trails. These officials are developing a 
database that will include qualitative information about user-created 
trails, such as type of off-road travel, related impacts, how officials 
addressed those impacts, and the measures officials would need to take 
to close an unauthorized route. These officials stated that compiling 
this information in a database will enable them to evaluate data, make 
decisions, and take appropriate action. 

A Majority of Field Units Indicated They Cannot Manage Existing OHV 
Areas in a Sustainable Manner: 

Although field units are taking many management actions, a majority of 
field unit officials indicated that they cannot sustainably manage 
existing OHV areas; sustainable management would include having the 
necessary human and financial resources available to ensure compliance 
with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate 
the existing OHV program. Most field unit officials who said they could 
not sustainably manage their existing OHV areas indicated that they 
have insufficient resources for equipment or staff for management and 
enforcement. Field unit officials from BLM were more likely than Forest 
Service or Park Service officials to indicate that they could not 
sustainably manage their existing OHV use (see figure 16). 

Figure 16: Field Unit Officials' Assessment of Whether Existing OHV 
Areas Can Be Sustainably Managed: 

[Refer to PDF for image: three pie-charts] 

Forest Service: 
Probably or definitely yes: 24%; 
Undecided: 21%; 
Probably or definitely not: 55%. 

BLM: 
Probably or definitely yes: 9%; 
Undecided: 12%; 
Probably or definitely not: 79%. 

Park Service: 
Probably or definitely yes: 53%; 
Undecided: 9%; 
Probably or definitely not: 38%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Percentages represent field unit officials from each agency who 
reported whether they could sustainably manage their existing OHV 
areas. 

[End of figure] 

About half the national forests that have published motor vehicle use 
maps, as required by the travel management rule, indicated that they 
could not sustainably manage the OHV route system that they designated. 
For example, an official from the Uncompahgre National Forest said that 
the forest's designated system of trails cannot be sustainably managed. 
The official further stated that the public's priority for OHV use is 
to maintain their long-established access to the forest, and they do 
not want the Forest Service to designate a sustainable system if doing 
so means losing long-established routes. 

A few field unit officials reported that their unit has a full-time OHV 
manager to, among other things, oversee OHV use, coordinate volunteers, 
and apply for state grants. Field units with a full-time OHV manager 
were more likely to report that they could sustainably manage their 
existing OHV use. Specifically, these field units reported taking more 
actions to manage OHV use compared with field units without a full-time 
OHV manager. For instance, field units with full-time OHV managers tend 
to leverage authorized outside resources, such as state grants, more 
extensively than units without full-time OHV managers. One BLM official 
said that dedicating staff to managing OHV use full-time could provide 
a benefit to overall land management. Specifically, he said the 
recreation planner at his unit has a wide range of responsibilities, 
including managing OHVs, permitting, signs, maintenance, campgrounds, 
and interpretation, and cannot do it all very effectively. He said that 
OHV management is a full-time position in itself, but since his unit 
has not been able to hire someone full-time, OHV management gets 
attention only as time allows. 

Agencies Reported Facing Many Challenges in Managing OHV Use: 

Numerous issues, including insufficient staffing levels and financial 
resources, as well as enforcement of OHV regulations, were identified 
as challenges by field unit officials. Generally, a larger proportion 
of Forest Service and BLM field unit officials than Park Service field 
unit officials rated OHV management issues as great challenges[Footnote 
9] (see table 2). 

Table 2: Various Issues Identified as a Great Challenge, by Agency: 

OHV management issue: Staff resources for enforcement; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 83; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 81; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 48; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 73. 

OHV management issue: Financial resources; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 76; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 76; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 41; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 67. 

OHV management issue: Enforcement; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 71; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 74; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 42; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 64. 

OHV management issue: Staff resources for management; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 73; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 76; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 32; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 63. 

OHV management issue: Managing varying expectations about how federal 
lands should be used; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 62; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 63; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 39; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 56. 

OHV management issue: Collecting reliable data on the effects of OHV 
use; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 58; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 69; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 38; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 56. 

OHV management issue: Changing long-established OHV use patterns; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 55; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 70; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 33; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 54. 

