Overview:
For more than 30 years, residents and conservation groups have been asking town and state officials to address the disturbances caused by allowing OHRVs on public trails and roads. The disturbances include damage to trails and class VI roads; the loss of quiet enjoyment of public and private lands and the incompatibility of OHRVs with traditional outdoor recreation: hunting, fishing, hiking etc. Finally, in 2001, the legislature created an ATV Study Committee. In 2002, working from this committee’s recommendations, the legislature established a coarse and fine filter evaluation process to ensure that new OHRV trails would not create further conflict and damage: RSA 215-A:41,42,43.
Since 2002 RSA 215-A:41,42,43 has been repeatedly violated by the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Bureau of Trails and the Legislature. More property owners are now adversely impacted by high impact OHRV trails; demands on law enforcement and emergency services have increased; and those who enjoy traditional outdoor recreation: hunting, fishing, hiking etc continue to be displaced.
The Details:
2001: HB 717 established “a committee to make recommendations on policy concerning state-operated trails for all terrain vehicles and trail bikes.” The committee was specifically required to review “Interests of abutting landowners.” Public testimony revealed the serious impacts of OHRV trails on abutting residents – noise, dust, lack of law enforcement, damage to class VI roads, damage to land, lack of public process and public input, need for a master plan, incompatibility with other trail uses, and lack of land use regulations in the North Country.
The resulting Study Committee recommendations included: “The policy of ‘Coarse’ and ‘Fine’ filtering must remain in place. Environmental concerns and potential degradation of an area must also be the paramount consideration.” “New or expanded trails should be for ATV use only. Trails could then be designed and engineered exclusively for this use and conflict issues will not arise.” “Emphasis should be on development of self-contained trails, not linear trails. ” The Study Committee recommended further review of “New or expanded role(s) for Trails Advisory Committee in trail development, management and closure.”
2002: HB 1273: Building on the Study Committee’s finding that there were “urgently needed changes in law regarding ATV trail operations and planning,” the legislature held 10 public hearings and established a coarse and fine filter evaluation process to be used in the opening of all OHRV trails on state lands. This was enacted into law: RSA 215-A:41,42,43.
The citizens and conservation groups who testified in support of the trail siting statutes spoke of the need for full public notice in all trail development proposals as well as the importance of protecting and conserving natural areas. Citizens testified to the problems resulting from misplaced OHRV trails: the serious degradation of the quality of life of abutters, the loss in property value, the noise and air pollution, the damage to trails leading to erosion and the increased costs to police and emergency services.
Ignoring concerns collected by the Study Commission and in violation of the USFS conservation easement, George Bald, Commissioner of DRED opened the Westside Trail in Nash Stream Forest to ATVs, August 1, 2002. Go here for more details.
2003: HB 748 began the undermining of the newly enacted trail siting statutes of RSA 215-A:43.
The exemption of rail trails from RSA 215-A:43 is a direct contradiction of the original ATV Study Committee recommendation that the “‘’Coarse’ and ‘Fine’ filtering must remain in place,” as well as the directive to focus on self-contained riding areas, “not linear trails.” Rail corridors are linear trails that pass through residential areas – exactly where local ordinances, existing uses and impacts on abutting property owners should be seriously considered.
HB 748 also changed the original wording that new OHRV trails must be “compatible with” local ordinances to the weaker “give due consideration to,” thereby denying NH citizens the basic protections of local zoning and noise ordinances. At the same time, the legislature passed the responsibility for addressing the “large portion of complaints” about unacceptable noise to the local level after just ensuring that the state could establish trails that violated local ordinances.
Despite the public testimony again detailing the recurring issues of safety, noise, impact on abutters, over-use of trails, need for careful placement of high impact OHRV trails and the importance of following existing local ordinances, the legislature granted BOT’s request for the “less restrictive language.”
2004: The Plan for Developing NH’s Statewide Trail System for ATVs and Trail bikes 2004 – 2008, mandated by the 2001 Study Committee, stated that: “The primary goal for the Bureau will be to align the user expectations with state land management goals rather than the other way around. Trail and resource specialists should first explain the regulatory framework in which decisions are made, and then solicit input from wheeled OHRV users. This is extremely important when stressing the governing agencies mandates to protect public resources. “
2005: NH DOT, in collaboration with NH Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED), published the New Hampshire State Trails Plan. They conducted an extensive study of the state’s rail trails, and held public hearings across New Hampshire. Public comments revealed problems with lack of OHRV enforcement, noise and speeding. DRED’s ability to treat non-motorized trail users fairly, given BOT’s financial dependence on motorized registrations was questioned. More than 80% of the public opposed any ATV use on rail trails, winter or summer.
2012: SB 250 further eroded the trail siting statutes: “Trail connectors…. in Coos county shall be exempt from the provisions of RSA 215-A:42 and RSA 215-A:43.” The passage of SB 250 led to hundreds of miles of roads in Coos County being opened to OHRV travel with no abutter notification.
SB 250 also amended RSA 215-A:10 to open specific sections of state roads to OHRV traffic, thus by-stepping not only RSA 215-A:43 but also the joint permitting process with the NH Department of Transportation and NH Department of Safety. “The following sections of state highway shall be designated for OHRV use: Back Lake Road in Pittsburg….”
This growing list of exemptions undermines the recommendations of the 2001 ATV Study Committee and the Trail siting statutes as established in RSA 215-A:41,42,43
The 2018 lawsuit filed by seven Gorham households against the state and town to remove the nuisance of OHRV trails past their homes is a direct result of these weakened protections. The suit is still waiting for the NH Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the state actually needs to follow the trail siting statues.
2015: SB 172 “‘All terrain vehicle (ATV)’ means any motor-driven vehicle….for travel over surfaces other than maintained roads with non-highway tires.”
2019: SB 591 provided for notification for abutters, but only on town roads being considered for OHRV use. Abutters of state roads or private property being considered for OHRV use still receive no notification.
2024: Per Fish and Game data, OHRV registrations have declined three years in a row since their COVID peak, back to 2018 levels.
Scroll down to see text of some of the bills referenced above:
HB 591 “notification to abutters by verified mail” 2019
SB 250 “This bill adds specific exceptions to the evaluation criteria for the establishment of ATV and trail bike trails on state lands, and allows for OHRV operation on certain highways and trail crossings and connectors in Coos county.” 2012
HB 748 “…...The [proposal is compatible with] bureau has given due consideration to local planning and zoning ordinances………State Rail Trails Use Exempted. Amend RSA 215-A:43 by inserting….V. This section shall not apply to the change in use designation of rail trails to include ATV and trail bike use.” 2003
HB 1273 “The implementation of a 2-step process based on coarse and fine filter criteria for the evaluation of any new trail proposals for all terrain vehicles (ATV) or trail bikes” 2002
HB 172 “non-highway tires” 2015