Quotes from
Trails of
Destruction |
- Chapter 1: Environmental Concerns
Although they have not been widely discussed, ORVs have
significant environmental impacts, especially in fragile habitats
such as wetlands, deserts and tundras. However, there is an
extensive body of literature that gives insight into these
impacts. Additional research will improve our understanding of
the impacts of ORVs, though this need should not be an excuse for
more immediate action. ORVs can and do have severe environmental
impacts, and developing an understanding of those impacts is a
necessary step in formulating management strategies for their
mitigation and prevention.
This chapter provides an overview of the kinds of
environmental impacts caused by ORVs, based upon an extensive
review of available ORV research. It is important to note that
the impacts of ORVs are complex and interrelated and they
frequently interact synergistically, producing a "whole" more
damaging than the sum of the individual impacts.
- Chapter 2: Taxpayers Subsidize ORV Activities
Money is always an issue. For those who care about our public lands and the environment, money is a
critical issue. Federal subsidies for ORV trail projects are creating management problems for the
various land management agencies, while failing to address the fundamental problems associated with
improper trail management and enforcement. This is leading to increased environmental damage as
ORV use rises.
While funds are lacking for the normal conservation and recreation programs of the Forest Service and
the BLM, money is increasingly available to support ORV-related activities. A key objective for ORV
supporters has been to secure funding for construction and maintenance of motorized trails on public
lands. They have been wildly successful in obtaining this objective.
- Chapter 3: Gaining Access
Public land management agencies, most notably the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, are facing
long-term funding shortages for many of their programs. These
budget cutbacks have made the agencies more vulnerable to outside
interests — especially when funding is at stake. In recent years,
the off-road vehicle (ORV) lobby has paid special attention to
securing funding for motorized trail construction and
maintenance.
Over the last 10 years, the ORV lobby has been extremely
successful in promoting their agenda to expand access and
increase investment in motorized trails. The lobby has convinced
legislators that state and federal gasoline taxes should be
allocated for trail projects. They have invented an entirely new
trail concept, a "multiple-use" trail, and also influenced change
in technical specifications for standard trails to facilitate use
by ORVs. They have gained access to the operations and
decision-making of the BLM and the Forest Service to allow more
ORV trails construction, greater ORV access to public lands and
fewer restrictions on ORV activity.
- Chapter 4: Recommendations
To respond to the growing threat of ORV use
on public lands a number of measures should
be taken immediately. Other actions will be
necessary as more research is done on the
cumulative impacts of ORV use.
- 1. Impose a Moratorium on Motorized Trail Construction
The Department of Interior and Department of
Agriculture must place a moratorium on new
trail construction until 1) the $267 million trail
maintenance and reconstruction backlog is
eliminated, 2) trails are inventoried and
properly designated, and 3) adequate
enforcement and maintenance funds are available.
- 2. Guard the Taxpayer
Overall, the trail funding mechanisms are too obscure and allocate too much money for motorized trail
construction. Currently, funding derives from a variety of sources including the Federal Highway
Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Instead, the Department of Interior and
Department of Agriculture should be given exclusive oversight of funding. In addition, funding levels
authorized under the Symms Act for motorized trails are too high and should be reduced and/or
reallocated for non-motorized trails. Finally, the "multiple-use" trail category should be eliminated —
it’s simply another motorized trail construction category.
- 3. No Exemption from Environmental Law
Environmental law should apply to all trail projects on public land. Trail projects should not qualify
under the "categorical exclusion" provisions from environmental compliance. Trail projects should
undergo an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) just as other major
actions on public lands do. In addition, agencies must comply with Executive Orders 11989 and 11644
when developing or maintaining trail projects.
- 4. Require Burden of Proof
Currently, land management agencies must prove that ORVs are harmful to the land in order to restrict
their use or access. In the future, the burden of proof should fall on the proponents of increased use,
access, or trails to show that motorized recreational vehicles usage does not cause damage to the public
resources.
- 5. Protect Our Waters
Personal watercraft should be banned from all drinking-water lakes and reservoirs and from
watersheds that provide habitat for threatened, sensitive and endangered species. In other water
resources, personal watercraft usage should be carefully evaluated to ensure that fuel emissions and
other pollution do not harm the resources.
- 6. Urgent Action Needed
Congress and the Administration should appoint a commission to study the environmental impacts of
ORV use on public lands and waterways. The commission should prepare a series of immediate and
long-term actions to halt the damage being caused. Existing motorized activities on public lands must be
monitored. If the ORV use is causing damage, then it should be removed. Continued motorized use
should be explicitly tied to monitoring funding. Motorized activities should be halted until funding is
available.
|