OHV management issue: Installing and maintaining signs; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Forest Service: 51; 
Percentage of field unit officials: BLM: 71; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Park Service: 22; 
Percentage of field unit officials: Average: 50. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Staff resources for enforcement, such as a limited number of officials 
and limited financial resources, were reported as a great challenge by 
most Forest Service and BLM field unit officials and by about half of 
Park Service officials. BLM headquarters officials explained that BLM 
has 195 uniformed law enforcement officers, which is an average of 
about 1 officer for every 1.2 million acres of land. For example, an 
official from BLM's Grand Junction Field Office in Colorado told us 
that a single law enforcement officer patrols 1.3 million acres and 
that OHV users are aware of this minimal law enforcement presence. 
Although officials at some field units we visited said they would like 
to increase the number of law enforcement officers, they explained that 
even when they have approval for additional officers, they do not have 
enough funding to fill the positions. Officials from BLM's Grand 
Junction Field Office also noted that law enforcement officers are the 
most expensive component of the workforce, because they require 
background checks, security clearances, extensive training, and 
expensive equipment such as firearms. 

Forest Service and BLM officials said they have attempted to mitigate 
their insufficient number of law enforcement officials. For example, 
the Forest Service has developed a Forest Protection Officer program, 
which allows non-law-enforcement staff to fulfill some law enforcement 
functions, such as issuing warnings and citations. Similarly, BLM 
officials said they attempted to mitigate enforcement challenges at 
particular BLM field offices by bringing in additional law enforcement 
officers from other BLM field offices, as well as from states and 
nearby counties. For example, BLM's El Centro Field Office officials 
said that they try to bring in about 100 additional federal and local 
law enforcement officers for busy holiday weekends. On the other hand, 
a BLM law enforcement officer from the Grand Junction Field Office said 
that his deployment to the El Centro Field Office led to gaps in 
enforcement in Grand Junction during such weekends. 

A limited number of staff for OHV management was identified as a great 
challenge for a majority of Forest Service field unit officials, most 
BLM field unit officials, and some Park Service officials. Field staff 
who work on OHV issues work in various capacities, such as managing 
volunteers, creating route systems, maintaining routes, educating 
users, and writing state grant applications, but most units do not have 
such staff. For example, at BLM's Phoenix District Office, OHV 
management staff maintain an ambassador program, which coordinates 
volunteers to educate users and promote safe, sustainable OHV use in 
the area. Managing this program requires one full-time manager plus 10 
to 20 percent of the time of two additional staff. Officials from four 
field units we visited stated that although volunteers and partnerships 
can enhance OHV management, taking advantage of their labor requires a 
significant investment of management staff resources. Officials from 
two of the field units that we visited noted that, with additional OHV 
management staff, they could better leverage resources such as 
volunteers and state grants. 

Most BLM and Forest Service units reported insufficient financial 
resources as a great challenge to managing OHV use in their units, 
although only some Park Service units reported the same. Similarly, a 
majority of the field units we visited also cited insufficient 
financial resources as a challenge. For example, Forest Service 
officials from the Cleveland National Forest said that even though 
recreational OHV use has increased, funds allocated for recreation have 
failed to keep pace. 

In addition to staffing and financial challenges, a majority of field 
unit officials cited enforcement of OHV regulations as a great 
challenge as well. One reason for this challenge may be that law 
enforcement officers have many responsibilities including, among 
others, enforcing OHV regulations, controlling gang activity, 
preventing illegal drug activities, and responding to impacts on 
resources and public safety from illegal smuggling activities along the 
U.S. border. For example, BLM officials at the Lower Sonoran Desert 
National Monument said that border issues, including the smuggling of 
illegal drugs and people, have placed increased demands on law 
enforcement officers, reducing their capacity to deal with OHV 
recreation issues. Additionally, enforcement may be a challenge where a 
unit's lands are difficult for law enforcement officers to reach. For 
example, Park Service officials from Assateague Island National 
Seashore said that getting to portions of their OHV area is difficult 
because law enforcement officers must travel 12 miles over sand. 
Similarly, BLM officials at the Moab Field Office stated that because 
of the distance a law enforcement officer must travel, it can take 
several hours just to get to certain OHV areas in their unit, making 
enforcement in those areas difficult. 

