A Summary of the ATV Trial According to Jim

By Jim Gregory
Custer County Resident
January 2004

Introduction

In 2003 Idaho Parks and Recreation proposed an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV, or Off Highway Vehicle – OHV) trail which would connect the communities of Challis, Mackay, and Arco and include three main loops and several small loops and spur trails.  I have been an opponent from the beginning but have resigned myself to the fact that since 1) Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) has been taking money from ATVers, in the form of registration fees, and is therefore obligated to provide something for them and 2) Custer and Butte Counties are willing to do almost anything that has the potential to generate money, the trail will likely proceed whether or not residents approve.  Therefore, I have taken the approach that I will try my best to make sure the trail is designed in such a way that the counties and the local residents shoulder as few additional costs and impacts as possible.  My objective in writing this document is to 1) point out shortcomings and vagueness in the IDPR proposal that leave the counties and residents vulnerable to being left un-reimbursed for ATV trail related costs and 2) to outline impacts from the Paiute ATV trail in Utah so that the Idaho trail can be designed to minimize those impacts.

IDPR proposal review

·        Data on wildlife habitat (wintering big game and sage grouse leks) along the trail were collected and will be “…used to monitor possible effects of the OHV use of routes designated near these areas, and mitigate those impacts if and when required.”   -   There is no indication of how impacts will be measured or what mitigation measures will be used. 

·        Noxious weed distribution was inventoried for future comparison and  “IDPR is proposing to include OHV washing facilities in Mackay, Arco, and Challis, for OHV users…”  To “Assist the efforts to reduce the introc[d]uction of noxious weeds to new areas. “  - There is no indication of 1) if this would work, 2) if it would be used, and 3) if it would, in-fact, be done or if it is just proposed.

·        Information on pioneered trails was collected for future comparison so that managers can “develop management specific strategies to minimize cross country route proliferation within the Recreation Trailway Corridor.”  -  No indication is given on what those strategies are, if they would work, or why they don’t implement them now given that both the BLM and the Forest Service admit the problem already exists.  Experience with existing ATV trails shows that substantial cross country proliferation will occur and, therefore, the manpower to limit such usage should be provided in the beginning.

·        Economic data has been collected for future trend analysis.  The data collection process will be ongoing and will be “…accomplished through a combined effort of agency representatives, and the Citizen Advisory Committee.”  -  This will be good information but no agency has taken responsibility and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), which appears to be a major player, as not been formed and therefore has not accepted this responsibility.  Additionally, is the CAC advisory or will it make decisions?  What agency is going to provide money and oversight for the operation of the Committee?

·        “Though IDPR is spearheading the effort, it is IDPR’s position that the trail system be managed jointly….”  -  In the end someone has to hold the bag.  Is IDPR that entity?

·        “Communities will be ask to…provide maintenance, assist with enforcement…”  - Is this cost in addition to what is already being done and what is the extent of the cost.

·        Counties and county road districts will also be asked to provide enforcement.  -  Again, is this cost in addition to what they already do and what is the extent of the expected enforcement?

·        If “…approximately 3000 +/- miles of roads and trials, currently open to OHV use exist in the greater Lost River Basin.”  Then what makes IDPR think that designation of 300 miles of those roads and trails will alleviate the current ATV problem?

·        IDPR makes a pretty broad promise to “…allocating the resources needed to ensure the long term success of this proposal, including budgeting for adequate manpower, equipment, operating and development costs.”  -  We take that promise seriously (see below for what can be done to make the trail work).  We, the local residents, need a firm obligation of resources from the IDPR for the duration of the operation of the trail.

·        IDPR anticipates dust problems, additional road maintenance, road modifications, and the addition of cattle guards at fence crossings.  -  Who, or what agency, is going to be responsible to see that these things happen, what is the estimated cost, and who is going to provide the money?  No one is named in the proposal.

·        “Recreation trailway users will be closely managed…”  “IDPR staff will be assigned, as needed, to supplement available staff from the land managing agencies to maintain an acceptable level of direct contact with the user public.”  -  “As needed,” available staff,” and “acceptable level” are weasel words that mean anything from none to something more.  These items need to be pinned down so there is something concrete to which agencies can be held.  The acknowledged abuses of similar trails and the substantial length of the proposed trail demand that a minimum of six persons be allocated full time to enforcement and management.

·        A CAP like system and trail ambassador program “…will be developed”    -  By whom, at what cost, and who provides the money?

·        Review of BMP with respect to permitted travel within the trail corridor needs additional review.  -  Who will do that review and when? 

·        A $172,500 initial budget has been established for a long list of items.  -  I don’t know actual costs of things on the list but the list seems longer than the budget.  More importantly, what is the annual budget allocation for the project and what will be covered by it?

·        Trail Ranger and Trail Cat funds “Could be used.”  -  Could if what?  And how is that “what” measured.

·        “Size of the system will dictate the amount of resources allocated to this project” (with respect to Trail Rangers and Patrols).  -  We already know the size of the initial system.  So what will be the initial resource commitment?

·         Maps should be strictly controlled by the Steering Committee.  – What actions can and will be taken when “unofficial” maps are distributed, such as is currently happening.

·        IDPR staff will be assigned to the trail for “education and awareness” purposes.  “… IDPR would allow for increased staff as needs dictate.”  -  How many staff will be allocated at the beginning, given the 300 mile trail?  What “needs” will dictate increased staff?

·        “Search and rescue considerations will need additional discussion…”  -  This section of the proposal acknowledges that there will likely be increased demand put on county Search and Rescue but IDPR promises nothing.  There is not even acknowledgment of an increased demand that will be placed on ambulance services.

·        What will be the liability of the various agencies if the current volunteer Search and Rescue or ambulance crews are unable to provide needed emergency services?  Given the accident rate of ATVs, especially on roads/trails shared with motor vehicles, demands on local volunteers could be significant. 

·        IDPR believes that “Focusing use into a more heavily managed area, with oversight from community members, user and conservation groups and agency representatives seems the best way to meet the [OHV] challenge…”  -  Are community members and user conservation groups willing to take on this oversight responsibility? Is the use actually more focused when the only action is designating roads and trails that are already open to OHVs, without closing areas where use should cease?

·        IDPR asks for “… evaluating the merit of our proposal…”  -  The above is my evaluation.  If we are going to do this let’s make sure it is set up so that we know who is responsible, what level of support we can expect, and that problems caused by the proposed action do not become the responsibility of the residents of Custer and Butte counties.

Information I obtained during my recent visit to the Paiute Trail area.

In January 2004 I visited and drove parts of Central Utah’s Paiute trail.  I also interviewed local residents including ranchers, store owners, and agency and enforcement personnel.  The Paiute trial has been, in part, the model agencies have used to prepare a proposal for the Idaho trail.  By understanding the problems and benefits of the Paiute Trial we may be more able to shape the design of the Idaho trail and trail management to avoid some of the problems.

Sources of ATV damage

In the area surrounding the Paiute trail of Central Utah, noncompliance/resource damage appears to come from three sources 1) locals 2) residents (Utahans), and 3) nonresidents.  Damage comes in the form of hunters, antler hunters, adrenaline junkies (usually males who ride off-road just for the thrill), and kids.

Hunters use the trail but do not limit themselves to it nor would they be likely to use different areas if the trail were not there.  Hunter damage is only trail related in that people who initially come to ride the trail may come back to hunt whereas they may have hunted in another area instead had the trail not been there.  In areas where the number of hunters is controlled by a draw or permit system, a greater percentage of the hunters may be ATV riders because of the larger number of that group applying for the hunts.

Antler hunting damage is likely trail related in the same way that hunting is above.  Increased familiarization with the area, due to the trail, may attract back more ATV antler hunters.  Antler hunters typically grid an area and travel the grid on their ATV’s with little regard to resource damage, fences, or wildlife.  Forest Service officials have tried to get the state to regulate antler hunting since it disturbs the wintering deer and elk herds.  The state refuses saying that antler hunting is not under their jurisdiction.  The basic problem is that everyone wants to “wear the white hat” when a black hat is needed. 

Adrenaline junkies ride places they should’t just for the thrill and to see if they are able.  This has the potential to get worse as the machines now have a track (as opposed to wheels) option that literally “will take them anywhere.”

Kids are similar to the adrenaline junkies with less, or more, sense, depending on which group you fall closest too.

Generally, people we interviewed felt that most of the problems were associated with locals and residents, with possibly a few nonresidents that fell into the adrenaline junkie category.

Locations of ATV damage

Play areas around town - Areas of damage include areas around towns which the trail managers look at as sacrifice areas because they “can’t do anything about them anyway”.  The damage of these areas is what has been referred to as the “baby-sitting syndrome” where kids, locals, are allowed to ride the ATV after school until their parents get home, as long as they don’t go too far from home.  Hence, the damage near town.  Although this damage is not completely “trail related” it is, what I would call, trail enabled.  It is enabled because ATVs have been legalized in town which gives the local kids the mechanism they need to get the ATV out of town to the “sacrifice area.”   In Utah, kids as young as eight that have completed a training course can legally drive on the road. 

Play areas around parking areas and dispersed campsites– These areas are similar to the sacrifice areas around towns in that they likely often come from kids.  Managers think they primarily come from local or residents but also likely from nonresidents and result from kids being allowed to ride ATV’s around while parents are either preparing for or returning from trail riding or are relaxing at camp.  The ATVs “baby-sit” the kids and the parents get to relax while still knowing the kids are not lost because they can hear the ATV’s.  This damage is both trail related and non-trail related in that ATVs would be used whether the trail existed or not, but the trail increases use of the area and therefore abuse of the areas adjacent to parking and camping areas.  Pioneered trails – these trails are a result of people going off road repeatedly in the same areas which eventually results in a trail.  These trails are a result of each group (hunters, kids, adrenaline junkies, and antler hunters).  These trails may be initially formed by one of these groups but are eventually used by all.  Locals say that eventually they become designated trails of the trail system but managers deny this.  Although it is only denied in that the trails are not on the designated map.  They do not deny that the trails are being used and appear to be Forest approved trails.

Economics

As would be expected, people’s opinion about the trail is directly related to the income they receive from it and inversely related to the amount of problems they incur by it.  There is no doubt that a RV park in Marysvale has made a lot of money because of this trail.  We were told that the owner has expanded to 100 units and that by January of 2004 he has all of them booked for the entire season.  Everyone we ask about economic impacts of the trail gave us the example of this one RV park.  Additionally, it seems the consensus is that hotels and cafes, do really well and that gas stations and convince stores also benefit some.  This economic benefit occurs primarily in the larger town of Richfield, where the ATV jamboree is held.  Owners of gas stations in very small towns (towns with 1 gas station and a couple of cafes), claim little to no benefit.  Intermediate towns, like Marysvale, likely benefit seasonally.  Another situation, that keeps raising its head, is the story about Marysvale going from 7 business licenses to 21 as a result of the trial.  On our January trip through Marysvale we could not find a place to buy lunch because most businesses were closed for the season.  One gas station/convenience store and one hotel were open.  There were an additional 11 business that were apparently only open in the summer.  These businesses included 3 additional hotels, 3 restaurants, 1 bar, an outfitting business, antique shop, espresso bar and 2 others.   When pressured about what were the additional businesses and was there really any gain to a business that was only operational during the summer we were told that many of the additional businesses were those that sold “do-dads.”

A town the size of Richfield, which is large enough to attract businesses like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, McDonalds, JB’s, etc. and can support activities like the ATV jamboree, likely make money by hosting the ATV trail.  Smaller surrounding towns see less benefit.

Ranchers, who have put up with ATV riders chasing cows, leaving gates open, and cutting fences were less tolerant.  In the words of one rancher, “I don’t have any problem with ATVs, it’s the bastards that ride them that irritate me.”  The gate problem appears to not be related to any specific group and is definitely trail related.  Ranchers have been trying to get managers to put cattle guards in the fences for the past 10 years.  The ATV cattle guards still don’t alleviate the problem for jeeps and 4x4’s who managers claim are also using the trail.  The fence cutting is probably primarily related to hunters, antler hunters, and adrenaline junkies. 

Other residents of the county may be affected by the trail only when it goes past their houses.  People who live by the parking areas or sacrifice areas are likely going to feel that their quality of life has been reduced significantly.  Others may be affected only by seeing and avoiding a large number of ATVs when they go to town.

If the trail attracts people from out-of-state they will likely spend money and pose few problems.  However, while recruiting them, state residents will also come to the trail and likely fill their gas tanks and coolers before they leave the civilization Wal-Mart provides.

 Additional problems to expect

·        Accidents - in Sevier County, the officials expect 1 serious accident/month and at least 3 during the jamboree week.  Paiute county officials said they send the ambulance out after ATV riders about once per week.

·        Dust – one rancher told us that 50 – 150 riders/day was not uncommon past his property with more on weekends and holidays.  The dust problem was mentioned by both supporters and non-supporters of the trail.

·        Garbage – They have an adopt-a-trail program, primarily done by locals and some residents.  One person said that on his adopted trail he picked up 5 55-gallon barrels of garbage (primarily beer bottles) in one year.  The next year he picked up 5 55-gallon barrels of garbage.  The next year he picked up 2 55-gallon barrels of garbage.

·        Rocks in wheel tracks - On dirt roads, the ATVs drive with one wheel in the wheel rut and the other in the center strip between the pickup wheel ruts.  The rocks that have migrated to the center between the wheel ruts are then knocked over into the wheel rut not used by the ATVs.  Those rocks beat the crap out of your pickup and are really hard on tires.

 What can be done to make the trail WORK for Custer and Butte Counties?

