Introduction
I
Motorized
recreation on
Minnesota’s
trails has become
a hotly debated
topic.
n the last year, motorized recreation on Minnesota’s trails has become a hotly
debated topic, especially after a series of articles from the Minneapolis Star
1
Tribune highlighted the controversy in February 2002. On the one hand,
environmentalists and other skeptics of motorized recreation contend that
motorized vehicles—which include snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), dirt
bikes, and 4X4 trucks—damage the environment and disturb the peace and quiet
of the state’s natural areas. In addition, they claim that the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) is not doing enough to monitor and manage the use
of these vehicles, the damage that they cause, and the private clubs that develop
and maintain many of these public trails.
On the other hand, motorized recreation enthusiasts contend that DNR is not
doing enough to develop a designated trail system for ATVs, dirt bikes, and 4X4
trucks—which are collectively referred to as off-highway vehicles (OHVs). The
state created dedicated funding accounts to develop and manage ATV trails in
1984 and dirt-bike and 4X4-truck trails in 1993. Yet, DNR is still trying to plan a
system of OHV trails. While most trails and roads in state forests are open to
OHV use, the vast majority of these trails are not officially designated, which
involves signing and mapping them. OHV enthusiasts want DNR to designate
trails because they are much easier to use than trails that are not signed and
mapped. In contrast, the state has developed an extensive designated trail system
for snowmobiles. But some snowmobilers claim that DNR is holding on to and
not spending enough of the funds in the dedicated account for snowmobiles.
Issues related to motorized recreation may come to a head during the 2003
legislative session. Last year, the Legislature created an OHV task force that will
present by January 15, 2003 recommendations concerning the development of a
designated trail system. Also, this report, which was requested by the Legislative
Audit Commission on April 2, 2002, evaluates the state’s current system of
designated trails for snowmobiles and OHVs that receive state funding. Some
legislators were particularly concerned about the oversight that DNR provides the
private clubs that receive grant assistance from the state to develop and maintain
most of the state’s designated trails.
Our study posed the following questions:
•
What trails does the state have for motorized recreation, and where
are these trails located?
1 Tom Meersman, “Nature pays the price as ATVs hit the woods,” “Even designated trails can
present problems,” “Legal and Illegal ATV Trails,” “In ads, the trails lead to the mud,” and “Some
drivers are taking illegal spins in wildlife areas,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 24, 2002, sec.
A, p. 1, 12, 13, and 15; Tom Meersman, “Inside DNR, memos warned of ATV damage” and “Most
favor keeping ATVs on trails,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 25, 2002, sec. A, pp. 1, 4, and 5.
2
STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
•
How effective have the state’s efforts been to plan statewide
snowmobile and OHV trail systems?
•
Is there adequate oversight for the grant-in-aid programs?
•
How well is DNR’s Enforcement Division enforcing regulations
pertaining to the operation of snowmobiles and OHVs?
•
How does Minnesota finance the development, maintenance, and
management of its motorized recreational vehicle trails, and how are
the funds spent?
To address these questions, we surveyed all 87 counties and 1,257 DNR field
employees, representing each of the department’s divisions. We also visited each
of DNR’s regional offices and interviewed staff from each of the department’s
divisions. Finally, we (1) reviewed trail planning documents from DNR and other
sources, (2) analyzed data from DNR concerning trail mileage, vehicle
registrations, enforcement activities, and trail funding, and (3) interviewed many
other stakeholders, including county officials, government officials involved in
land-use regulation, officials from trail clubs, representatives of snowmobile and
OHV rider associations, environmentalists, and other concerned citizens.
As we discuss in Chapter 1, operators of snowmobiles and OHVs have several
different types of places to ride their vehicles, including trails and the ditches of
highway right-of-ways. Nevertheless, in this study, we focused on trails that DNR
has officially designated for snowmobile or OHV use and have received state
funding. These public trails are developed and maintained either by DNR or by
private clubs with grants from DNR.
During the recent debates about motorized recreation, there has been a lot of
discussion about the “environmental damage” caused by these vehicles; however,
we did not try to assess the level of damage that has occurred or the need to repair
this damage. While these vehicles, like all types of recreation and human activity,
have an impact on the environment, the point at which this impact becomes
undesirable is a subjective assessment that is beyond the scope of our work.
Nevertheless, in this report, we discuss the need for DNR to (1) establish
thresholds at which point the environmental impacts are considered unacceptable
(whatever those levels may be), (2) monitor the actual impacts on the trails, and
(3) take appropriate action, such as maintaining and possibly closing trails, if
these thresholds are exceeded.
Chapter 1 presents data on the state’s designated trail system and other riding
opportunities along with data on the number of snowmobiles and OHVs in the
state. In Chapter 2, we review and discuss DNR’s efforts to plan statewide trail
systems for snowmobiles and OHVs. Chapter 3 examines the efforts of DNR and
local units of government to oversee the development and maintenance of
grant-in-aid trails. Chapter 4 presents information about how DNR’s Enforcement
Division enforces laws and rules pertaining to the operation of snowmobiles and
OHVs. Finally, Chapter 5 presents data concerning the four dedicated accounts
(one for each type of vehicle—snowmobiles, ATVs, dirt bikes, and 4X4 trucks)
that the state has to fund motorized recreational activities.