Another challenge reported by agency officials in managing OHV use is 
variation in laws pertaining to OHV safety. Specifically, while 
agencies set minimum safety standards in their regulations--for 
example, by requiring vehicles to have brakes, spark arresters, and 
lights for night use--the regulations provide that state safety laws, 
as well as licensing and registration laws, generally apply to 
motorized vehicles on federal lands. For example, federal Forest 
Service regulations specify that riders may not operate a vehicle (1) 
without a valid license as required by state law, (2) in violation of 
any state noise emission standard, or (3) in violation of any state law 
regulating the use of vehicles off roads. But state laws regulating the 
use of OHVs vary significantly. For example, Utah generally prohibits 
children under 8 years old from riding OHVs on public land and requires 
children 8 to 15 years old to successfully complete an education 
course. In contrast, neighboring Colorado has not set minimum age 
requirements for riding OHVs on public land. A few units have created 
their own, area-specific rules for OHV use that supersede state laws. 
For example, BLM's El Centro Field Office has special rules for OHV 
riders on the Imperial Sand Dunes. These rules require that vehicles 
have a flag at least 8 feet from the ground so that other riders can 
more easily see oncoming vehicles. In addition, the rules set speed 
limits in camping areas and prohibit other dangerous activities. 

An additional challenge faced by a majority of BLM officials and about 
half of Forest Service officials is installing and maintaining signs. 
For example, field unit officials said that signs are often shot at, 
pulled out, or driven over and that signs must frequently be replaced 
(see figure 17). Officials at Forest Service headquarters told us that 
signs at some units are vandalized or taken down less than 48 hours 
after installation. 

Figure 17: A Vandalized BLM OHV Sign (left) and a BLM Official 
Replacing a Pulled-Out Sign (right): 

[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Other challenges identified by field unit officials include managing 
varied public expectations about how public lands should be used and 
altering long-established OHV use patterns. A majority of Forest 
Service and BLM field unit officials, and some Park Service field unit 
officials, reported that managing varying expectations about how 
federal lands should be used is a great challenge. For example, BLM 
officials from the Moab Field Office said they received public input at 
11 meetings when developing their recently finalized resource 
management plan, with both OHV user groups and environmental groups 
opposing aspects of the plan. Generally, user groups sought to open 
more areas to cross-country travel, while environmental groups 
generally opposed the designation of routes in areas they contended 
were not suitable for OHV use. Additionally, even within user groups, 
expectations can vary. For example, a BLM official from the Grand 
Junction Field Office said that while some hunters expect to use their 
OHVs to retrieve game, other hunters prefer that OHVs not be used, so 
that game are not scared away by the sound of OHVs. 

Finally, a majority of BLM field unit officials, about half of Forest 
Service field unit officials, and some Park Service field unit 
officials reported that altering long-established OHV use patterns is 
challenging. For example, Park Service officials at Big Cypress 
National Preserve said that the use of swamp buggies predates the 1974 
creation of the preserve. Swamp buggies have been used for generations 
to travel to in-holdings and hunting camps, which are otherwise 
inaccessible because of deep mud, water, and dense foliage. According 
to Park Service officials, as OHV use has become more popular in the 
preserve, officials have recognized the need for comprehensive OHV 
management, yet changing long-established use patterns has been 
difficult. 

Conclusions: 

Over the past 5 years, OHV use has increased on federal lands and has 
emerged as a national issue. Federal land management agencies have only 
recently begun to respond to this trend by revising their plans and how 
they manage OHV use, but they are having to do so in an environment of 
constrained budgetary and staff resources and other competing 
management priorities. Although they reported taking a variety of 
actions to manage OHV use in this environment, agency field unit 
officials reported that they cannot sustainably manage their OHV route 
systems. The likelihood that the Forest Service and BLM, in particular, 
will succeed in their efforts to enhance management of OHV use could be 
increased by improving the agencies' planning to include key strategic 
planning elements. Such enhancements could also help the agencies to 
more effectively address and manage some of the challenges that their 
field unit officials reported in managing OHV use on their lands, such 
as insufficient staffing levels and financial resources. In addition, 
developing more user-friendly maps and signs for their route systems 
and seeking more appropriate fines to deter violations of OHV 
regulations could provide all federal land users, including OHV users, 
a more enjoyable, quality experience while also potentially lessening 
environmental, social, and safety impacts resulting from OHV use. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help provide quality OHV recreational opportunities while protecting 
natural and cultural resources on federal lands, we recommend that: 