(All items below that require funding should be funded by Parks and Recreation through ATV generated money – promises for the funding should be written in stone and only withdrawn if the state declares bankruptcy and merges with Oregon)

·        Choose the sacrifice area near each town, there is going to be one anyway so we might as well put it where we want it.

·        Close the entire Forest to off-road travel – although I hate to see this happen I see no other way to get ATVs under control (possibly permits could be issued for off-road travel for fence-fixing, placing salt, and maybe a blanket exemption could be made for unarmed retrieval of game animals [in case you were wondering, I personally don’t go off road for any of the above purposes]).

·        Hire one person whose only job is management and promotion of the trail (I think a designated ATV trail without substantial riders is worse than a trail with few riders because more money will be available to maintain and patrol a popular trail).  This person should be based in Mackay, which is the center of the trail system.

·        Hire six trail law enforcement people and station 2 in each town (Challis, Mackay, and Arco).  The people, and the agency they work for, must be willing to write tickets for ATV violations (the white hat doesn’t work).  These people could also do garbage cleanup as they patrol.

·        Fix the laws so that all money from ATV related citations goes either to the County or the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) for distribution.

·        Pass laws that provide for forfeiture of the ATV for off-trail or resource damage infractions (ATV to be auctioned and money being redistributed to the trail by the CAC see www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/news/2004/mudboggers.shtml for recent local examples of actions that should, without a doubt, result in forfeiture of the ATV). 

·        Required ATV training for kids under age 18

·        Require adult on the machine with drivers under age 12

·        No drivers under the age of 8

·        Sheriff and trail patrol people need authority and direction to enforce speed limit and helmet laws in town and on the trail

·        Provide rescue equipment to ambulance crews, in Challis, Mackay, and Arco, capable of retrieving injured ATV riders from remote trails.  Provide updated equipment on a 5-year rotation.

·        Provide rescue equipment to search-and-rescue crews and provide updated equipment on a 5-year rotation.

·        Fund 1 additional deputy in Butte County and 2 in Custer County to respond to reported off-road violations, assist with ambulance and search-and-rescue calls, and provide additional enforcement in towns intersected by the ATV trail.

·        Provide money to County, BLM, and Forest Service to assist in maintaining roads used by ATVs

Additional Suggestions

As outlined in the economics section, there will be some residents that will benefit monetarily from the trail.  This will primarily be those that have something to sell to trial users.  In the area surrounding the Paiute Trial, local economists estimate that outside money “turns over” 4 times before leaving the community.  I believe this is a function of 1) the relative isolation of the area (which is similar to ours) and 2) the existence of a town large enough to attract a Wal-Mart etc. within the area (which is not similar to ours).  But, given that the money will turn over some (maybe more in Challis than Mackay or Arco) some other county residents will benefit indirectly.  I do not believe that county workers, school teachers, ranchers, farmers, etc. will benefit at all.  However, I have a suggestion that might benefit everyone.  Since I am most familiar with Mackay I will use it as an example.  In Central Utah, everyone agreed that the RV parks make a pile of money.  The city of Mackay or Custer County should put in an RV park that would be owned and managed by the city or the county.  If the City or County is not allowed to own businesses, they might lease ground to a local business for an RV park.  In that way revenue could be generated that would offset costs associated with the trail.  Revenue might even exceed trail related costs and could be used for other purposes, thereby benefiting county or city residents.  A perfect location in Mackay would be the park and adjacent rodeo grounds.  A few units could be put in at first and then expanded as needed.  Eventually units would probably need to expand through the rodeo and fair grounds.  However, money generated from the RV park could be used to purchase property and build new rodeo grounds and fair facilities.  RV parks in this location would be close enough to town that local businesses would likely benefit tremendously as users would have to pass those businesses both leaving and returning to camp.

Counties in Central Utah that contain the trail get money from two ATV sources.  First they get a portion of the state registration fee based on the number of ATVs registered in their county.  Second, Utah residents pay property taxes to their county on ATVs.  As is evident in Table 1, the county with more registered ATVs gets more money but both counties contain the trail. Since Custer and Butte counties have so few ATVs (Table 1) relative to other counties in Idaho (Bonneville has 4,386, Bingham has 2,308, and Bannock has 3,511) a method needs to be devised whereby ATVs are taxed or registered by the county in the counties in which they are used, not the one in which they are owned.  An average property tax rate of $24 per ATV or motorcycle generates a huge amount of money in Utah (Table 1).  Custer County does not currently have a property tax on ATVs.  Although property taxes seem expensive, anyone who can afford to buy a $6,000 – $8,000 machine can afford a $24 property tax on it.  This would help reimburse the county for expenses incurred and would be only fair, as those who use the resources should pay for that use (you play you pay).

Summary

Although I am NOT an ATV fan I recognize that Custer and Butte counties have a plethora of land that is owned by all the public and that public has the right to use that land.  My continuing position has been that if the ATVs would stay on the trail and mind their business I would have no problem with the trail.  However, I didn’t believe that would happen given the fact that the agencies can’t control the current problem, hence the opposition.  After extensive study I now believe that this trail could be a good thing for the counties and could be controlled.  However, I think the extent of resources needed for that control is underestimated by IDPR.  I also think that the proposal submitted by IDPR contains too much subjectivity and too few promises.  Let’s get this thing set up so that we not only can live with it but so that it provides benefit to the counties and county residents.

 

Table 1.  Interesting facts about people and ATVs in Idaho and Utah counties with either existing (Utah) or proposed ATV trails (Idaho).

People Quick Facts (from the Census Bureau)	Butte County	Custer County	Idaho	Paiute County	Sevier County	Utah
Population, 2001 estimate	2,856	4,292	1,321,006	1,387	18,961	2,269,789
Population percent change, April 1, 200-1,2001	-1.5%	-1.2%	2.1%	-3.3%	0.6%	1.6%
Population, 2000	2,899	4,342	1,293,953	1,435	18,842	2,233,169
Population, percent change , 1990-2000	-0.7%	5.1%	28.5%	12.4%	22.1%	29.6%
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000	6.6%	5.4%	7.5%	8.2%	8.8%	9.4%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000	29.0%	25.5%	28.5%	30.7%	34.5%	32.2%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000	14.9%	14.5%	11.3%	17.1%	12.9%	8.5%
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000	82.6%	84.5%	84.7%	85.7%	85.8%	87.7%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000	13.0%	17.4%	21.7%	14.4%	15.2%	26.1%
Households, 2000	1,089	1,770	469,645	509	6,081	701,281
Persons per household, 2000	2.64	2.41	2.69	2.79	3.03	3.13
Median household money income, 1999	$30,473	$32,174	$37,572	$29,625	$35,822	$45,726
Per capita money income, 1999	$14,948	$15,783	$17,841	$12,697	$14,180	$18,185
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999	18.2%	14.3%	11.8%	16.2%	10.8%	9.4%
Geography Quick Facts (from the Census Bureau)
Land area, 2000 (square miles)	2,233	4,925	82,747	758	1,910	82,144
Persons per square mile, 2000	1.3	0.9	15.6	1.9	9.9	27.2
ATV statistics (from the State of Utah and IDPR)
ATV's and off-road motorcycles	233	293	67,242	282	3,708	124,961
ATV's plus motorcycles per 1000 people	8.2	6.8	5.1	20.3	19.6	5.5
ATV property tax received				$6,793	$97,349	$2,971,938

Interviews along the Piute Trail
by Jim and Cindy Gregory of Mackay Idaho
January 2004

Salina city police
(Not a trail user)
· Believes the trail is good for the town economically.
· Every street in town is open to ATVs except State and Main (the two main streets in town) ATVs can cross those streets but not ride along them.
· Private land is mostly fenced and most people that come to ride the trails do not cause problems on private land, although there are ATV problems with the locals and private land.
· Trail riders come into town and are interested in the shops. They do spend money and stay in the motels.
· The city police don't patrol the trails.
· He doesn't think the county sheriff patrols the trails because of lack of funding. He would like to have more enforcement on the trails.
· Trail users sometimes call and turn people in for going off the trail and an officer is sent out.
· Some tickets are issued for speeding through town, locals are worst offenders.
· Most of the trail users do wear their helmets.
· There are usually 2 major crashes each year. The closest hospital is 20 miles away. If the accident is major they fly victims to Salt Lake.
· During the ATV rally (Jamboree) 600 to 800 ATVs from all over the country come. ATV dealers sponsor the rally. There is a lot of money spent during the rally.
· Most of the people who use the trail are really nice.
· There is one ATV rental place in Salina (population 2,119).

Rancher near Koosharem - Grazes cattle on adjacent Forest
(not at trail user)
· "What little it does for the economy isn't worth what it does to the mountains and primitive areas."
· "At all costs, don't let them in."
· All the ranchers will tell you the same thing.
· ATVs and cows don't get along. People harass the cows, leave gates open and cut fences. When herding cattle, ATVs come up and scatter the cows everywhere.
· Agreed that 90% of the people obey the rules 10% don't. Doesn't believe that all of that 10% are locals. The ATVs have invaded areas where motorized vehicles once couldn't go, primitive areas. They go through creek and form new "spider" trails. Theses trail are then opened up or added as new trails. When trails become bad, they don't close them. They just open more new ones.
· Does not think that the trail generates many extra sales in his town. Definitely not enough to compensate for the damage ATVs do to the land.
· Garbage along the ATV trail is not worse than what is seen in other areas
· Seeing 50 to 150 ATVs on the trail adjacent to his ranch is not uncommon on a regular day, more on weekends, holidays, and during the ATV jamboree.
· Only good thing about the trail is that the ATVs keep the trails open (from being overgrown) and other people can use them.

Gas station/convenience store owner - Koosheram
(Not a trail user)
· "It's a good deal if you can regulate it"
· "You're not going to make that much more money, but overall it is a good thing."
· The smaller towns don't take in as much as the larger towns. "I might sell some pop and a few munchies, but not much gas." (Koosheram has 1 motel, 1 gas station, 1 restaurant).
· Said Richfield wasn't going to let ATVs ride through town. Then the locals started to ride through town anyway, so they agreed to let the trail go through Richfield.
· Many of the same ATV riders come back year-after-year.
· During the jamboree it gets crazy, but good. The worst part is that the dust gets really bad.
· The trail is a good thing if you can control it with trail rangers and if you can keep checking the conditions of the trail and perform needed maintenance.
· Utah has more miles of ATV trails than most other states and therefore gets riders from quite far away.

Rancher near Antimony
(not a trial user)
· His wife runs a store in Circleville. She told him that one or two ATVs might fill up with gas and they might spend ~$5 on snacks but for the most part, people bring their supplies with them.
· Forest service still has not put in ATV cattle guards and they have problems with riders leaving the gates open.
· There are problems with people going off-trail
· Trails that are maintained are cleared to accommodate ATVs and you still can't ride a horse on them because they aren't cleared high enough.
· ATV riders go faster on roads than you would generally drive in a pickup
· ATVs raise a lot of dust
· The Utah State Parks agency has been given a lot of money and equipment to work on the trails but he doesn't see any work getting done.
· Monroe Mountain is really bad. There are off-road trails being made "just like a bunch of ants."
· On dirt roads, the ATVs drive with one wheel in the wheel rut and the other in the center strip between the pickup wheel ruts. The rocks that have migrated to the center between the wheel ruts are then knocked over into the wheel rut not used by the ATVs. Those rocks beat the crap out of your pickup and are really hard on tires.

Rancher near Antimony
(not a trail user)
· "I don't have anything against ATVs, just the bastards who ride them."
· Mostly the problems we have is that they leave the gates open.

Gas station/convenience store/cafe clerk Antimony
(not a trail user)
· She gets some business but not much. In the bigger towns the RV parks are full and the restaurants do get some business. The large towns probably benefit more than the small ones.
· The closest hospital is 60 miles away. The nearest ambulance is called out in emergencies. Doesn't know how many times/month or summer the ambulance is called out for ATV trail related emergencies.

Deputy Sheriff (Sevier County) in Richfield
(originally hated ATVs now has 3 and rides the trail)
· A lot of people get in accidents. 2 or 3 major accidents each year. During the Jamboree there are 3 to 4 accidents in the first two days. "You have to keep your eyes open. Those 4-wheelers can climb a tree if you let them."
· A couple of years ago the county had 2 deputies that helped patrol the trail but they were cut when the funding was withdrawn. Sevier County has 21 deputies.
· There are many complaints of people riding off the trail and tearing things up, especially the brush. This is on a larger scale, up on the mountains where they aren't seen as easily. "You will never get away from that."
· It does seem to help to have a trial for people to ride on. They don't seem to tear up the areas as much if there is a trail.
· Other trail riders report people going off trail and the sheriff sends someone out to investigate.
· During the jamboree Richfield does a lot of business, but other places (smaller towns) don't. As people leave Richfield they fill up with gas and food.
· The officers do issue tickets for speeding in town. 8 out of 10 children do not have helmets on.
· Suggestions for making as successful trail - Get clubs together and work closely with the Forest Service, BLM, and Parks and Recreation. Clubs need to be formed to groom trails, clean up trash. "About 80% of the problems of off-trail use will be alleviated if you have groomed trails. If you don't have groomed trails people will make their own." On the Piute trail, clubs ride the trails and pick up trash. The signs saying "If you haul it in, you haul it out" don't work. They now have ATVs equipped with tracks that literally WILL GO ANYWHERE. These can be equipped with blades and used for maintenance work.

Sevier County events director (organizer of the jamboree)
· "The ATV trial doesn't cost the county anything."
· In Utah, the counties get $10 from each ATV registered in their county (Sevier county has 1500 registered ATVs, Piute county has 140).
· The money from the citations goes back to the county.
· The ATV clubs put up $75,000 to buy a "Trail Cat" to maintain the trails.
· Ambulance and Search and Rescue are volunteers so when their services are needed it costs their time.
· The Forest Service and BLM patrol their own sections of the trail. The county roads are patrolled by the county sheriff.
· 60,000 - 65,000 people ride the trail each year which brings in millions of dollars. Estimated 4 million is spent each year and it is estimated to turn over in the community 4 times. Therefore an estimated 16 million has been generated.
· Business is better in Richfield because of the trail. The larger communities likely benefit more because they have more services to offer.
· The RV Park in Marysvale does well too. That park now has 100 units that are usually all booked for the season by January.
· Marysvale doesn't get much of anything from ATV registrations, so Sevier County partners with them and provides funding to Marysvale.

Tire and mechanic shop in Richfield
· We don't see any ATV trail related business in here. Sometimes someone will stop in with questions about the trail or interested in visiting about it but they never leave any money.

Forest Service Trail coordinator
(trail user)
· Is the trail going to mess up lifestyles? Depends on who you talk to. The range people and ranchers don't like it. The business people do. You ask the little old grandmother whose house is across from the trail head and she will tell you she doesn't like it. She calls at least once a year to complain about the trail and the problems near her house. You ask another grandmother whose 8-year old granddaughter was killed on the trail. She will tell you if the trail wasn't there, her granddaughter would still be alive. The father whose 3-year old son was killed on the trial will have to live with the death of his son for the rest of his life. He left his ATV in gear and left his son on the ATV, not wearing a helmet. The 3-year old reached up, pushed the handle, and the ATV went over the cliff with his son on it.
· The Trail system will get blamed for the accidents.
· The county EMS does have to go get people off the hills.
· Once you launch there is no going back.
· It is not easy but it is worth it. There is a benefit to the economy and the people.
· At least one kid a month gets hurt on the trail or in town.
· The objective is to bring economic lifeblood into the area. Bring in people who will spend money. Draw people from all over the country. They spend 2 - 14 days riding. They will spend $100/day the system works from this standpoint.
· However, the people who come from the Wasatch Front generally come with everything they need and don't spend much money.
· Riders who come from out-of-state do spend money
· Sevier County receives $100,000/year on property taxes ($97,000 according to state records).
· Other counties may receive less (Piute County, in which the trail is also located, receives $7,000 according to state records).
· The Jamboree donates $5,000 - $7,000 to the trail annually.
· The ATV shop in Richfield donates free use of a new machine for 1 year to the Forest Service for patrol each year.
· Dollars will roll over 4 times in a community like Richfield. If the towns brings in $4 million it is really making $16 million (Richfield has several ATV dealerships, a Wal-Mart, K-mart, several motels, gas stations, convenience stores etc.)
· Indirectly, other businesses are making money because of the money being spent in other places.
· Problems with the trail include Monroe Mountain where there is a trophy herd of elk. Antler hunters go up and grid the bedding areas with ATVs; the combination of wet soils and elk in poor condition make a bad situation. The elk get harassed and the mountain gets trashed. Neither the State nor the Forest Service will take action to stop the problem.
· The biggest problem with horn hunters and hunters is from the state residents.
· The other major problem with off-road abuse by ATVs is from local kids going out of town on the trail after school and tearing the place up. But there is nothing you can do about that so you might just as well know that there is going to be a trashed sacrifice area near town. The same problem occurs at parking areas and dispersed camping areas. Kids are allowed, by their parents, to ride the ATVs as long as they stay close. Consequently, they ride off trail and trash the areas near the parking and camping areas.
· Suggestions for setting up an ATV trail - Close the entire Forest to motorized off-road travel. Confiscate machines and take ATV licenses away for 5 years for off-road violations - $100 citations don't work. Get volunteers to donate money, organize committees, associations, etc., to appropriate money from the government.
· The Forest has successfully closed some pioneered trails. In some cases this has involved dropping timber, tank traps, and contoured hillsides. In some areas where these methods have been used it is now not possible to get a horse in past the obstructions. In some areas, lighter obstructions have been removed or by-passed in days. Surveillance cameras and ambush officers have been used in some areas.
· Have designated areas near towns and parking areas where people can just ride anywhere they want, i.e. choose your sacrifice areas. .
· Utah has a voluntary sticker system where there is a sticker for the trail that costs $5/year - come out with a new sticker each year. Although the sticker is not required to ride the trail some people collect them as souvenirs. Probably 5% of the ATVs on the trail have a Piute sticker.
· ATV manufactures will sometimes donate ATVs to county EMS etc.
· Between Forest, BLM, State parks and 7 to 9 people patrol the trail, most of those are Forest Service people. They usually write between 25 and 30 citations. Most of those are written on the opening day of the Deer and Elk seasons. That many enforcement people are not enough. There is always a funding problem for enforcement.
· Suggestions - have a full-time trail coordinator. Form a coalition of people involved in management of the trail. More things get done and it fosters a lot of good-will. Let people know where to camp, Regulate distance people can travel off the marked road with a motorized vehicle and make that constant across the state. Educated hunters that they need to be on designated routes.
· Recreational riders are not the problem.

Business man in Richfield active with ATV training and the trail
(Trail user)
· Clubs are extremely important for cleaning, grooming, maintaining, patrolling the trail. Hours they put in can be used as matching money for federal grants.
· Education programs are critical - Utah requires a training course and license before kids can operate an ATV. After successfully completing the course kids as young as 8 can drive an ATV on the road.
· Get the trail system first and then get the funding
· "If you can get the trail named and on the map they will never be able to stop it or get rid of it."
· The Piute trail has an adopt-a-trail program. The first year this guy adopted a trail he picked up 5 55-gallon drums of garbage (primarily beer bottles). The next year he picked up 5 55-gallon drums of garbage. The third year he picked up 2 55-gallon drums of garbage. Garbage is going to be a problem but local people and clubs will keep it cleaned up.

Observations of Jim and Cindy along the trail (much of the trail was snow covered)
· The trail is poorly marked through the town of Salina
· Most of the garbage we saw was at parking areas
· Marysvale business that are open in the winter - 1 hotel, 1 gas station/convenience store, auto-body shop, beauty salon, state liquor authority (maybe), River Canyon cookhouse (not in town).
· Marysvale businesses that appear to be closed for the winter - 3 restaurants, 1 bar, 3 hotels, ATV-horse-rafting business, antique shop, computer-satellite-cell phone shop (maybe) espresso bar, Tusher Mt. Traders.
· According to Max at the Forest Service, most of the new businesses in Marysville that were created after the trail was started were businesses that sell "do-dads."

 

---

Commissioner Traughber represents Butte County as a member of the Lost River Recreational Trail group committee,
which represents the various interests involved in planning the ATV trail system. The proposed system would link the various communities of Butte and Custer County, designating, improving, and marking segments of the existing public lands trail system and provide access to community services. Public meetings have been held in Arco, Mackay and Challis to explain the system and receive comments. The trail system concept is based upon experiences with public lands OHV trails such as the Paiute Trail
System in Utah, and involves the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, with the assistance of the U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of land Management. Traughber said that progress has been slow, mostly due to what he termed as apathy on the part of the residents of the communities involved. County Commissions, cities and chambers of commerce have voted in support of the proposed trail system. However, efforts to encourage local support or comment has not been productive. Traughber advised that in order to advance the planned trail development, local communities need to name committees representing business, county and city government, service clubs, etc. to contact the Idaho Department of Parks & Recreation, Governor Kempthorne, and legislative district representatives and ask assistance if interested in the development.
Problems which have come up in local meetings and discussions have included provision of law enforcement and EMT services; new trails to provide links with existing trails and communities, including provisions for highway and road crossings; provision of signage, maps, etc..

Commissioner Traughber as a representative on the project work group, has expressed regret at the small number of signatures
turned in with questionnaires left with local businesses. Benefits expressed with implementation of the Off Road Vehicle demonstration trail proposal include better control of the snowballing off road and off trail ATV use, improved signage of trails, and economic development
connected with the improved access of the growing segment of the tourism industry. Citizens interested in receiving more information concerning the trail system may contact representatives of the agencies involved. The following addresses are taken from the Lost
River OHV Adaptive Management Plan:

Dave Claycomb, Outdoor Recreation Program Specialist,
Idaho Department of Parks & Recreation,
P.O. Box 1876, Idaho Falls, ID 83403, Ph. (208) 525-7121.

Carol Eckert, District Ranger, Lost River R.D., Salmon-
Challis Natl. Forest, P.O. Box 507, Mackay, ID 83251, Ph. (208) 588-2224.

Rene Snyder, Challis Field Office Manager, Upper
Snake, Salmon, Clearwater District, 801 Blue Mountain
Road, Challis, ID 83226. Ph. (208) 879-6200.

Also, personal messages could be sent to Governor Dirk Kempthorne
State Capitol, 2nd Floor, West Wing, Boise, ID 83420-0034.

As Commissioner Traughber indicated, development of the Lost River Recreational Trail System is at this stage a well developed concept, but without expressions of local residents, the program will probably not advance. The Arco Rotary Club has expressed its backing for the project and members are willing to work with a local committee to advance the proposed trail system. Trail systems upon which this proposal is based have been proven to improve management of Off Road Vehicles, and have made significant
economic improvement in communities involved.