Creative Fab
December 10th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Comments of Paul Mulder to proposed 2005 ORV Plan:
1) Governor?s Executive Order 1995-9 (page 9 of proposed ORV plan)
Through this executive order, Governor Engler abolished the Off-Road Vehicle Trails Advisory Committee (and a number of other advisory committees) and transferred all statutory authorities to the Natural Resources Commission on July 17, 1995. In October 1995, the NRC re-established an ORV Advisory Board of seven members and in December clarified the new board?s roles, responsibilities and terms. This remains the authority for the current State ORV Advisory Board.
Comment: It is very important for the ORV community to have the equal status as the Snowmobile community. Of utmost importance is for ORV enthusiasts to have control over grant funding. This is the only way the public has a real voice in the spending of the ORV dollars controlled by the Department of Natural Resources. These funds are derived solely from the sale of ORV license stickers.
2) Trail Maintenance and Development (excerpt from page 12 of proposed ORV plan)
These standards focus on trail clearance and signage. Trail clearance standards are:
(a) Motorcycle trails cleared to 24? width at ground level and 40? from
handlebar height up to 8?
Comment: There is no provision in the current law to allow for a substandard trail. All ORV trails are open to 50? or less vehicles. Allowing and maintaining trails specified for less than 50? wide is illegal and contrary to the shared use standards mandated by law. See Initial Designation (excerpt from page 19 of proposed ORV plan)
In 1990 the DNR designated 1,500 miles of ORV trails (50? wide or less for motorcycles and in some cases ATVs) on state forest land to allow implementation of administrative rules limiting ORV use to the designated system and state forest roads on state-owned land.
3) Safety Education (excerpt from page 17 of the proposed ORV plan)
The DNR shall cooperate with private organizations and associations, public and private corporations, other state departments and local units of government. The DNR shall also consult with ORV and environmental organizations and associations in regard to the subject matter of a training program and performance testing that leads to certification of ORV operators.
Comment: There has been no mention of nationally recognized courses that have proven themselves in court to train youths in the correct methods. The ORV Advisory Board has consistently and repeatedly advised that hands-on training be required in any mandated training program, with little or no response from the DNR Law Enforcement Division. Certainly giving the appearance that DNR law division has not fulfilled #3
However, DNR Law Enforcement officials deemed that the training was taken by and available to too few youth.
Comment: I question how the DNR Law Enforcement officials deemed that too few youth were taking training and it was not available to them. It has been policy of the DNR Law Enforcement Division to not cite youthful riders. If the current laws had been enforced, people would have sought out the available training programs.
4) 2004 Inventory and Evaluation
Table 10. Illegal use, conflicts and additional comments by evaluators by trail/route
Brush Creek Lots of illegal spur trails. Montmorency County has opened up county road shoulders, which has led to illegal use of adjacent state forest lands. None Since this is also a snowmobile trail, most of the maintenance is done by the snowmobile grant sponsor, Canada Creek Ranch.
Comment: Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association has made a very strong effort in the last three years to upgrade this system to ORV specs. I strongly disagree with the comments that most of the maintenance is performed by the snowmobile grant sponsor.
AND
North Branch Illegal road riding to reach Big Bear L. SFC. An ORV route connector to the campground would be beneficial to decrease illegal road riding. Lots of well roads that attract illegal use. This is also a designated snowmobile trail and is well used by large 4 WD vehicles. Conflicts regarding signage, usage. None
Comment: Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association has taken great strides and made significant progress in resolving sign issues in this system.
5) Recent Surveys of Michigan Local Government Entities (excerpt from proposed ORV plan page 44)
County Sheriffs
All 83 Michigan county sheriffs received a mail survey in 2004 asking about their willingness to participate in ORV safety education on a basis similar to marine safety education. A copy of survey instrument is found in Appendix A. In 2004, 80 of 83 counties were involved in marine safety enforcement with the vast majority providing safety education using a classroom model with a standardized, mandatory and proctored classroom test. A total of 60 (72%) responded.
Comment: County Sheriff?s do not provide driver?s training for street licensed (P.A. 300) vehicles. Why are we asking them to become teachers for the ORV program?
6) Northern Michigan County Road Commission Managers (excerpt from page 45 proposed ORV Plan)
As a group, road commission managers were more supportive of having the DNR acquire land or designate existing forest roads to link together existing ORV trail loops than to use the county road system for such purposes.
Comment: With the limited land resources available today, and the intertwining of county and forest roads, it is a necessity to cooperate and share resources. An ORV policy that is consistent with the current snowmobile regulations and dept policies, which provide for the use of county roads to link trails and provide access to services (food, fuel and lodging) needs to be implemented.
7) ORV Accidents and Fatalities in Michigan (excerpt from page 46 of proposed ORV plan)
A single, all encompassing source for data regarding ORV accident statistics and the circumstances surrounding those accidents does not appear to be available. Currently, the Michigan DNR Law Enforcement Division investigates every snowmobile fatality and files a detailed report tailored to snowmobiling (e.g. whether the operator was on the designated snowmobile trail system, etc.)
Comment: Has the DNR failed to do its job? Snowmobile fatality reports have been maintained - why not ORV fatality reports?
8) Written Public Comment provided to the DNR (excerpt from ORV plan page 49)
Others advocated for separate trail systems for ATVs, motorcycles and full size vehicles to reduce conflicts and to provide the experiences each group is seeking.
Comment: It would be wonderful to have sufficient resources to implement separate trails for each group, in reality; however, the resources are simply not available in sufficient quantities to implement such a plan. Some 10yrs ago this issue was brought up and the advisory board and dept both agreed that it was not feasible, we have more riders and more demands for resources now making it impossible.
9) Develop additional cycle and ATV trail, ORV route and ORV area that can be maintained to standard to meet increasing user demand. (Excerpt from proposed ORV plan page 54)
Comment: In order to develop additional trails we are going to have to seek the cooperation of other groups and entities, i.e., Counties and their jurisdictions. Their rights and views may not always mirror the Department of Natural Resources? and their may have to be some ?give and take? to make progress in this regard.
10 ) Signage (travel management and regulatory) on the trail/route system should follow national signing standards for motorized trails used by the USDA Forest Service (e.g. USDA Forest Service Manual for Forest Service Signs and Posters EM-7100-15 US Forest Service Engineering Staff Report). (Excerpt from pages 55-56 of proposed ORV plan)
a. Rationale is that signage needs to be consistent across motorized trail systems (snowmobile and ORV) in Michigan to increase understanding of trail resources, rules governing their use and promote trail user safety. In addition, this will promote cost efficiency in the purchase of signs, as well as better protect maintenance cooperators from liability. It also needs to be seamless as a rider passes from one jurisdiction (state forest) to another (national forest).
b. Fiscal implications are significant. This will include replacement of a variety of existing signage with common, durable, visible, internationally recognized signs.
COMMENT: TO THIS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN, I MOST STRONGLY DISAGREE.
FIRST, WE, THE ORV ENTHUSIASTS, THROUGH FEES DERIVED FROM ORV LICENSING STICKERS, SUBSIDIZED A $40,000 SIGN STUDY IN 2002 BY TEA TO REMEDY THE SIGN PROBLEM. THIS STUDY PRESENTED CLEAR AND IMPLEMENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE DNR STAFF HAVE IGNORED THIS DOCUMENT. WHY WAS THIS VALUABLE STUDY OMITTED FROM THIS ORV PLAN/REPORT?
CLEARLY THE FEDERAL SIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT THE ANSWER. JOINT TRAIL OR ROUTE ON COUNTY PROPERTY MUST MEET MMUTCD STANDARDS BY STATUTE.
11) Encourage compliance by local units of government with the current ORV law regarding designated ORV trail/route/area access along streets and highways under its jurisdiction (as described in section 324.81131 of Public Act 451 of 1994 as amended) that limits ORV use along locally managed streets and highways to that which meets the requirements of the state comprehensive ORV system plan providing access to the designated system. (Excerpt from page 57 of proposed ORV plan)
b. Counties need to be cognizant of the definition of gross negligence ?conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results? (324.81131.4 MCL) and the variable quality of county roadways and their shoulders in their designations.
c. How riding on road shoulders relates to rider safety is not fully understood. The Michigan Office of Highway Safety notes that during 1994-2003, a total of 2,528 ORV/ATV accidents occurred on Michigan roadways. Better data about ORV fatalities and injury accidents in Michigan is needed.
Comment: It is the right of Counties and Townships to do what they think is best for them. Also, we must come up with consistent policy for ORV?s and snowmobiles. The DNR encourages county road usage for snowmobiles, yet discourages ORV county road use.
12) Provide for ORV trailhead maintenance throughout the snow free months (typically April 1 ? October 31) corresponding to the ORV riding season. (Excerpt from page 60 of proposed ORV plan)
Comment: ORV use occurs year round. Limiting maintenance from April to October does not address the needs of ORV trailhead users.
13) Program Administration (excerpt from page 60 of proposed ORV plan)
Clarify responsibilities and strengthen the working relationship among DNR personnel involved in ORV system management and grant programs to enhance effectiveness and efficiency.
Comment: ORV grant sponsors must be a part of program administration. They are the ones doing a large portion of the work and they are the ones to ultimately use the system.
14) Licensing (Excerpt from ORV Plan page 68)
ORV licensing should be done solely through the electronic license system, providing accurate and timely data about ORV licensees and clear information about the specific vehicle being licensed to a distinct individual.
Comment: Currently, the ORV license seller makes .25 per license. For that meager return, the seller cannot afford to spend additional time entering data such as such as the type of vehicle, driver?s license number, address, etc. Therefore the information will simply not be collected. Dealerships that are the first contact with the ORV users will be forced to either not provide license stickers or buy them from other vendors under the dealership name, which will provide no useable data and inaccurate information.
AND
Fiscal implications to those who currently sell ORV licenses by other than the electronic licensing system will need to invest in the system to continue license sales.
It is impractical to expect dealerships who sell ORV?s to invest in the electronic license system for the minimal return on investment. In effect you are asking them to become a full hunt, fish, snowmobile and/or ORV licensing station with little incentive to do so.
Additional General Comments:
ORV trail technicians began reporting information for consideration in this plan only one month after their initial employment/. I am referring specifically to the Route Assessment Form. I believe inadequate experience and training existed at that time for these individuals to provide data. In addition, the Assessment Form is the opinion of the remitter and allows for no factual basis for comparison.
The general public and ORV enthusiasts must have real input on how ORV dollars are being spent, they are the people who pay for the program.
1) Governor?s Executive Order 1995-9 (page 9 of proposed ORV plan)
Through this executive order, Governor Engler abolished the Off-Road Vehicle Trails Advisory Committee (and a number of other advisory committees) and transferred all statutory authorities to the Natural Resources Commission on July 17, 1995. In October 1995, the NRC re-established an ORV Advisory Board of seven members and in December clarified the new board?s roles, responsibilities and terms. This remains the authority for the current State ORV Advisory Board.
Comment: It is very important for the ORV community to have the equal status as the Snowmobile community. Of utmost importance is for ORV enthusiasts to have control over grant funding. This is the only way the public has a real voice in the spending of the ORV dollars controlled by the Department of Natural Resources. These funds are derived solely from the sale of ORV license stickers.
2) Trail Maintenance and Development (excerpt from page 12 of proposed ORV plan)
These standards focus on trail clearance and signage. Trail clearance standards are:
(a) Motorcycle trails cleared to 24? width at ground level and 40? from
handlebar height up to 8?
Comment: There is no provision in the current law to allow for a substandard trail. All ORV trails are open to 50? or less vehicles. Allowing and maintaining trails specified for less than 50? wide is illegal and contrary to the shared use standards mandated by law. See Initial Designation (excerpt from page 19 of proposed ORV plan)
In 1990 the DNR designated 1,500 miles of ORV trails (50? wide or less for motorcycles and in some cases ATVs) on state forest land to allow implementation of administrative rules limiting ORV use to the designated system and state forest roads on state-owned land.
3) Safety Education (excerpt from page 17 of the proposed ORV plan)
The DNR shall cooperate with private organizations and associations, public and private corporations, other state departments and local units of government. The DNR shall also consult with ORV and environmental organizations and associations in regard to the subject matter of a training program and performance testing that leads to certification of ORV operators.
Comment: There has been no mention of nationally recognized courses that have proven themselves in court to train youths in the correct methods. The ORV Advisory Board has consistently and repeatedly advised that hands-on training be required in any mandated training program, with little or no response from the DNR Law Enforcement Division. Certainly giving the appearance that DNR law division has not fulfilled #3
However, DNR Law Enforcement officials deemed that the training was taken by and available to too few youth.
Comment: I question how the DNR Law Enforcement officials deemed that too few youth were taking training and it was not available to them. It has been policy of the DNR Law Enforcement Division to not cite youthful riders. If the current laws had been enforced, people would have sought out the available training programs.
4) 2004 Inventory and Evaluation
Table 10. Illegal use, conflicts and additional comments by evaluators by trail/route
Brush Creek Lots of illegal spur trails. Montmorency County has opened up county road shoulders, which has led to illegal use of adjacent state forest lands. None Since this is also a snowmobile trail, most of the maintenance is done by the snowmobile grant sponsor, Canada Creek Ranch.
Comment: Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association has made a very strong effort in the last three years to upgrade this system to ORV specs. I strongly disagree with the comments that most of the maintenance is performed by the snowmobile grant sponsor.
AND
North Branch Illegal road riding to reach Big Bear L. SFC. An ORV route connector to the campground would be beneficial to decrease illegal road riding. Lots of well roads that attract illegal use. This is also a designated snowmobile trail and is well used by large 4 WD vehicles. Conflicts regarding signage, usage. None
Comment: Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association has taken great strides and made significant progress in resolving sign issues in this system.
5) Recent Surveys of Michigan Local Government Entities (excerpt from proposed ORV plan page 44)
County Sheriffs
All 83 Michigan county sheriffs received a mail survey in 2004 asking about their willingness to participate in ORV safety education on a basis similar to marine safety education. A copy of survey instrument is found in Appendix A. In 2004, 80 of 83 counties were involved in marine safety enforcement with the vast majority providing safety education using a classroom model with a standardized, mandatory and proctored classroom test. A total of 60 (72%) responded.
Comment: County Sheriff?s do not provide driver?s training for street licensed (P.A. 300) vehicles. Why are we asking them to become teachers for the ORV program?
6) Northern Michigan County Road Commission Managers (excerpt from page 45 proposed ORV Plan)
As a group, road commission managers were more supportive of having the DNR acquire land or designate existing forest roads to link together existing ORV trail loops than to use the county road system for such purposes.
Comment: With the limited land resources available today, and the intertwining of county and forest roads, it is a necessity to cooperate and share resources. An ORV policy that is consistent with the current snowmobile regulations and dept policies, which provide for the use of county roads to link trails and provide access to services (food, fuel and lodging) needs to be implemented.
7) ORV Accidents and Fatalities in Michigan (excerpt from page 46 of proposed ORV plan)
A single, all encompassing source for data regarding ORV accident statistics and the circumstances surrounding those accidents does not appear to be available. Currently, the Michigan DNR Law Enforcement Division investigates every snowmobile fatality and files a detailed report tailored to snowmobiling (e.g. whether the operator was on the designated snowmobile trail system, etc.)
Comment: Has the DNR failed to do its job? Snowmobile fatality reports have been maintained - why not ORV fatality reports?
8) Written Public Comment provided to the DNR (excerpt from ORV plan page 49)
Others advocated for separate trail systems for ATVs, motorcycles and full size vehicles to reduce conflicts and to provide the experiences each group is seeking.
Comment: It would be wonderful to have sufficient resources to implement separate trails for each group, in reality; however, the resources are simply not available in sufficient quantities to implement such a plan. Some 10yrs ago this issue was brought up and the advisory board and dept both agreed that it was not feasible, we have more riders and more demands for resources now making it impossible.
9) Develop additional cycle and ATV trail, ORV route and ORV area that can be maintained to standard to meet increasing user demand. (Excerpt from proposed ORV plan page 54)
Comment: In order to develop additional trails we are going to have to seek the cooperation of other groups and entities, i.e., Counties and their jurisdictions. Their rights and views may not always mirror the Department of Natural Resources? and their may have to be some ?give and take? to make progress in this regard.
10 ) Signage (travel management and regulatory) on the trail/route system should follow national signing standards for motorized trails used by the USDA Forest Service (e.g. USDA Forest Service Manual for Forest Service Signs and Posters EM-7100-15 US Forest Service Engineering Staff Report). (Excerpt from pages 55-56 of proposed ORV plan)
a. Rationale is that signage needs to be consistent across motorized trail systems (snowmobile and ORV) in Michigan to increase understanding of trail resources, rules governing their use and promote trail user safety. In addition, this will promote cost efficiency in the purchase of signs, as well as better protect maintenance cooperators from liability. It also needs to be seamless as a rider passes from one jurisdiction (state forest) to another (national forest).
b. Fiscal implications are significant. This will include replacement of a variety of existing signage with common, durable, visible, internationally recognized signs.
COMMENT: TO THIS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN, I MOST STRONGLY DISAGREE.
FIRST, WE, THE ORV ENTHUSIASTS, THROUGH FEES DERIVED FROM ORV LICENSING STICKERS, SUBSIDIZED A $40,000 SIGN STUDY IN 2002 BY TEA TO REMEDY THE SIGN PROBLEM. THIS STUDY PRESENTED CLEAR AND IMPLEMENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE DNR STAFF HAVE IGNORED THIS DOCUMENT. WHY WAS THIS VALUABLE STUDY OMITTED FROM THIS ORV PLAN/REPORT?
CLEARLY THE FEDERAL SIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT THE ANSWER. JOINT TRAIL OR ROUTE ON COUNTY PROPERTY MUST MEET MMUTCD STANDARDS BY STATUTE.
11) Encourage compliance by local units of government with the current ORV law regarding designated ORV trail/route/area access along streets and highways under its jurisdiction (as described in section 324.81131 of Public Act 451 of 1994 as amended) that limits ORV use along locally managed streets and highways to that which meets the requirements of the state comprehensive ORV system plan providing access to the designated system. (Excerpt from page 57 of proposed ORV plan)
b. Counties need to be cognizant of the definition of gross negligence ?conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results? (324.81131.4 MCL) and the variable quality of county roadways and their shoulders in their designations.
c. How riding on road shoulders relates to rider safety is not fully understood. The Michigan Office of Highway Safety notes that during 1994-2003, a total of 2,528 ORV/ATV accidents occurred on Michigan roadways. Better data about ORV fatalities and injury accidents in Michigan is needed.
Comment: It is the right of Counties and Townships to do what they think is best for them. Also, we must come up with consistent policy for ORV?s and snowmobiles. The DNR encourages county road usage for snowmobiles, yet discourages ORV county road use.
12) Provide for ORV trailhead maintenance throughout the snow free months (typically April 1 ? October 31) corresponding to the ORV riding season. (Excerpt from page 60 of proposed ORV plan)
Comment: ORV use occurs year round. Limiting maintenance from April to October does not address the needs of ORV trailhead users.
13) Program Administration (excerpt from page 60 of proposed ORV plan)
Clarify responsibilities and strengthen the working relationship among DNR personnel involved in ORV system management and grant programs to enhance effectiveness and efficiency.
Comment: ORV grant sponsors must be a part of program administration. They are the ones doing a large portion of the work and they are the ones to ultimately use the system.
14) Licensing (Excerpt from ORV Plan page 68)
ORV licensing should be done solely through the electronic license system, providing accurate and timely data about ORV licensees and clear information about the specific vehicle being licensed to a distinct individual.
Comment: Currently, the ORV license seller makes .25 per license. For that meager return, the seller cannot afford to spend additional time entering data such as such as the type of vehicle, driver?s license number, address, etc. Therefore the information will simply not be collected. Dealerships that are the first contact with the ORV users will be forced to either not provide license stickers or buy them from other vendors under the dealership name, which will provide no useable data and inaccurate information.
AND
Fiscal implications to those who currently sell ORV licenses by other than the electronic licensing system will need to invest in the system to continue license sales.
It is impractical to expect dealerships who sell ORV?s to invest in the electronic license system for the minimal return on investment. In effect you are asking them to become a full hunt, fish, snowmobile and/or ORV licensing station with little incentive to do so.
Additional General Comments:
ORV trail technicians began reporting information for consideration in this plan only one month after their initial employment/. I am referring specifically to the Route Assessment Form. I believe inadequate experience and training existed at that time for these individuals to provide data. In addition, the Assessment Form is the opinion of the remitter and allows for no factual basis for comparison.
The general public and ORV enthusiasts must have real input on how ORV dollars are being spent, they are the people who pay for the program.