* the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service 
to identify additional strategies to achieve the agency's goal of 
improving OHV management, as well as time frames for carrying out the 
strategies and performance measures for monitoring incremental 
progress; and: 

* the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of BLM to enhance 
the agency's existing "Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services" 
by establishing performance measures and time frames for carrying out 
its stated goals for OHV recreation. 

Additionally, to improve communication with the public and enhance law 
enforcement efforts regarding OHV use on federal lands, we recommend 
that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior direct the Forest 
Service and BLM, respectively, to take the following actions: 

* enhance communication with the public about OHV trails and areas 
through, for example, developing user-friendly signs and maps to 
improve visitors' experiences; and: 

* examine fine amounts across various U.S. district courts to determine 
the range of fines for OHV-related violations and petition appropriate 
judicial authorities to make modifications where warranted. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior with a 
draft of this report for review and comment. The Departments of 
Agriculture and the Interior generally agreed with our findings and 
recommendations; their written comments appear in appendixes II and 
III, respectively. The departments also provided technical comments 
that we incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested 
congressional committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
Interior, the Chief of the Forest Service, the Director of the Bureau 
of Land Management, the Director of the National Park Service, and 
other interested parties. The report will also be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the trends in and 
status of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on federal lands managed by the 
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service 
(Park Service) from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, as well 
as the reported environmental, social, and safety impacts of OHV use; 
(2) the agencies' strategic planning for managing OHV use on federal 
lands; (3) actions taken by the agencies' field units in managing OHV 
use on their lands; and (4) current OHV management challenges facing 
these agencies. For this report, we defined an OHV, also commonly 
referred to as an off-road vehicle, as any motorized vehicle capable of 
or designed for cross-country travel or travel immediately on or over 
land. Examples of OHVs include but are not limited to 4 x 4 street- 
legal vehicles; all-terrain vehicles such as three-wheelers, four- 
wheelers, and side-by-sides; rock crawlers; sand rails; dune buggies; 
swamp buggies; and off-road motorcycles. We did not include personal 
watercraft, snowmobiles, aircraft, official agency use of OHVs, or use 
of street-legal vehicles on paved roads. 

To address our objectives, we collected and analyzed OHV-related 
documentation, including applicable executive orders and agency plans, 
regulations, and guidance. We also interviewed officials from Forest 
Service, BLM, and Park Service headquarters. To gain external 
perspective, we interviewed national headquarters representatives of 
various OHV user and environmental groups, including the Blue Ribbon 
Coalition, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, 
Motorcycle Industry Council, Off-Road Business Association, Tread 
Lightly!, The Wilderness Society, and Center for Biological Diversity. 
In addition, we visited selected Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service 
field units and interviewed agency officials, and OHV user and 
environmental group representatives near some of those units, to obtain 
a better understanding of ongoing agency OHV management efforts. These 
field units, located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Maryland, Oregon, and Utah, were selected, using a nonprobability 
sample, on the basis of their geographic and ecological diversity. 
Table 3 lists these sites and the groups we interviewed. 

Table 3: Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service Field Units and OHV User 
and Environmental Group Representatives Selected for Site Visits and 
Interviews, by Location: 

Location: Arizona; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Unit: Tonto National Forest; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona 
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional 
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands 
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter). 

Location: Arizona; 
Agency: BLM; 
Unit: Hassayampa Field Office;
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona 
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional 
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands 
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter). 

Location: Arizona; 
Agency: BLM; 
Unit: Kingman Field Office; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona 
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional 
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands 
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter). 

Location: Arizona; 
Agency: BLM; 
Unit: Lower Sonoran Field Office; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona 
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional 
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands 
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter). 

