P.O. Box 111, Duluth, MN 55801
TEL: (218) 740-3175 FAX: (218) 740-3179 EMAIL info@MnResponsibleRec.org
WEBSITE: www.MnResponsibleRec.org
P.O. Box 111, Duluth, MN 55801
TEL: (218) 740-3175 FAX: (218) 740-3179 EMAIL info@MnResponsibleRec.org
WEBSITE: www.MnResponsibleRec.org
March 8, 2005
Honorable Judge Steve Mihalchick, Administrative Law
Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
100 Washington Square, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2138
Dear Judge Mihalchick,
On behalf of Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation’s 800 members, I am writing to provide comment on the "Proposed Amendment to Rules Governing the Environmental Review Program, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410, Adopting Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheets and Exemption Categories for Recreational Trails". MRR requests that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board amend its proposed rules to require mandatory completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and public review of all motorized recreation projects irrespective of proposed trail length, type of motorized use or size of use area.
MRR’s comments are organized as follows:
SECTION I:
OVERVIEW - MOTORIZED RECREATION, MRR AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
SECTION II:
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING NEED FOR MANDATORY EAW AND PUBLIC REVIEW
OF
ALL MOTORIZED RECREATION PROPOSALS, NO EXEMPTIONS
SECTION I
OVERVIEW - MOTORIZED RECREATION, MRR AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Small minority have potential for significant environmental effects and irreparable harm to majority of state’s people and land. The history of motorized recreation in Minnesota is one of promoting and developing access to public and private land for a small minority of high-impact users while systematically escaping public and environmental review. The ability of public institutions such as the DNR, local governments, and publicly funded snowmobile and ATV clubs to develop entire statewide networks of trails at public expense while escaping public and environmental review and other forms of accountability is one of the most striking aspects of motorized recreation in Minnesota.
i. 1. Outdoor recreation data in Minnesota repeatedly show that the vast majority of Minnesotans do not participate in motorized recreation but seek experiences that are free from the effects of motorized recreation and are even being "displaced" by encounters with these unwanted effects.
i.2. While Minnesota’s quiet majority seek non-motorized environments, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources promotes open access of motorized recreation to public and private land. The DNR, publicly funded clubs, and local governments acting as their fiscal agents have developed 18,000 miles of publicly funded snowmobile trails and are currently engaged in developing a statewide network of ATV, dirt-bike motorcycle and four-wheel drive truck routes and "scramble areas" in Minnesota’s state forests. In 2000, the DNR opened over 95% of Minnesota’s state forest land to ATVs, dirt-bike motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks. Citizen petitions and legal challenges for environmental review, though repeatedly rebuffed by the DNR, caused the DNR to request that the legislature "suspend" public and environmental review of proposed off-highway vehicle routes and scramble areas until 2008.
i.3. Following the money trail. An explanation for why motorized recreation access continues to be developed despite data that the majority of Minnesotans are seeking experiences free of motorized recreation can be found in the perpetual gas-tax funding created to promote motorized recreation access to public and private land. Funding formulas created by the legislature provide each form of motorized recreation with a portion of the state’s annually collected gas tax. Snowmobiles receive 1% and motorboats 1.5% of the state’s annually collected gas-tax with ATVs, dirt-bike motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks receiving a part of one percent. DNR’s Administration and Trails and Waterways Division are largely subsidized by these perpetual motorized recreation gas tax funds which are based on the number of machines and gallons of gasoline consumed by these machines. Every club must have a Trail Administrator who receives and disperses these public funds. Trail Administrators and other club members who do trail work or go to meetings are "reimbursed" with public funds. This funding has created a sense of entitlement among motorized users who view these public funds as their private accounts. It has also created a sense of obligation among Trails and Waterways staff who view users as their salary-paying customers. This economic benefit DNR staff enjoy in promoting motorized recreation is likely one important factor that has caused the DNR to put trail development ahead of environmental protection as discussed below.
i.4. DNR lacks accountability for unwanted environmental effects and requires the highest level of citizen oversight. In 2003, an Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Program Evaluation Report: State Funded Trails for Motorized Recreation, (Exhibit A Attached) found that while the DNR is quick to designate more motorized trails, its "effort to plan a statewide OHV [off-highway vehicle] trail system has been inadequate" and lacking sufficient public and environmental review and trail-making guidelines (p.x).
The 2003 program evaluation report found that snowmobile and ATV "clubs are left to operate largely on their own". It made completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and public review its #1 recommendation for motorized recreation: "We believe that OHV trail projects should also be a mandatory category for three reasons. First, many projects in other "linear corridors" such as pipelines, transmission lines, and roads are already mandatory categories. Second…in many cases, OHV trails may have the potential for significant environmental impact. Third, OHVs are highly controversial and likely to be the subject of lawsuits…" (p. 30) The auditor’s report also recommended increased "oversight" in trail planning and construction and throughout the DNR’s motorized recreation program.
Despite the DNR’s June 2, 2004 response to the Office of the Legislative Auditor (Exhibit A2 Attached), the DNR has not implemented the major oversight recommendations made in the OLA’s 2003 report. Public trail funds continue to be disbursed to local clubs in violation of grant agreements. In Hermantown the Nightriders Snowmobile Club was discovered to be submitting "landowner lists" to the DNR with false information in order to access public trail funds. The attached list (Exhibit B Attached) provided by the DNR on October 11, 2004 is supposed to contain the names of property owners who have given the club written affidavits permitting them to cross the property owners land. In stead the Hermantown Nightrider’s landowner list contains the names of three deceased property owners, at least six who withdrew easements in 2000 and at least two property owners who never gave written permission. As a result this club bulldozed an unwanted snowmobile on private property and in wetlands without written permission from the landowner (Exhibit C Attached). Given the continued lack of oversight and accountability within the DNR’s motorized recreation program the need for mandatory citizen oversight is especially essential.
i. 5. "Requiring an ‘EAW’ up front would make environmental assessment more transparent to the public." The DNR and local governments are known for withholding public data from citizens opposed to their motorized recreation projects. In December 2003 the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners voted off-the-agenda and without any public input to recommend conversion of the North Shore State Trail to ATV use. (Exhibit D Attached) This was despite its own 2001 survey data (above) that county residents are being displaced by motorized recreation effects. Despite a warning from EQB staff, in 2004 the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners violated environmental review laws by granting easement across county land for a dirt-bike motorcycle track even though such "final government action" is prohibited once a petition for EAW has been registered. Also in 2004, the DNR funded a $30,000 Duluth-area crosstown state snowmobile trail plan that attempted to disenfranchise property owners and dismiss their concerns. (Exhibit E Attached) Repeated MRR invitations to share each of these concerns with the DNR Commissioner went unacknowledged in 2004. (Exhibit F Attached)
Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation regularly seeks public data in order to monitor development of motorized recreation proposals. We find that the DNR and local units of government often require repeated requests and threats of legal action before providing requested data. The Minnesota Data Practices Act, Chapter 13.03 requires that "the responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision…insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner." In the 670 opinions rendered by the Minnesota Department of Administration, regarding compliance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act, governmental agencies are expected to reply in an appropriate manner within 15 – 20 days. Few MRR requests for data have been met within this window. A December 7, 2004 request for data to the DNR remains currently unanswered after 63 days (Exhibit G Attached). Mandatory review would make public information readily available to the public.
i. 6. Motorized recreation has the potential for significant environmental effects and irreparable harm. A U.S. Council on Environmental Quality report Off-road Vehicles on Public Land found that "Off-road vehicles have damaged every kind of ecosystem found in the United States; sand dunes covered with American Beach grass on Cape Cod; pine and cypress woodlands in Florida; hardwood forests in Indiana; prairie grasslands in Montana; chaparral and sagebrush hills in Arizona; alpine meadows in Colorado; conifer forests in Washington; arctic tundras in Alaska. In some cases the wound will heal naturally, in others they will not, at least for millennia. (1979, Off-road Vehicle on Public Land. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office) Current U.S. Forest Chief Bosworth says that motorized recreation is one of the top four environmental problems facing our nation.
i. 7. While 18,000 miles of snowmobile trails have been designated in Minnesota problems with the noise and fumes of these machines are on the increase. Attempts to superimpose a statewide network of publicly funded ATV, dirt-bike motorcycle and four-wheel drive routes on this system has been met with significant and continuous public opposition since ATV advocacy groups have declared that they want what the snowmobilers have. (1997 DNR Trail Conference, St. Paul)
i. 8. "The actual effect of [motorized recreation trail] designation will be to make funds available from the DNR…to local trail club[s]…" (DNR Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV Trail EAW, 2001, p. 2) The DNR designation and funding of ATV clubs to bulldoze trails without public and environmental review has the potential for significant environmental effects.
i. 9 Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation and Public and Environmental Review
Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation was founded in 1996 to protect peace and quiet, fresh air, personal safety and Minnesota’s trails and waterways from the noise, fumes, danger to others and environmental damage caused by snowmobiles, ATVs and jet skis. (Brochure and newsletter with web address attached). Over the past nine years MRR has generated heretofore absent public discussion and debate about the place of motorized recreation in our environment.
i. 10 In 1998 MRR petitioned Judge Klien for Administrative Hearings in support of DNR criteria proposed to protect the environment and rights of other from the unwanted impacts of ATVs, dirt-bike motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks. Sadly, while these criteria (Exhibit H 1999, Off-Highway Vehicles in Minnesota report, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation, p. 45, Attached Large File: 47,756 K) were included in DNR rules developed to assist with off-highway vehicle trail planning, MRR was unable to find a single instance in which DNR field staff were informed of or using these criteria in the ensuing development of 19 off-highway vehicle trail plans statewide.
i.11 Seeing that the DNR would not engage in internal review, in 1999 MRR recognized the primary importance of public and environmental review with release of our attached evidentiary report, Off-Highway Vehicles in Minnesota, which documents the statewide damage caused by these machines and the public policies and practices that wittingly and unwittingly promote this damage. (See Environmental Impacts, p. 5 and related Recreational User Conflict and Social Impacts, 14.) Our report, which was previewed by the DNR for factual content and which cites a substantial body of research, won national acclaim and even the praise of a lobbyist for one motorized recreation advocacy group. MRR’s report is cited throughout this document.
MRR’s report (p. 47) recommends the following steps for developing motorized recreation routes:
Each of the above elements must be present to develop acceptable and sustainable off-highway vehicle routes. Public and environmental review to select even the most benign routes will be meaningless if adequate enforcement is not provided. While the state employs approximately 650 state troopers to patrol our highways, fewer than 150 DNR Conservation Officers are employed to patrol the entire state of Minnesota. As noted in the 2003 audit, the DNR has not adequately funded ATV enforcement. In 1999 Conservation Officers were budgeted a mere 23 hours per year for OHV enforcement, a fiscal statement of non-priority. (Exhibit I, Motorized Recreation Fact Sheet, April, 2000 Attached)
i. 12. MRR’s belief in the primary importance of public and environmental review in the selection of designated routes for motorized recreation has caused us to commit substantial resources. In 2001, MRR petitioned for review of all nineteen of the DNR’s "Off-Highway Vehicle Plans". DNR planning teams were proposing ATV trails through wetlands in St. Louis County (Exhibit J Video of Proposed Taft Trail Attached, DNR Northeast Minnesota Off-Highway Vehicle Plan, July, 2001.), a "scramble area" on the Superior Hiking Trail in Cook County (MRR member on planning team report) and a dirt-bike motorcycle track around quiet residential Long Lost Lake in Clearwater County (White Earth ATV/Off-Highway Motorcycle Trail, DNR Northwest Minnesota Off-Highway Vehicle Plan, June, 2001). MRR challenged DNR’s refusal to conduct EAWs in North Central Minnesota, where it was discovered that local field staff originally agreed with MRR to conduct review, but were overruled by DNR administration in St. Paul. MRR also challenged a DNR decision to continue with the Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV trail project, in which the local club had already bulldozed the trail ahead of and during the review period. The state’s desire to avoid public and environmental review and to develop these projects prevailed.
i. 13 In 2001, discovery of major damage to the Finland State Forest from bulldozing by the local publicly funded snowmobile/ATV club, the lack of required permits and development of an adjacent connecting ATV trail during the environmental review period in violation of EQB rules, caused MRR to shift our inquiry from environmental effects of the machines to the institutions that promote these effects (photos below, B. 2.) In 2002, MRR members convinced the legislature to request a state audit of the DNR’s motorized trail program. MRR members spent the entire year of 2002 providing data to the Office of the Legislative Auditor. In 2003 the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Program Evaluation Report: State-Funded Trails for Motorized Recreation was released. Acknowledging the quality of MRR’s documentation, OLA staff reported using 100% of the data MRR provided in 2002. The OLA audit is cited throughout these comments.
i. 14. In 2004 public and environmental reviewed played a major role in protecting the environment from ill-conceived motorized recreation proposals. MRR petitioned (Exhibit K Attached) for public and environmental review of a proposed dirt-bike motorcycle track 20’ from the edge of the Mesabi Trail. The dirt-bike motorcycle track proposal was withdrawn. In 2004 MRR engaged in a series of communications with DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam regarding the DNR’s decision as to whether or not to convert the North Shore State Trail to ATV use. MRR communications reminded the commissioner that completion of a Environmental Assessment Worksheet and public review is mandatory prior to "any permanent physical encroachment of the state trail corridor" as stated in existing EQB rules. In the face of reasonable environmental standards and a storm of public outcry the DNR chose to postpone such a conversion. (Exhibit D Attached)
SECTION II:
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING NEED FOR MANDATORY EAW AND PUBLIC REVIEW
OF
ALL MOTORIZED RECREATION PROPOSALS, NO EXEMPTIONS
MRR has previously submitted comment on 10/1/03 and 7/14/04 each time requesting completion of mandatory public and environmental review of all motorized recreation projects. MRR continues to request that the Environmental Quality Board amend its rules to require completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and public review of all motorized recreation and use areas irrespective of proposed trail length, type of motorized use or size of use area.
MRR provides the following evidence to support the need for mandatory EAW and public review:
A. 1. The EQB’s SONAR fails to recognize that proposed rules affect 92.8% of Minnesota’s land mass and majority of population. On page 4 the Statement of Need and Reasonableness asserts that the "Vast majority of motorized trail designations for the foreseeable future will not be subject to whatever rules the EQB adopts, since the vast majority of such [OHV trail] designations will take place under the ongoing legislatively-exempted process" on state forest land. This statement incorrectly narrows the zone of need and reasonableness when in fact all public and private land and projects involving government actions or funds outside state-forest land continue to be subject to environmental review. (55,643,520 acres in Minnesota minus 4,000,000 acres of state forest land = 51, 643, 520. 51,643,520 / 55,643,520 x 100 = 92%. 2005 World Book Encyclopedia. DNR Website)
Given this substantial land mass and the promise of continued pressure to develop more motorized trails one can predict a continued stream of future proposals. This widens the reach of these rules statewide and into the future and should widen the zone of need and reasonableness to require mandatory EAWs on these projects, no exemptions.
The above statement from page 4 of the SONAR also ignores numerous studies cited earlier showing that the vast majority of Minnesotans seek outdoor environments that are free of the unwanted effects of motorized recreation. It is essential to highlight that "environmental review" is public review. Projects that affect the majority of Minnesotans should be reviewed by Minnesotans.
Examples of major motorized recreation projects currently being proposed that are subject to proposed rules include:
A. 2. Assumption That The "Vast Majority" Of Motorized Trails Will Simply Be Designated In State Forests By 2008 When Current Legislation Expires Underestimates The Degree Of Public Opposition To Mandated ATV Trail Making In State Forests. The assertion on page 4 of the SONAR that the "Vast majority of motorized trail designations" by the DNR will simply take place underestimates public opposition to such trail proposals. Tumultuous recent events in Northwest Minnesota, where two upper level DNR staff have purportedly been demoted because of industry dissatisfaction with designation of trails provides a window on the volubility of this process. The filling of public hearings in Northwest Minnesota by the motorized recreation industry with employees during the workday provides still another window on the increasing level of social conflict regarding designation of ATV trails in Minnesota’s state forests. It is simply not a foregone conclusion that the "vast majority" of ATV and other motorized trails will be designated in Minnesota’s state forests by the DNR by 2008. This expands the zone of need for mandatory EAW into the future.
A. 3. Need for Rules incorrectly makes DNR ATV trail designation in state forests higher priority than protecting Minnesota’s environment in the remaining 92.8% of the state and does not reflect level of need established by the 2003 Legislative Audit. The 2003 legislative audit of the DNR’s motorized trail program found that "environmental protection ended up being a lower priority that trail designation" (p. 23)
On Page 4 of the SONAR it appears that an EQB desire to limit mandatory review of motorized recreation projects stems from concerns about "the resources needed for the reclassification effort [that] will consume most of the DNR’s available trail planning staff…". In this statement the SONAR suffers from the very lack of attention to planning and environmental assessment the 2003 legislative audit warned of and recommended correcting.
A. 5. Proposed rules do not meet goal of "predictability."
It is stated throughout the SONAR that the "fundamental purpose of the mandatory category system…is to create predictability" (p. 8) Nothing could be more unpredictable than designating motorized trails without public and environmental review. With "designation" substantial public funds are released to clubs who then have the resources to bulldoze trails on public and private without accountability. Any trail designation without the guidance of formal review will have the significant potential for unwanted effects routinely observed among publicly funded clubs bulldozing routes. A simple review of damage caused by four different snowmobile clubs in Northeast Minnesota offers predictive value of what is to come once ATV clubs start receiving public funds.
The 2003 legislative audit found that greater oversight in planning, designing, funding and constructing motorized routes is needed to protect Minnesota’s environment. The audit’s #1 recommendation is to conduct public and environmental review of off-highway vehicle trail proposals. Superimposing a whole new class of publicly funded motorized clubs, the ATV clubs, on Minnesota’s landscape without implementing the oversight recommendations is certain to significant damage to the environment. Relying on citizens to oversee ATV trail making by petitioning for environmental review puts Minnesota’s environment at risk. Few audit recommendations have been implemented by the DNR.
A. 6. Proposed rules would have a disproportionate cost for the majority of Minnesotans
In has already been noted that the vast majority of Minnesota’s citizens seek areas away from the effects of motorized recreation.
For the majority, every newly proposed motorized recreation project potentially threatens Minnesotans valued peace and quiet, fresh air, personal safety and healthy forests, streams and wetlands. Furthermore, in the absence of mandatory public and environmental review of many motorized recreation projects, these Minnesotans will bear substantial other costs resulting from the proposed rule:
A. 7. Significant Costs and Burden of Proof Should be on Motorized Proposers: Given the potential for significant effects and even irreparable harm to Minnesota’s environment from motorized recreation projects and the high costs to citizens to petition for environmental review, the EQB should make mandatory, without exemption, review of these proposals to protect our state for future generations. In this way project proposers can predict costs of this review and of meeting Minnesota’s environmental review and protection standards.
A. 8. Majority of Minnesotans Would Benefit from Adopting Amended Rules Requiring Mandatory EAW and Public Review Of All Motorized Recreation Projects
S
ince publication of MRR’s 1999 report Off-Highway Vehicles in Minnesota, MRR has recommended public and environmental review of motorized trail projects as the first and most important step in determining the place for these machines. Public and environmental review protects our state from poorly conceived proposals. In 2004 MRR members used this important tool to protect the North Shore State Trail and Mesabi Trail bikeway (Exhibit L Attached, Fall 2004 MRR Newsletter). from encroachment by ATVs and dirt-bike motorcycles. Up-front environmental review will allow for better identification of potential significant environmental effects and also allow consideration of mitigation measures that might minimize or eliminate the effects. The damage associated with some of the trails that did not go through environmental review shows that there is a need for up-front identification of potential effects.The debate over when state law requires an EAW largely deals with the determination that a project may or may not have potential for significant environmental effects, (2003 Legislative Audit, p. 30) Following is evidence that motorized recreation projects have generic potential for significant environmental effect.
B. 1. Inherent "potential for significant environmental effects"
should mandate review: Under current EQB standards, any project demonstrated
to have the "potential for significant environmental effect" is
subject to public and environmental review. Substantial evidence exists that
noise, fumes and other significant effects on forests, wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat and adjacent recreational resources are inherent in the
operation of ATVs, dirt-bike motorcycles, four-wheel drive trucks and
snowmobiles. Most Residents do not want the noise and fumes
(Exhibit M Attached) of snowmobile trails. MRR’s 1999 report
Off-Highway Vehicles in Minnesota, Environmental Impacts provides
a review of research and photo documentation of the inherent effects of these
machines. Dirt-bike motorcycle track would
displace users of Mesabi Trail bikeway.
B. 2. Trail-making has significant environmental effects regardless of
use to follow: Snowmobile and ATV clubs, bulldozing trails without oversight
or accountability, have a well-documented history of damaging forests and
wetlands on public and private property. In 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers
acknowledged that the Silver Trail Riders snowmobile/ATV club caused
"unauthorized wetland impacts" at 30 locations (Exhibit N
Attached) on the DNR’s proposed Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV trail in the Findland
State Forest (Exhibit O
Attached). There was no consequence for the club.
In fact the DNR filled an additional 6.3 acres of wetlands for the ATV route.
In St. Louis County, the Hermantown Nightriders,
Reservoir Riders (Exhibit P Attached) and Ely Igloos Snowmobile clubs
have damaged public or private property with their trail-making. In Lake County
the Voyageurs Snowmobile Club bulldozed an unpermitted trail across a trout
stream (Exhibit Q
Attached).
B. 3. Cumulative effects are certain to result in adjacent areas. Designated Trails and "Off-Highway Vehicle Parks" are a failed experiment at containment. Environmental review requires project proposers to evaluate potential "cumulative effects" of a project. Off-road vehicles such as ATVs, dirt-bike motorcycles, four-wheel drive trucks and snowmobiles are designed and promoted to be operated off-designated trails (Exhibit R Attached, Caught in the Treads: Unethical Advertising in the ATV Industry, 2002, Izaak Walton League of America). Many riders do not stay on designated trails. This results in noise, air pollution, forest, stream, wetland and habitat damage in areas off-limits to these machines. Enforcement, even when extraordinary is ineffective in preventing off-road travel (see below). Any proposed motorized trail is certain to affect environments outside the proposed project area. OHV damage adjacent to designated OHV trail, Gilbert (Exhibit S Attached).
B. 4. "Off-Highway Vehicle Parks" have potential for significant,
irreparable effect on the environment beyond project boundaries Designated
scramble areas are a failed experiment at containment and have unleashed their
own high level of damage on land and waters surrounding scramble area
boundaries. MRR opposes any use of public land and/or public funds for
off-"highway vehicle parks" or "scramble areas" for random,
intensive, ATV, dirt-bike motorcycle and four-wheel drive truck use. The state
should exercise the highest level of caution in proceeding with any development
of any additional "off-highway vehicle parks". Mandatory review should
be required of all proposed scramble areas. Encouraging riders to rip and
tear encourages an "anti-land" ethic that is counterintuitive to the
education and ethic we want riders to have. No data exists to suggest that
providing designated "off-highway vehicle parks" will prevent riders
from scrambling outside designated areas. Data does show providing scramble
areas is likely to lead to extensive and accumulating damage outside area
boundary such as around the Gilbert OHV Park (Exhibit T Attached).
Four-wheel drive truck user-made "mud hole" damage to drainage,
Duluth (Exhibit U Attached). (More
Duluth Damage Photos.)
C. MOTORIZED RECREATION PROJECTS SHARE FUNDAMENTAL SIMILARITIES WITH PROJECT TYPES REQUIRING MANDATORY EAW, WITH NO EXEMPTIONS
ATV, dirt-bike motorcycle, four-wheel drive truck and snowmobile trail and use area projects share fundamental characteristics with the following project types that require mandatory EAWs. Discussion of shared characteristics is below.
Nuclear Fuels and Nuclear Waste
Petroleum Refineries
Pipelines
Underground Storage
Nonmetallic Mineral Mining (peat, sand, gravel, stone, clays)
Hazardous Waste
Solid Waste
Recreational Development (Campgrounds, RV Parks)
Natural Areas
Historical Places
Industrial Wastewater
Mixed Residential/Commercial/Industrial Development
Communications Towers
Sports and Entertainment Facilities
Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms
Land Use Conversion
Motorized recreation generically shares the following fundamental characteristics that define projects in above mandatory EAW group:
Effects of motorized recreation can be severe and irreversible. Some effects such as soil loss will never be repaired (due to the high cost of trucking soil and risk of introducing exotic species) and will remain archeological sites for future generations to wonder over.
A U.S. Council on Environmental Quality report Off-road Vehicles on Public
Land found that "Off-road vehicles have damaged every kind of ecosystem
found in the United States; sand dunes covered with American Beach grass on Cape
Cod; pine and cypress woodlands in Florida; hardwood forests in Indiana; prairie
grasslands in Montana; chaparral and sagebrush hills in Arizona; alpine meadows
in Colorado; conifer forests in Washington; arctic tundras in Alaska. In some
cases the wounds will heal naturally, in others they will not, at least for
millennia. Current U.S. Forest Chief Bosworth says that motorized recreation is
one of the top four environmental problems facing our nation.
C. 2. Importance of "containment" and potential for project
effects to spill outside physical limits of project boundary.
C. 4. Intent of "Natural Areas": "Projects resulting in the permanent physical encroachment on lands within a national park, state park, wilderness area, state lands and waters within the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe area, scientific and natural area, or state trail corridor when the encroachment is inconsistent with laws applicable to or the management plan prepared for the recreational unit."
This purpose of this mandatory EAW category is to protect lands managed to provide quiet, fresh air and otherwise healthy natural environments. Given data that the vast majority of Minnesotans seek these qualities in their outdoor experiences on all lands it is reasonable to protect the majority’s interest by including motorized recreation in the class of projects including Natural Areas.
Increased population and changing demographics (with increased population
seeking rural residence) has put new pressure on unprotected public and
private land to be managed for values the majority is seeking.
D. PRECEDENT REQUIRES ADDITION OF "MOTORIZED RECREATION" TO ABOVE
LIST OF MANDATORY EAW PROJECT CATEGORY. Since rules for public and
environmental review were first established in 1974 the EQB has amended its
rules several times, including changes in 1977, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1997, and
1999. During this period, the EQB has added several new categories to protect
the environment from new technologies and new types of use. Often, additions
were made as a result of public concern and new data regarding potential
significant effects from these new projects. Industrial Wastewater, Mixed,
Residential/Commercial/Industrial Development, Communications Towers, Sports and
Entertainment Facilities, and Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms are
examples of project types that have been added. As the destructive potential of
motorized recreation is increasingly recognized and of concern to Minnesotans,
it is reasonable for the EQB to add this project type to a category of those
requiring completion of a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet and
public review with no exemptions.
I
n conclusion, there is a place for everything when everything is in its place. Public and environmental review of ATV, dirt-bike motorcycle, four-wheel drive truck and snowmobile routes is the essential first step in determining the place for these machines in Minnesota’s environment in order to preserve our environment for future generations.Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation requests that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board amend its rules to require completion of a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet and public review of all motorized recreation projects irrespective of proposed trail length, type of motorized use or size of use area. Substantial evidence of the inherent effects of these machines and trail construction, a 2003 legislative audit calling for increased citizen oversight, and the potential for significant cumulative effects from motorized trails and "scramble areas" supports this request.
Sincerely,
Jeff Brown
Executive Director
References and Enclosure List and Attachments
3/16/05 MRR Rebuttal to Comments Received by Office of Administrative Hearings
References and Enclosures
References
Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey, 2004, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
St. Louis County Recreation Participation Survey, 2001, County of St. Louis
1996, 1997 and 1998 Summer Trail Use Survey, 2000, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Enclosures
Exhibit A Program Evaluation Report: State Funded Trails for Motorized Recreation, 2003, Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor
Exhibit A2 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources response to Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Program Evaluation Report: State-Funded Trails for Motorized Recreation, June 2, 2004
Exhibit B "Landowner List" for Hermantown Nightriders Snowmobile Club Trail, 2004, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Exhibit C Photo of City of Hermantown front-end loader building trail on private property near Hermantown and Ugstad Roads, Hermantown without written landowner permission and in violation of grant-in-aid agreement
Exhibit D Sam Cook, Outdoor Writer, Column, Jan. 11, 2004, Duluth News Tribune
Exhibit E Comments on DNR/ARDC Crosstown State Snowmobile Trail Plan, Oct. 8, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit F Letter to DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam, Nov. 12, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit G Request for Data to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dec. 7, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit H Off-Highway Vehicles in Minnesota, 1999, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Motorized Recreation Fact Sheet and Recommendations, Apr., 2000, Minnesotans for Responsible RecreationExhibit I
Exhibit J Video of Proposed Taft Trail ATV Trail, Northeast Minnesota Off-Highway Vehicle Plan, July, 2001, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Exhibit K Petition to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for completion of an Environmental Assessement Worksheet regarding the proposed Eveleth to Gilbert all-terrain vehicle/dirt-bike motorcycle trail, June 17, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit L The Voice Newsletter, Fall, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit M Letter from Hermantown residents to their neighbors, Nov. 9, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit N Public Notice of Application for Permit to Fill Wetlands, Jan. 24, 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Exhibit O Photo of dead spruce/cedar/tamarack forest resulting from "impounded wetland" – note dead vegetation to left of unauthorized road through wetland. One of thirty "unauthorized wetland impacts in the Finland State Forest: (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1/24/03) done by local club in 1999 and 2000, Photo taken May 14, 2003, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit P Photo of Jacobs Lake Grant-in-Aid Snowmobile Trail, [Publicly] Funded Damage by Resevoir Riders Snowmobile Club, St. Louis County
Exhibit Q Voyageurs Snowmobile Club Bulldozing Unpermitted Trail across Little Stewart and Stewart Rivers on Private Property, Two Harbors, 1993, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit R Caught in the Treads: Unethical Advertising in the ATV Industry, 2002, Izaak Walton League of America
Exhibit S Photos of OHV damage adjacent to designated OHV trail, Gilbert submitted with petition for EAW, June 17, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit T Photos of OHV damage outside Gilbert Off-Highway Vehicle Park submitted with petition for EAW, June 17, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Exhibit U Photos of "mud hole" near Amity Creek, Duluth, Nov. 3, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation
Photos of ATV damage with repair estimates from the City of Duluth that convinced the Duluth City Council to prohibit ATVs on all city land. On reverse side: Enforcement and Restoration Plan showing significant costs involved in enforcing/protecting the land and in repairing ATV damage where possible, Jan. 29, 2004, Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation