OHV Planning

2 Planning
SUMMARY
The Department of Natural Resources’ efforts to plan a trail system
for motorized recreation has achieved mixed results. The department
has tried to implement a formal planning process for off-highway
vehicles (OHVs), but we identified several shortcomings. First, the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) knew about the need to plan
for and manage OHVs for over a decade before it took action in the
mid-1990s. Second, once the planning effort started, DNR cut several
corners. The process lacked (1) detailed information about how
Minnesotans use OHVs, (2) a thorough examination of environmental
factors, and (3) information about the total cost of the trail system
being proposed. In contrast, although there has been no formal
planning process for snowmobile trails, the result has served the state
relatively well. It is generally accepted that snowmobiles have a lower
impact on the environment than OHVs. In addition, snowmobiling
brings millions of tourism dollars into the state each year.
Natural resources planning is often contentious with conflicts over resource
use and protection. According to the General Accounting Office:
Using and developing land and resources is generally not
compatible with protecting and conserving them. . . . Even
deciding among various uses is not easy because using one
resource often limits use, development, or protection of others.1
Recreational planning, especially for motorized vehicles, can be especially
contentious. In the last year, the Department of Natural Resources’ planning of
the state’s off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail system has been criticized and the
subject of lawsuits. To examine these issues, we address the following questions
in this chapter:
• How has DNR planned for statewide OHV and snowmobile trail
systems?
• How effective have the planning efforts been?
To evaluate DNR’s planning efforts, we (1) reviewed planning and management
documents and internal communications, (2) interviewed managers and
supervisors from a variety of disciplines in each of DNR’s six regions,
1 General Accounting Office, Land Use Issues GAO/CED-80-108 (Washington, D.C.: General
Accounting Office, June 27, 1980), 8.
(3) compared the planning process to DNR’s own standards of good planning, and
(4) surveyed 1,257 DNR field staff and all 87 counties. Based on these analyses,
we developed a few recommendations about how OHV planning and management
can be improved.
DEPARTMENT PLANNING
DNR manages Minnesota’s state parks, forests, and other outdoor resources for
the present and future needs of its citizens. Although this task requires balancing
resource use with resource protection, which are often seen as incompatible
objectives, the Legislature has not given DNR any statutory direction by
providing the department with a mission statement in statute. The department’s
strategic plan, Directions 2000, guides DNR’s activities and planning efforts.2
According to Directions 2000, natural resources planning incorporates three
elements:
• community needs (including recreational opportunities),
• environmental protection, and
• economic considerations (including tourism and fiscal responsibility).3
Some DNR employees refer to these factors as the three legs of the planning stool.
DNR tries to balance these factors as it decides when, where, and how to use or
protect the state’s natural resources. In this chapter, we will use these three
elements as criteria in evaluating DNR’s efforts to plan statewide trail systems for
OHVs and snowmobiles.
Minnesota’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) guides
outdoor recreation in the state. In 1965, Minnesota drafted the first of seven
SCORPs in response to federal requirements that made federal funding of natural
resource projects contingent upon states developing a plan.4 Minnesota’s first
SCORPs were data-rich comprehensive plans that estimated the number of hours
that Minnesotans participated in various recreational activities and the demand for
recreational facilities. But, largely in response to criticism from the General
Accounting Office and the American Planning Association, recent SCORPS are
much more targeted and less comprehensive. For example, when developing the
state’s SCORPs, DNR has stopped collecting statewide data on outdoor recreation
18 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
According to
DNR, planning
should balance
community
needs,
environmental
protection, and
economic
considerations.
2 Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Directions 2000: The Strategic Plan (St. Paul,
September 2000).
3 Ibid., 2-7. With respect to economic considerations, this document primarily focuses on
economic development (e.g. tourism and logging), but it also discusses fiscal responsibility. In
addition, DNR’s regional planners emphasized fiscal responsibility as an economic consideration in
our interviews.
4 Outside of receiving federal funding, there is no general mandate that DNR’s individual planning
efforts, such as snowmobile trail planning, conform to the state’s overarching SCORP.
Nevertheless, Minnesota statutes refer to SCORP in two places. Minnesota Statutes (2002) §84.927
states that funds distributed through the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) grant-in-aid program must be
guided by SCORP. In addition, there is similar language for dirt bikes in Minn. Stat. (2002)
§84.794.
participation and demand for facilities. Nevertheless, from the 1970s to today,
Minnesota’s SCORPs have recognized the growing popularity of motorized
recreation.
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE PLANNING
When we examined DNR’s planning efforts for OHV trails, we found that:
• DNR’s effort to plan a statewide OHV trail system has been
inadequate.
First, DNR knew about the need to plan for and manage OHVs for over a decade
before it took action in the mid-1990s. Second, once the planning effort started,
DNR failed to fully develop its three planning elements. Specifically, the
planning effort lacked (1) detailed information about the communities’
recreational needs, (2) a thorough examination to protect the environment, and
(3) fiscal information about the cost of developing, administering, maintaining,
and enforcing the trail system that was proposed.
Delayed Action
Proper planning and management are needed for OHVs because they are built to
operate without a trail, during all seasons, on frozen or unfrozen ground, through
mud, and over rocks. Consequently, OHVs have an impact on the environment
and people. DNR staff have identified several potential impacts of OHV trails,
including:
1. Fragmenting and destroying habitats through the loss of vegetation and
physical intrusion of the vehicles;
2. Opening corridors that allow predators to range more widely and that facilitate
the spread of invasive plants;
3. Impacting wildlife migration, breeding, and rearing;
4. Eroding soils, particularly when they are wet during the spring thaw;
5. Filling wetlands and other water bodies with sedimentation; and
6. Altering wetland drainage.5
The impact from recreational use, however, depends on the type and intensity of
use, the type and fragility of the site, and the type and level of site management.6
Thus, proper planning and management are needed to mitigate the impacts.
PLANNING 19
For well over a
decade, DNR
knew it needed
to plan for and
manage OHVs.
5 Pam Perry and Doug Norris, DNR Ecological Services, “Presentation to the DNR Motorized
Trail Task Force,” Brainerd, Minnesota, August 13, 2002.
6 David N. Wear and John G. Greis, Southern Research Station (eds.), Southern Forest Resource
Assessment, Chapter 11: Forest-Based Outdoor Recreation (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, modified October 6, 2002), 278-79; http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/report/pdf/
chapter_11e.pdf; accessed October 23, 2002.
Nevertheless,
• Despite acknowledging special OHV needs as early as the mid-1970s,
the department delayed initiating a formal OHV planning process
until the Legislature required action in 1993.
While DNR released some reports in the 1970s concerning the management of
OHVs, the department issued two key reports in 1984—Off-Road Vehicle Use in
Minnesota and The Minnesota DNR Trail Plan: A Discovery Process—that
clearly identified the need to plan for and manage OHVs.7 (Appendix A provides
a detailed list of key OHV planning documents and activities from the 1970s to
today.8) The first report addressed OHV management and environmental issues.
The second report, which was a trail plan, concluded that (1) OHV recreation in
Minnesota is not going to simply go away and (2) the state needs an aggressive
and balanced OHV policy, and affirmative steps must be taken to arrive at such a
policy.9
This report recommended that the state manage OHV use on public land, as
opposed to simply ignoring it or dealing with it on a site-specific basis.10 At this
time, DNR allowed OHVs anywhere in state forests, unless the area forester had
posted a trail, area, or the entire forest closed. Contrary to DNR’s own
recommendation, the department largely ignored OHV issues or dealt with them
on a site-specific basis until the mid-1990s.
Efforts to actively manage OHVs finally started in 1993, when the Legislature
directed DNR to develop a comprehensive plan for managing OHVs and to report
on their use.11 In January 1995, DNR published the report on OHV use and
proposed the following mission statement for the OHV program:
The Minnesota Off-Highway Vehicle Program will pursue
managed, environmentally sensitive motorized recreation on
public and private lands. Managed motorized recreation requires
rigorous resource protection, social responsibility, and
interagency cooperation. 12
There are several possible reasons why DNR delayed planning for and managing
OHVs, including (1) a belief among some forest managers that OHVs were not a
widespread problem, (2) a general recognition by the Forestry Division that state
forests should accommodate motorized as well as nonmotorized recreational
activities, (3) a belief that a decentralized grant-in-aid program would serve OHVs
as well as it had snowmobiles, (4) a perception among some resource managers
20 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
In 1993, the
Legislature told
DNR to develop
a plan for OHVs.
7 DNR, Off Road Vehicle Use in Minnesota (St. Paul, 1984); and DNR, The Minnesota DNR Trail
Plan . . . A Discovery Process (St. Paul, 1984).
8 There may be additional relevant documents or activities during this time that we did not
identify—most of our work focused on externally available information.
9 DNR, The Minnesota DNR Trail Plan . . . A Discovery Process, 246.
10 DNR, The Minnesota DNR Trail Plan . . . A Discovery Process, 246-248.
11 Laws of Minnesota (1993), ch. 311, art. 2, sec. 18.
12 Angela Cook, Comprehensive Recreational Use Plan: Off-Highway Motorized Recreation in
Minnesota (St. Paul, January 1, 1995), 2.
that OHVs did not belong in state forests and recognizing them would encourage
that use, and (5) a lack of legislative direction.13
DNR started developing its OHV plan in 1996. The planning process had four
components—(1) developing additional operating rules, (2) developing OHV
management guidelines, (3) classifying state forests to regulate the use of OHVs
in them, and (4) designating a system of OHV trails.14 Because our study focused
on designated trails, we only evaluated the trail designation process. In addition,
this component has been the most controversial and the subject of lawsuits.
To plan the trail system, DNR
created several area planning
teams in each of the six
regions. The membership of
the planning teams varied but
was intended to include DNR
field staff, federal and county
forestry officers, OHV riders,
representatives of
environmental groups, and
other concerned citizens. The
planning teams first identified
and evaluated existing OHV
opportunities, largely in state
forests, and then added new
trails if needed to create a
system that would meet user
needs.15 As discussed in
Chapter 1, most OHV riding
opportunities have been on
undesignated trails in state
forests. A focus of the
planning effort was to
designate the best of these
trails, which would make them
easier to use through signing
and, in most cases, mapping.16
In addition, DNR planned to
formally and proactively
manage the designated trails.
PLANNING 21
A primary goal of the OHV planning process was to
officially designate some existing trails.
Designating a
system of trails
was one part of
DNR’s OHV
planning effort.
13 We developed the list based on several telephone conversations and interviews, including
Emmett Mullin, DNR Office of Management and Budget, interview by author, telephone
conversation, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 31, 2002; and Jack Olson, Planner, North Central
Region, interview by author, telephone conversation, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 31, 2002.
14 Jerry Rose, Director of Forestry, and Dennis Asmussen, Director of Trails & Waterways,
memorandum to divisions of Forestry and Trails and Waterways regions and areas, Off Highway
Vehicle Coordination Effort, May 12, 1998.
15 Raymond B. Hitchcock, DNR Assistant Commissioner for Operations, memorandum to regional
management teams and area supervisors, Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) System Planning Road Map,
July 6, 1998, 3.
16 According to some of its OHV system plans, DNR intends to designate and sign, but not map,
some dead-end “access” trails used by hunters, berry pickers, and other utilitarian riders.
Overall, DNR hopes to redirect OHV use on the vast undesignated trail system to
a manageable designated system. For the most part, when the area teams in each
region completed their plans, regional managers consolidated them into a regional
system plan, which was sent to the DNR Commissioner for approval.
Community Recreational Needs
DNR’s own planning guidelines call for understanding a community’s recreational
needs; however, we found that:
• DNR lacked complete information about how Minnesotans use OHVs.
Manufacturers design OHVs for use over all sorts of terrain, and thus, people can
use them for different purposes—challenge riding on rough terrain, sightseeing on
trails, riding in highway ditches, and carrying out utilitarian functions, such as
farming, berry picking, and hunting. If DNR is to have an effective OHV
program, it needs to know the demand for each of these riding opportunities and
how they interact with each other. DNR has collected some data on OHV use in
recent years.
In 1998, DNR provided each of the area planning teams a study profiling several
groups of OHV users, but the study had several deficiencies. First, it was a
synthesis of national research and did not provide much information about OHV
riding in Minnesota, and second, the information was quite dated—for example,
22 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
Hunters use ATVs to transport their deer.
DNR needs to
fully understand
how Minnesotans
use OHVs if it
is to develop
an effective
program.
estimates of the number of users were from 1991. The researcher preparing this
report did interview a few Minnesota experts on OHV riding.17
In 2001, DNR issued a second OHV user study done at the request of some forest
managers who were reluctant to finalize OHV trail system plans until they had a
better idea of projected demand for OHV riding in state forests.18 While this
study was a significant improvement, it also had a few flaws. First, while the
report provides information about the use of ATVs, dirt bikes, and 4X4 trucks in
Minnesota, only the sample of ATV riders was large enough for meaningful
analysis. Second, the researchers drew their sample from registered ATV owners,
not all ATV owners. While Minnesota law requires the registration of all ATVs,
sales data suggest that there may be 50 percent more in use than are registered.19
Third, this study only examined trail riding and excluded ditch riding. Getting
information about ditch riding is crucial for planning a trail system and
understanding the potential demand for these trails because many ditch riders may
start using these trails as they are developed or improved. In contrast to this
study, the researchers that prepared the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan in 1979 randomly called over 10,000 Minnesotans about their summer
recreational activities, including riding OHVs.20
Environmental Protection
In the OHV debate, one of the most contentious issues is environmental
protection. DNR faced a very large challenge in meeting the needs of OHV users
while protecting the environment. When assessing how well the trail plans
addressed environmental protection, we found that:
• While DNR took steps to incorporate some environmental
considerations into the planning process, environmental protection
ended up being a lower priority than trail designation.
By design, DNR focused the trail designation process on existing trails, typically
trails in state forests that OHV riders already liked to use, rather than on first
identifying areas appropriate and inappropriate for OHV use and then deciding the
best place for a designated trail. While an existing trail on disturbed ground may
be preferable to a new trail, there is little basis to assume that existing trails are
automatically appropriate for OHV use, especially if they are on old winter
logging roads that were never intended for OHVs. In fact, DNR is in the process
of developing guidelines for siting, developing, and maintaining trails, and drafts
of this document state that many existing trails and temporary logging roads are
PLANNING 23
Environmental
protection is one
of the most
contentious
issues in OHV
planning.
17 Gordon Kimball, Recreational Professionals, Inc., Profiles of Nine Trail User Populations—A
Component of the Border to Border Trail Study (St. Paul: DNR, June 30, 1998).
18 John Genereux and Michele Genereux, An OHV Recreation Planning Tool Based on A Survey of
Resource Managers and A Survey of Off-Highway Vehicle Riders in Minnesota (St. Paul: DNR,
July 2001), 2.
19 Ibid., 3.
20 DNR, Minnesota State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (St. Paul, May 5, 1979), 1.004.
not good places for OHV trails and must be evaluated for ecological
sustainability.21
When planning its system of designated OHV trails, DNR used an informal
process for evaluating the ecological impact of potential trails.22 As OHV riders
on the planning teams identified trails they would like officially designated for
OHVs, the environmentalists and DNR’s own resource specialists (such as
wildlife specialists and hydrologists) on the planning teams identified trails or
segments of trails that should be excluded for environmental reasons. (Only the
trail system plans for the three northern regions identified specific trails. The
three southern plans did not.) During our interviews with staff from DNR’s
resource divisions, we learned that this environmental examination was somewhat
limited. These staff told us that time and resource constraints prohibited DNR
resource specialists from fully participating and going to all the meetings. We
also found no indication that DNR formally compared the proposed OHV trails
with DNR’s databases of sensitive environmental areas. Finally, DNR staff also
told us that people representing environmental groups did not always participate
in the process. In some cases, they did not apply to be on the planning teams, and
in other cases, some lost interest and stopped coming. As a result, the
examination of environmental factors largely involved the personal knowledge of
the people who had the time to come to the meetings, rather than a systematic
evaluation. While the planning process allowed for environmental input, DNR as
an agency did not take steps to ensure that this process was a high priority and
received sufficient resources. In the end, DNR did route the draft plans through
each of its divisions for review and comment. DNR also contends that as
individual projects in these plans are identified for actual development, they will
receive a more thorough examination.
In addition, this review was carried out before DNR developed its guidelines for
siting, developing, and maintaining trails, which we discussed above. As of
December 16, 2002, these guidelines were still in draft form. While we were told
that at various times central office staff distributed information about trail
development to regional staff, the department should have completed and
finalized this manual before identifying and evaluating possible designated trails.
The draft manual addresses issues such as what type of existing trails and roads
are appropriate for OHVs and how to site a trail near a wetland or creek.23 This
information would have been helpful when the planning teams were identifying
potential trails for designation.
24 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
In its OHV
planning process,
DNR did not give
the examination
of environmental
factors sufficient
resources.
21 Troy Scott Parker, Site-Level Design and Development Guidelines for Recreational Trails,
Chapter 9: Off-Highway Vehicle Trails (unpublished draft) 9.1; http://www.natureshape.com/
mndnr/chapter_files/TG_Chap_9_07.29.02.pdf; accessed October 12, 2002. In contrast, the
grant-in-aid manual suggests that good options for trails can be areas of current use in forested
public land. DNR, Minnesota Trails Assistance Program: All-Terrain Vehicle, Off-Highway
Motorcycle, Off-Road Vehicle Instruction Manual (St. Paul, March 2001), 20.
22 DNR tries to use an informal process for early environmental coordination in planning and
designing projects. The process may lead to a formal environmental review under the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act. DNR, Environmental Review Study Committee, Environmental Review
Study Committee Report (St. Paul, May 1, 1996), 6-7.
23 Troy Scott Parker, Site-Level Design Guidelines: Chapter 9, 9.2 and Chapter 2: Ecological
Sustainability and Trails, 2-2.
As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, DNR’s own planning guidelines
discuss balancing community recreational needs, environmental protection, and
economic considerations. Determining an appropriate balance for these three
factors is largely a subjective and value-laden process outside the scope of this
study. Nevertheless, the evidence we examined indicates that environmental
protection ended up being a lower priority than the community’s need to officially
designate popular OHV trails, which drove the process.
We can assume that DNR was only trying to do the best job that it could under the
resource constraints that it faced and the pressure it was receiving to finally plan
and actively manage an OHV trail system. Nevertheless, the national
literature—including documents from Minnesota—warns against cutting corners
when doing natural resources planning. Specifically,
• Not addressing broad-scale ecological issues upfront can lead to
lawsuits and delays in natural resources planning.
A 1997 GAO report found that when the U.S. Forest Service did not address
broad-scale ecological issues upfront in its forest plans, it “faced environmental
and other challenges to the legality of its plans and projects, and courts have
required the agency to delay, amend, or withdraw [the plans].”24 Similarly, the
Council on Environmental Quality found in 1997 that agencies sometimes engage
in consultation only after a decision has—for all practical purposes—been made.
In such instances, other agencies and the public believe that their concerns have
not been heard and may oppose even worthy projects.25 Furthermore, in 1996,
DNR approved the Environmental Review Study Committee Report, which
identifies the importance of early coordination as part of a broad process of
environmental assessment within DNR.26
Consistent with these warnings, the OHV planning process has been the subject of
lawsuits that have delayed the planning process. In mid-2000, the north central
region completed the first set of trail system plans, and lawsuits quickly followed.
Citizens petitioned, under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, for DNR to
conduct a formal environmental assessment of the plans, and when DNR denied
this petition, the citizens sued.27 A similar chain of events followed the release of
the regional plans from northwest and northeast Minnesota in 2001.28 The
Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in October 2002 that while environmental
PLANNING 25
Minnesota’s
OHV planning
process has been
the subject of
lawsuits.
24 General Accounting Office, Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving
Performance GAO/RCED-97- 71 (Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, April 29,
1997), 3.
25 Council on Environmental Quality, The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of Its
Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years (Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President,
January 1997), iii.
26 DNR, Environmental Review Study Committee, Environmental Review Study Committee
Report, 7.
27 DNR contended that the plans were conceptual and not detailed enough for an environmental
review. The DNR deferred decisions on the need for Environmental Assessment Worksheets
(EAWs) on the projects contained within the plans for one year. Minnesotans for Responsible
Recreation vs. Department of Natural Resources, No. C201616 (Cass County District Court, January
2002).
28 In the same year, the department initiated Environmental Assessment Worksheets on several
projects in those regions.
reviews were not needed for system plans, environmental reviews were needed
before DNR started to work on certain projects within those plans.29
Economic Considerations—Fiscal Responsibility
According to DNR, the final piece of a good planning process involves
determining if there are sufficient resources to carry out the proposed plan.
Nevertheless, we found that:
• DNR has never estimated how much it will cost to annually develop,
administer, maintain, and enforce the OHV trails that it is planning.
The 1998 planning guidelines that DNR management distributed to the regional
and area offices had essentially no discussion about cost issues limiting the size of
the system being planned.30 Consequently, there is little if any discussion of costs
in the OHV trail system plans that DNR has developed. In contrast, DNR’s 1984
report on OHV use in Minnesota discussed the need to determine the cost of
planning, designing, developing, administering, and maintaining a trail system.31
RECOMMENDATION
If DNR plans to develop a statewide system of OHV trails, it should develop a
better understanding how many miles of trails the department’s OHV budget
will support.
Obviously, the specific location and condition of a proposed trail and its potential
use will affect the initial development and on-going maintenance costs, but DNR
should at least develop some parameters for how much a mile of OHV trail will
potentially cost the state. If this is not done, DNR may run into the situation that
it will develop more trails than it can administer, maintain, and enforce on an
on-going basis.
Survey Opinions
We also sent surveys to 1,257 DNR field employees and to all 87 counties and
asked them to rate various aspects of DNR’s planning effort—for example,
understanding recreational needs, providing recreational opportunities, addressing
environmental impacts, and addressing potential user conflicts (such as between
ATV and horseback riders recreating in the same area).32 The DNR employees
that we surveyed represented all of the department’s divisions. County officials
who are involved in the grant-in-aid process or other aspects of trail development
26 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
There is little
discussion about
costs in the OHV
trail system
plans.
29 The Court directed DNR to complete EAWs on eight of the nine projects included in the lawsuit.
Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation vs. Department of Natural Resources, 651 N.W.2d 53
(Minn. Ct. App. 2002). The opinion was issued October 1, 2002.
30 Rod Sando, DNR Commissioner, memorandum to DNR regional managers and area supervisors,
Off-Highway Vehicle Planning Procedures, June 30, 1998; and Raymond B. Hitchcock, Off
Highway Vehicle (OHV) System Planning Road Map.
31 DNR, Off-Road Vehicle Use in Minnesota, 88-94.
32 We received responses from 1,089 DNR employees and 81 counties.
completed the county survey. Fewer than half of DNR’s employees rated the
department’s OHV trail planning as “good” or “very good,” although county
officials were somewhat more positive, as Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show. DNR
employees were especially likely to report that the department was doing a “poor”
or “very poor” job, particularly in addressing user conflicts and environmental
impacts. Within DNR, staff from Ecological Services, Wildlife, and Fisheries
were most likely to have concerns about how well DNR has addressed
environmental impacts, with between 58 and 67 percent rating the department’s
performance “poor” or “very poor.”
DNR’s New OHV Philosophy
Coincidentally or not, the recent lawsuits and media attention concerning the
state’s OHV trail system has corresponded with DNR reforming the way it deals
with OHV trails. Specifically, we found that:
• Changes made in DNR’s OHV policy in the last year or two have
improved planning and management, at least on paper, but it is too
early to determine if these changes will be sufficient to overcome the
shortcomings in the OHV planning done so far.
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, OHVs need to be proactively managed.
Thus, DNR’s new OHV philosophy of “managed use on managed trails” is
appropriate, and DNR has taken several steps to articulate this new policy.
PLANNING 27
49
27
29
26
30
37
29
30
42
43
36
20
Very Good/Good Neither Good Nor Poor Poor/Very Poor
Figure 2.1: DNR Staff Ratings of DNR's Off-Highway
Vehicle Planning, 2002
NOTE: For each question we excluded respondents who (1) indicated they were not at least
"somewhat familiar" with DNR's management of motorized recreation or (2) omitted the question or
answered "don't know." The number of respondents answering the four questions ranged from N =660
to N =682.
Percentage Providing the Specified Rating
Understanding Recreational Needs
Providing Recreational Opportunities
Addressing Environmental Impacts
Addressing User Conflicts
SOURCE: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Survey of DNR Staff, June-July 2002.
In our survey,
DNR staff said
the department
did a better job
understanding
recreational
needs than other
aspects of OHV
planning.
First, in early 2001, DNR developed a new five-step process for planning
and reviewing projects for OHV trails.33 These steps include (1) selecting a
project and preparing a proposal, (2) determining the need for and preparing
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, (3) coordinating public review,
(4) evaluating comments and revising as needed, and (5) putting the project on the
ground. This process is still evolving, and in light of budget constraints and other
demands on DNR resources, completing the plan will be challenging.
Second, as we already mentioned, DNR is developing guidelines for siting,
developing, and maintaining OHV trails. When completed, this document should
help DNR formalize and improve its trail management policies. One regional
manager from the Trails and Waterways Division, however, described the drafts as
a “text book” rather than a “cook book.” In his opinion, the draft document is too
theoretical and not practical enough.
Third, DNR’s northwest region is piloting a system for monitoring trail conditions
so that trails needing maintenance or alterations are reported and scheduled for
repair. DNR staff record initial and follow-up assessments on a form that records
the location, type, and extent of impact. The department intends to implement this
system statewide.34
28 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
58
50
47
34
27
34
31
29
15
16
22
37
Good/Very Good Neither Good Nor Poor Poor/Very Poor
Percentage Providing the Specified Rating
Figure 2.2: Ratings by County Officials of DNR's
Off-Highway Vehicle Planning, 2002
NOTE: For each question we excluded respondents who (1) indicated they were not at least
"somewhat familiar" with DNR's management of motorized recreation or (2) omitted the question or
answered "don't know." The number of respondents for the four questions ranged from N =32 to N =35.
Understanding Recreational Needs
Providing Recreational Opportunities
Addressing Environmental Impacts
Addressing User Conflicts
SOURCE: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Survey of County Officials, June-July 2002.
In 2001, DNR
developed a
five-step process
for planning and
reviewing OHV
trail projects.
33 DNR, Plan Implementation and Modification (St. Paul, May 16, 2001), 4. According to Brian
McCann, DNR OHV planner, drafts were distributed to regional planning teams several months
earlier.
34 DNR, Trails and Waterways Division, Northwest Region, Trail Assessment (undated). Brad
Moore, Assistant Commissioner of Operations, memorandum to DNR field staff, Direction for OHV
Management–2002 Field Season, May 8, 2002, 4.
Fourth, in the spring of 2002, DNR initiated a coordinated effort to close trails in
sections of state forests to OHVs during the spring thaw, citing the need to avoid
harmful impacts to trail and road surfaces.35 Some closures continued through the
summer, and an October 4, 2002 update on the DNR Web site listed trails in 11
state forests and 3 counties as closed.
Fifth, during the 2002 session, the Legislature required DNR to create an OHV
task force, consisting of various stakeholders, to make recommendations by
January 15, 2003 about a wide range of use and management issues including
planning, monitoring and maintenance, environmental concerns, user conflicts,
and the financial resources needed to support an OHV system.36
RECOMMENDATION
DNR should fully implement its new concept for OHVs of “managed use on
managed trails.”
If DNR fully implements this policy, trail managers will be able to (1) use best
practices to site and develop trails, including adequate environmental evaluation
and public notification, (2) monitor the condition of these trails, and (3) actively
manage them, including repairing damage and closing or altering trails as needed.
DNR’s most recent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, which the
department released in October 2002, makes a similar recommendation by calling
for outdoor recreation managers to determine an appropriate level of impacts that
PLANNING 29
In recent years, DNR has tried to more actively manage OHV trails.
DNR has
initiated a
coordinated
effort to
seasonally close
trails to avoid
damage.
35 DNR press release, DNR Closes Wet Trails and Forest Roads to OHVs (April 10, 2002). DNR
has routinely closed sections of state forest roads during the spring thaw.
36 Laws of Minnesota (2002), ch. 351, sec. 33.
recreational activities can have on the state’s natural resources and then develop
appropriate management actions to ensure that those limits are not exceeded.37
To clarify the need for a formal environmental review, the Legislature should
formalize the process.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should require that Environmental Assessment Worksheets
be prepared for many types of OHV projects.
Under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), if a project (1) involves
the physical manipulation of the environment, (2) requires one or more permits or
governmental approval (including grant funding), and (3) may have the potential
to significantly impact the environment, the governmental entity responsible for
the project needs to prepare an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW). An
EAWis a formal screening tool to determine if an Environmental Impact
Statement is needed.38 The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board oversees this
process and promulgates rules to implement it. The debate over when state law
requires an EAWlargely deals with the determination that a project may or may
not have the potential for significant environmental effects. It was on these
grounds that citizens filed a lawsuit against the north central OHV system plans.
MEPA avoids the whole debate over significant impact for certain projects that
fall into one of several mandatory EAWcategories as defined in the rules for
environmental review.39 For projects that meet specific criteria, an EAWis
required without having to show that the project may potentially have a significant
impact on the environment. 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.40 Second, as we discussed earlier in this chapter, 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 as demonstrated
by the OHV plans. Minnesota could avoid some future litigation and its
associated costs and delays by requiring an EAWupfront and making
environmental assessment more transparent to the public.
We are not necessarily recommending that all OHV projects receive a mandatory
EAW. Projects that will likely have little environmental impact, such as a minor
reroute of a designated trail, could be excluded from the mandatory EAW
category.
30 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
Requiring an
“EAW” up front
would make
environmental
assessment more
transparent to
the public.
37 DNR, Enjoying and Protecting Our Land & Water, Minnesota’s 2003-2008 State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Final Draft (St. Paul, October 1, 2002), 35.
38 Minn. Rules (2002), ch. 4410.1000, subp. 3. The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973
is found in Minn. Stat. (2002) §116D.
39 Minn. Rules (2002), ch. 4410.4300. The rules also address mandatory categories for
environmental impact statements (Minn. Rules (2002), ch. 4410.4400) and exemptions to reviews
(Minn. Rules (2002), ch. 4410.4600). Review is discretionary for projects that do not fall into one of
these categories.
40 Minn. Rules (2002), ch. 4410.4300, subp. 6, 7, and 22.
In fact, DNR is already heading in this direction. DNR environmental review
staff plan to propose to the Environmental Quality Board criteria for mandatory
EAWs and Environmental Impact Statements for OHV trail projects. While we
only assessed the need for mandatory EAWs, DNR’s consideration of criteria for
mandatory Environmental Impact Statements is an appropriate proactive step to
evaluate OHV projects.
While the cost of EAWs largely depends on the nature of the projects, some can
be very time consuming. The six-page document requires governmental entities
(DNR is the responsible governmental unit for most OHV trails) to complete
31 sections, many requiring considerable detail. For example, under one section,
the person preparing the EAWmust (1) identify fish and wildlife resources and
habitats on or near the site, (2) describe how they would be affected by the
project, and (3) list any measures to minimize or avoid impacts.41
SNOWMOBILE PLANNING
We also examined how DNR planned the existing 18,941 miles of designated
snowmobile trails. After reviewing DNR’s planning documents and interviewing
DNR employees, we found that:
• DNR has never had a formal process for planning its snowmobile trail
system that even attempted to incorporate and balance the
department’s key planning elements; yet, this process appears to have
served the state relatively well.
As we found in Chapter 1, most snowmobile trails in the state are grant-in-aid
trails that local clubs developed (and now maintain) at their own initiative rather
than under a formal plan initiated by DNR. As long as the dedicated funding
account for snowmobile trails has had enough money, DNR has added
grant-in-aid trails proposed by clubs into the system without formally assessing
the need for the trail or the impact on the environment.
DNR has done some planning, but it has been informal and reactive. Until 1997,
by which time most trails were already developed, Minnesota had no statewide
snowmobile plan other than some grant-in-aid funding priorities, such as
connecting existing trails and population centers.42 In 1997, a committee of DNR
staff and stakeholders issued a report titled Statewide Snowmobile Trail System
Plan, which was a list of recommendations and priorities for the trail system.
These included (1) providing adequate funding for existing grant-in-aid trails,
(2) bringing existing trails that clubs developed on their own into the grant-in-aid
system for maintenance support, (3) adding new trails, and (4) modernizing the
system.43 Because of this effort, the state recently added about 2,900 miles of
PLANNING 31
In the absence
of formal
planning by
DNR, local clubs
initiated many
snowmobile
trails.
41 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (St. Paul,
February 1999); http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/1999/eqb/eaw.pdf; accessed November 7, 2002.
42 Northeastern Minnesota Development Association and Klaers, Powers, and Associates, The
Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Northeastern Minnesota: Preparing for the Future (Duluth:
Snowmobile Legislative Advisory Committee, December 1989).
43 Minnesota Snowmobile Advisory Committee, 1997 Statewide Snowmobile Trail System Plan
(St. Paul: DNR, 1997). An updated 2001 document addressed funding shortfalls. Neither study
rigorously addressed the demand for new trails.
trails that clubs developed on their own into the grant-in-aid system for trail
maintenance support.
DNR has also repeatedly surveyed snowmobilers to understand their needs. For
example, the department used a phone survey in 1983 and a mail survey in 1986
to better understand who rides snowmobiles and their willingness to travel to use
trails. A 1992 study authorized by the Legislature focused on the financial
concerns of grant-in-aid clubs. A 1996 study asked snowmobilers about possible
conflicts with winter all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riders using snowmobile trails44
In contrast to our survey findings for OHV planning, 96 percent or more of DNR
field employees and counties said that DNR is doing at least a “good” job
addressing user needs in planning snowmobile trails, as shown in Figures 2.3 and
2.4. These DNR employees and county officials were less positive about DNR’s
handling of environmental concerns and user conflicts in the planning process,
although over 60 percent still rated the department’s efforts as at least “good.”45
These ratings are considerably higher than those provided for OHVs in
Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
32 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
96
97
65
61
4
3
25
26
10
13
Very Good/Good Neither Good Nor Poor Poor/Very Poor
Figure 2.3: DNR Staff Ratings of DNR's Snowmobile
Planning, 2002
NOTE: For each question we excluded respondents who (1) indicated they were not at least
"somewhat familiar" with DNR's management of motorized recreation or (2) omitted the question or
answered "don't know." The number of respondents answering the four questions ranged from N =690
to N =715.
Percentage Providing the Specified Rating
Understanding Recreational Needs
Providing Recreational Opportunities
Addressing Environmental Impacts
Addressing User Conflicts
SOURCE: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Survey of DNR Staff, June-July 2002.
In our survey,
DNR employees
and county
officials were
very positive
about the
department’s
efforts to
understand
snowmobile rider
needs and
provide trails.
44 DNR, Minnesota Snowmobiling: Telephone Survey of Registered Snowmobile Owners Winter of
1983-84 (St. Paul, July 1984). The study also asked about three-wheeled ATV use on snowmobile
trails. DNR, Minnesota Snowmobiling: Results of the 1986-87 Snowmobile Survey (St. Paul,
August 1988); DNR, A Survey of Minnesota Snowmobile Clubs: Gauging Satisfaction with DNR
Reimbursement Policies for Trail Grooming Expenditures Final Report (St. Paul, 1992); and James
C. Vilter, Dale J. Blahna, and Ron Potter, Winter ATVers and Snowmobilers: The Potential for
Greater Co-use of Minnesota’s Trails (St. Paul: DNR, September 29,1996).
45 DNR staff ratings were one or two percentage points lower for most questions after we removed
Trails and Waterways staff responses.
There are a few explanations why such an informal process for planning
snowmobile trails received higher ratings than OHV planning, which was more
formal and systematic. First, because snowmobiles are less likely to damage the
environment and disturb other people than OHVs are, there is less of a need to
plan for and manage how and where they are used. While it is well accepted that
all recreational activities have an impact on the environment, snowmobiles avoid
more damage than OHVs do because they run on snow and frozen ground.46
Furthermore, during the winter, other people are more likely to be indoors than in
the summer, and a lot of wildlife is hibernating or absent. In fact, according to
staff from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, no one has ever filed a
petition asking DNR to carry out a formal environmental assessment for a
proposed snowmobile trail.47 The same cannot be said for OHV trails.
Second, many snowmobile trails are on private land, especially in the southern
part of the state where there is little public land. DNR employees and counties
may have fewer concerns about trails on private land for which they have no
direct responsibility. In contrast, OHV trails are more likely to be on public land.
PLANNING 33
100
96
70
70
26
23
5
7
Good/Very Good Neither Good Nor Poor Poor/Very Poor
Figure 2.4: Ratings by County Officials of DNR's
Snowmobile Planning, 2002
NOTE: For each question we excluded respondents who (1) indicated they were not at least
"somewhat familiar" with DNR's management of motorized recreation or (2) omitted the question or
answered "don't know." The number of respondents for the four questions ranged from N =43 to N =48.
Percentage Providing the Specified Rating
Understanding Recreational Needs
Providing Recreational Opportunities
Addressing Environmental Impacts
Addressing User Conflicts
SOURCE: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Survey of County Officials, June-July 2002.
Compared with
OHVs, there may
be less need to
plan for and
manage how
and where
snowmobiles are
used.
46 A 1971 Minnesota study found that snowmobiling can change the physical environment of the
soil, differentially affecting certain plants. For example, alfalfa appeared to be harmed but grasses
were probably not affected and may even have benefited. Wallace J. Wanek, A Continuing Study of
the Ecological Impact of Snowmobiling in Northern Minnesota (Final Research Report for 1971-72)
(Bemidji, Minnesota: Center for Environmental Studies, Bemidji State College, 1972), 18.
47 Greg Downing and John Hynes, interview by author, in person, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 6,
2002. Under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, citizens can petition for an EAW to be
prepared if they gather 25 signatures and present facts showing that something about the location
and nature of the project makes it more deserving of review than similar projects. Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board, The Environmental Review Process (St. Paul, July 2001);
http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/pdf/envreview.PDF; accessed August 2, 2002.
Third, while we were told
that snowmobiles were the
subject of controversy in
the 1970s, they have since
gained a level of
acceptance.48 For example,
people recognize the
impact that snowmobiling
has on the state’s economy.
According to a 1996 study
by the Department of Trade
and Economic
Development (DTED),
snowmobile-related
tourism from non-residents
coming to Minnesota added
$16 million to the state’s
economy and generated
$1.9 million in tax
revenues. In addition,
DTED estimates that
Minnesotans annually spent
about $74 million on
snowmobile-related
tourism within the state.
DTED, however, believes that tourism dollars spent by Minnesotans in Minnesota
have no net impact on the state’s overall economy.49 Nevertheless, in-state
tourism can have a large impact on the economies of specific communities. When
snowmobilers from the Twin Cities spend the weekend in the Brainerd area, their
tourism dollars contribute to the Brainerd-area economy even if there is a
corresponding loss of economic activity in the Twin Cities. Furthermore, if
Minnesota did not have a trail system, Minnesota snowmobilers may have spent
some of the $74 million snowmobiling in another state, such as Wisconsin.
34 STATE-FUNDED TRAILS FOR MOTORIZED RECREATION
Because snowmobiles run on frozen ground and snow,
they generally have a lower impact on the environment
than OHVs do.
Snowmobiling
has had a
positive impact
on Minnesota’s
economy.
48 T.B. Knopp and W. Wieland, Demand and Response: The Case of Snowmobiling in Minnesota
(St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1983), 9-12.
49 Department of Trade and Economic Development, Economic Activity and Economic Impact of
the Snowmobile Industry in Minnesota (St. Paul, October 1996), 3-5.