Location: Arizona; 
Agency: Park Service; 
Unit: Sunset Crater Volcano, Wupatki, and Walnut Canyon National 
Monuments; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Arizona Trail Riders, Arizona 
Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society (Southwest regional 
office), Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands 
Council, Sky Island Alliance, and Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter). 

Location: California; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Unit: Cleveland National Forest; 
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A. 

Location: California; 
Agency: BLM; 
Unit: El Centro Field Office (Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area); 
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A. 

Location: Colorado; 
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison national forests; 
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A. 

Location: Colorado; 
Agency: BLM; Unit: Grand Junction Field Office; 
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A. 

Location: Colorado; 
Agency: Park Service; Unit: Curecanti National Recreation Area; 
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A. 

Location: Florida; 
Agency: Park Service; 
Unit: Big Cypress National Preserve; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Florida Trail Riders and Sierra Club 
(Florida chapter). 

Location: Florida; 
Agency: Park Service; 
Unit: Everglades National Park; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Florida Trail Riders and Sierra Club 
(Florida chapter). 

Location: Maryland; 
Agency: Park Service; 
Unit: Assateague Island National Seashore; 
OHV user and environmental groups: N/A. 

Location: Oregon; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Unit: Deschutes-Ochoco National Forest and the Crooked River National 
Grassland; 
OHV user and environmental groups: American Hiking Society, Central 
Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club, Friends of Anne's Butte, Friends of 
McKay, Ochoco Trail Riders, and Sierra Club (Oregon chapter). 

Location: Oregon; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Unit: Siuslaw National Forest (Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area); 
OHV user and environmental groups: American Hiking Society, Central 
Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club, Friends of Anne's Butte, Friends of 
McKay, Ochoco Trail Riders, and Sierra Club (Oregon chapter). 

Location: Oregon; 
Agency: BLM; Unit: 
Prineville District Office; 
OHV user and environmental groups: American Hiking Society, Central 
Oregon Motorcycle and ATV Club, Friends of Anne's Butte, Friends of 
McKay, Ochoco Trail Riders, and Sierra Club (Oregon chapter). 

Location: Utah; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Unit: Manti-LaSal National Forest; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect, 
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 

Location: Utah; 
Agency: BLM; 
Unit: Moab Field Office; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect, 
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 

Location: Utah; 
Agency: Park Service; 
Unit: Arches National Park; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect, 
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 

Location: Utah; 
Agency: Park Service; 
Unit: Canyonlands National Park; 
OHV user and environmental groups: Red Rock Forests, Ride with Respect, 
and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Because of the lack of historical and nationwide information about OHV 
use on federal lands, we also developed and administered a Web-based 
survey to gather land managers' perspectives on the management and use 
of OHVs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 on Forest 
Service, BLM, and Park Service lands. The survey was administered to 
the entire population of National Forests and BLM field office units 
and to Park Service field units most likely to have OHV use, whether 
authorized or unauthorized.[Footnote 10] The survey included questions 
about the perceived trends in OHV use; potential environmental, social, 
and safety impacts of OHV use; how OHVs are being managed; the 
enforcement of OHV regulations; and challenges facing federal land 
managers in addressing OHV use. 

To develop the survey questions, we reviewed several national studies 
and a related GAO report[Footnote 11] to identify issues pertaining to 
OHV use on federal lands. We also analyzed agency documentation to 
identify the proper terminology used by the Forest Service, BLM, and 
Park Service. Furthermore, on the basis of interviews with officials at 
field units we visited, we identified issues related to OHV management. 
Finally, we examined related surveys administered to these agencies to 
identify relevant issues pertaining to OHV use on federal lands. 

The survey was pretested with potential respondents from national 
forests, BLM field offices, and Park Service units to ensure that (1) 
the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were 
precise, (3) the survey did not place an undue burden on the agency 
officials completing it, and (4) the survey was independent and 
unbiased. In addition, the survey was reviewed three times by two 
separate internal, independent survey experts. We took steps in survey 
design, data collection, and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. 
For example, we worked with headquarters and field officials at all 
three agencies to identify the appropriate level of analysis-- 
congressionally designated forests and grasslands, national park units, 
and BLM field offices--and the appropriate survey respondents--field- 
level OHV managers (or if there was no OHV manager, the field-level 
recreation manager). To minimize measurement error that might occur 
from respondents interpreting our questions differently from our 
intended purpose, we extensively pretested the survey and followed up 
with nonresponding units and with units whose responses violated 
certain validity checks. Finally, to eliminate data-processing errors, 
we independently verified the computer program that generated the 
survey results. Our results are not subject to sampling error because 
we administered our survey to all OHV-relevant units of all three 
agencies. 

The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic 
questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent e-mail 
notifications to 480 respondents (177 national forest units, 136 BLM 
field offices, and 167 selected Park Service units). We also e-mailed 
each potential respondent a unique password and username to ensure that 
only members of the target population could participate in the survey. 
To encourage respondents to complete the survey, we sent an e-mail 
reminder to each nonrespondent about 2 weeks after our initial e-mail 
message. The survey data were collected from October 2008 through 
February 2009. We received a total of 478 responses that accounted for 
the 480 units surveyed, for an overall response rate of 100 percent. 
[Footnote 12] This "collective perspective" obtained from each of the 
agencies helps to mitigate individual respondent bias by aggregating 
information across the range of different viewpoints. Additionally, to 
encourage honest and open responses, in the introduction to the survey, 
we pledged that we would report information in the aggregate and not 
report data that would identify a particular unit. For purposes of 
characterizing the results of our survey, we identified specific 
meanings for the words we used to quantify the results, as follows: "a 
few" means between 1 and 24 percent of respondents, "some" means 
between 25 and 44 percent of respondents, "about half" means between 45 
and 55 percent of respondents, "a majority" means between 56 and 74 
percent of respondents, "most" means between 75 and 94 percent of 
respondents, and "nearly all" means 95 percent or more of respondents. 
This report does not contain all the results from the survey; the 
survey and a more complete tabulation of the results are provided in a 
supplement to this report (see GAO-09-547SP). 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to June 2009, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture: 
Forest Service:	
Washington Office: 
1400 Independence Avenue, SW: 
Washington, DC 20250: 

"Caring for the Land and Serving People" 
				
File Code: 2350: 

Date: June 19, 2009: 

Ms. Robin Nazzaro, Director: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report, "Enhanced Planning Could 
Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles." The 
Agency generally agrees with the report and recommendations, but would 
like you to consider the following substantive comments. 

Page 36, Recommendation 1: GAO recommends that the Secretary of 
Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to identify 
additional strategies, timeframes, and performance measures to achieve 
the Agency's goal of improving off-highway vehicle (OHV) management. On 
page 15, GAO identifies other aspects of OHV management included in 
Executive Orders 11.644 and 11989 that are not addressed in the Forest 
Service Strategic Plan. These include implementing motor vehicle 
designations, communicating with the public, monitoring OHV trail 
systems, and enforcing OHV regulations. 

Achieving the objectives of route and area designations for motor 
vehicle use involves two aspects-planning and implementation. The 
Forest Service feels that the existing strategy, timeframe, and 
performance measures are appropriate for travel management planning. 
The Forest Service also agrees that implementing motor vehicle 
designations, communicating with the public, monitoring OHV trail 
systems, and enforcing OHV regulations are important aspects of OHV 
management to address strategically at the national level. The Agency's 
preferred method is development of a national level plan specifically 
addressing OHV management. While the Agency will soon provide guidance 
to its field staff through the dissemination of an implementation 
guide, in the future the Agency will also develop a strategy, 
timeframes, and performance measures for implementation. Developing 
strategies and timeframes for this plan will be straightforward. 
Identifying new performance measures will offer a challenge due to the 
situational differences, at the local level, and the added costs to 
collect that information in a way that is accessible and meaningful at 
the national level. 

Page 36, Recommendation 2: GAO recommends that the Secretary of 
Agriculture direct the Forest Service to enhance communication with the 
public about OHV trails and areas through, for example, developing user-
friendly signs and maps to improve visitors' experiences.
The Forest Service agrees that it needs to continue to provide 
information to the public about OHV opportunities and that 
communication with the public can always be improved. The Sign and 
Poster Guidelines for the Forest Service include a chapter on travel 
management signing that addresses sign placement and installation, and 
includes sign drawings. This is a very helpful resource when 
identifying the signs that are needed to improve visitors' experiences. 

Motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) will display all National Forest System 
roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest 
System lands that are open to the public for OHVs and other motor 
vehicles. Once the MVUM is produced, notice of its availability is
widely disseminated. The Forest Service is continually assessing and 
enhancing the quality of the MVUM, including its "user-friendliness." 
In October of 2008 the Agency made a number of improvements to the MVUM 
guidance, including adding the following: 

* Symbols for significant points of interest (campgrounds, picnic 
areas, mountain peaks, and Forest Service offices) to help orient the 
visitor. 

* The ability to show township, range, and section lines. 

* Symbols to differentiate among interstate highways, State and U.S. 
highways, and other public roads. 

* A symbol for political boundaries, such as county lines. 

* Better guidance on producing a high quality map. 

The Forest Service, through its Geospatial Services and Technology 
Center, has developed a class for employees on "Policies and Procedures 
to Create the U. S. Forest Service MVUM." We expect that the quality of 
the MVUMs will continue to improve as more employees take this class. 

Page 30, first complete paragraph, first sentence: GAO states, "About 
half of the national forests that have completed the travel management 
planning required by the travel management rule indicated that they 
could not sustainably manage the system that they designated." 

This sentence should be reworded slightly to be consistent with the 
wording in the survey, which we believe provided the basis for this 
statement. The phrase "current OHV route systems and/or open areas," 
which appears in the survey, is not the same as "the system that they 
designated" which appears in the draft report. Designated route systems 
include not only OHV route systems and/or open areas, but also routes 
that are designed for motor vehicles other than OHVs, such as passenger 
cars. More accurate wording would be as follows: "About half of the 
national forests that have published motor vehicle use maps as required 
by the travel management rule indicated that they could not sustainably 
manage their current OHV route systems and/or open areas." 

The Agency appreciates the professionalism of the GAO employees with 
whom we worked in Washington, as well as in the field. The information 
in the report will be valuable in helping the Forest Service continue 
to improve our management of OHV use. If you have any additional 
questions or concerns, please contact Sandy T. Coleman, Forest Service 
Assistant Director for GAO/Office Inspector General (OIG) Audit Liaison 
Staff, at 703-605-4699. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Illegible, for: 

Abigail R. Kimbell: 
Chief: 

cc: Deidre S. St. Louis; Sandy T. Coleman: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, D.C. 20240: 

June 12, 2009: 

Ms. Robin Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-001: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled Federal Lands: 
Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of 
Off-Highway Vehicles (GAO-09-509). 

The Department of the Interior appreciates the diligent work of the 
team and generally agrees with the draft report findings and 
recommendations. The GAO accurately and fairly points out that as Off-
Highway Vehicle (OHV) use continues to grow, federal land managers are 
and will be significantly challenged by insufficient staffing levels 
and financial resources available for effective and sustainable OHV 
management and enforcement. The draft report also acknowledges the 
importance of recreation fee collection and retention in providing 
critical resources to effectively manage OHVs. 

The report makes three specific recommendations for improvement to the 
agency: 1) enhance the agency's existing "Priorities for Recreation and 
Visitor Services" by establishing performance measures and timeframes 
to carry out its stated goals for OHV recreation; 2) enhance 
communication with the public about OHV trails and areas by employing a 
variety of communication approaches, including developing user-friendly 
signs and maps, and fostering partnerships with OHV organizations and 
other user groups; and 3) examine fine amounts across various U.S. 
District Courts to determine the range of fines for OHV-related 
violations and petition appropriate judicial authorities to make 
modifications where warranted. 

In response to recommendation 1, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
acknowledges the need for additional performance measures and 
timeframes to track progress. While the BLM already has strategic plan 
performance measures and travel plan implementation timeframes in 
place, we are in the process of developing additional measures. 

The BLM concurs with recommendation 2, and we are currently drafting 
our Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management (CTTM) manual 
and handbook to provide detailed guidance to our field offices on how 
to improve travel planning, signing, mapping and travel information, 
including the use of web sites to provide visitor information and maps. 
The pending CTTM manual and handbook will address planning and 
management of all modes of travel and all public access needs including 
administrative, commercial permitted activities, emergency services and 
fire access, rights-of-ways management, as well as recreational 
activities. The BLM will continue to forge even more partnerships and 
alliances with a variety of user groups, local governments, and other 
land management agencies to promote responsible, ethical use of the 
public lands. 

With respect to GAO recommendation 3, the BLM will continue its ongoing 
efforts to examine fine amounts across various U.S. district courts to 
determine the range of fines for OHV-related violations to improve 
consistency and determine appropriate penalty amounts. In certain 
circumstances, the BLM will petition the appropriate judicial 
authorities to make modifications to fines where warranted. 

We are enclosing additional technical comments on the draft report. We 
hope the comments will assist you in preparing the final report. If you 
have any questions about this response, please contact Bob Ratcliffe, 
Chief, Division of Recreation and Visitor Services at 202-452-5040 or 
LaVanna Stevenson-Harris, BLM Audit Liaison Officer, at 202-785-6580. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Ned Farquhar: 
Acting Assistant Secretary: 
Land and Minerals Management: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, or nazzaror@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant 
Director; Kevin Bray; Ellen W. Chu; Melinda Cordero; Emily Eischen; 
Ying Long; Janice Poling; Kim Raheb; Matthew Reinhart; Chris Riddick; 
and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] By regulation, OHV use is allowed only in certain Park Service 
units. We selected all park units that could allow OHV use, as well as 
units that could have unauthorized OHV use. These selected units 
comprise about 97 percent of the total Park Service land area. The 
final list of Park Service units included in our survey was vetted with 
Park Service officials. 

[2] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L No. 103-62, 
107 Stat. 285. 

[3] GAO, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to 
Facilitate Congressional Review, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-10.1.16] (Washington, D.C.: May 
1997), and GAO, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving 
Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-180] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
16, 1997). 

[4] Exec. Order No. 11,644, 37 Fed. Reg. 2877 (Feb. 8, 1972) (as 
amended by Exec. Order No. 11,989, 42 Fed. Reg. 26,959 (May 24, 1977). 

[5] The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 96- 
579, 90 Stat. 243, as amended, requires BLM to develop, maintain and, 
when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide for the use of the 
public lands in accordance with principles of multiple use and 
sustained yield. These plans are known as resource management plans. 

[6] In addition, the enabling legislation for a few national parks and 
monuments allows OHV use under certain circumstances. 

[7] Specifically, 31 field unit officials (7 percent of units that 
reported having OHV use) indicated that at least one environmental 
impact of OHV use affected more than 80 percent of their lands. 

[8] BLM officials indicated that they do track the percentage of their 
lands that have travel plans, but this performance measure is not 
directly linked to goals or strategies identified in the recreation 
plan. In addition, the agency has not identified a time frame by which 
all field units will have travel plans. 

[9] In this section, the term "great challenge" includes field units 
officials who responded that a challenge was either great or very 
great. 

[10] The selected park units included all lakeshores, seashores, 
national recreation areas, and preserves, and almost all parks and 
monuments. Fourteen parks and monuments were excluded for one of the 
following reasons: the unit is in a U.S. territory (4 units); is 
inaccessible to OHVs, either because it is in the middle of an urban 
area or on an island (8); is part of a larger unit already surveyed 
(1); or is managed by state agencies rather than the Park Service (1). 
The units that were selected were the most likely to have OHV use and 
comprise about 97 percent of the total Park Service land area. The 
final list of Park Service units included in the survey was vetted with 
Park Service officials. 

[11] GAO, Federal Lands: Information on the Use and Impact of Off- 
Highway Vehicles, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-95-209] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
18, 1995). 

[12] Although two surveys were sent out, only one survey was completed 
for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, which covered all the 
land managed by both forests. Similarly, although two surveys were sent 
out, only one survey was completed for the Wallowa-Whitman National 
Forest, which covered all the land managed by both forests. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: