REGIONAL- A bill that could reshape where and how Minnesotans ride off-highway vehicles – including ATVs and dirt bikes – sparked sharp debate in the Minnesota House last week, drawing praise from environmental advocates and pushback from northern counties and ATV groups.
HF1012, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Pursell, DFL-Northfield, proposes a series of new regulations for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The bill would also add environmental review requirements, increase ATV fees, and introduce tighter restrictions on trail development.
The proposal was heard last week by the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee and was laid over for possible inclusion in a larger omnibus bill.
Supporters of the bill argue that Minnesota needs a more consistent and cautious approach to managing OHV trails to address concerns about the environmental impacts of ATV use – particularly on forested public lands and near sensitive water resources.
The bill would have a larger impact on OHV use in northern Minnesota, as it targets state lands north of U.S. Highway 2 that have been exempt from certain requirements that apply to other parts of the state.
By removing those exemptions, OHVs could only operate on state lands that are specifically designated and mapped for the type of OHV being used, and forest access routes would have to be signed, maintained, and included on public user maps of the forest.
Some additional significant items in the bill would:
Prohibit new OHV trails on certain lands, including tribal lands and ceded territory without tribal approval; areas near high-quality or aquatic life-supporting waters; and lands with specific noxious weeds identified by state or county officials.
Require written notice and consultation with local governments, including townships, when planning new state or grant-in-aid OHV trails.
 Mandate an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for new OHV trail construction or expansions over one mile.
Increase ATV fees, including raising the three-year private use registration fee from $6 to $20; adding a $45 surcharge for ATVs registered for public use; and raising the annual trail pass fee from $30 to $45.
Supporters argued these changes are needed to protect Minnesota’s natural resources and to ensure ATV trail systems are sustainably developed and managed. Opponents say the bill places excessive burdens on rural communities and trail developers.
The bill drew more than 100 pages of written testimony and the hearing featured 17 speakers who were each limited to 90 seconds for their comments.
Former U.S. Forest Service wildlife manager Bruce Anderson spoke on behalf of the Wildlife Society in support of the bill.
“This legislation takes nothing away from the current ATV user,” he said. “According to DNR data there are over 101,000 miles of trails open to ATVs on public lands. This legislation is about protecting wildlife from an expanded ATV network. The DNR now lists over 570 species of greatest conservation need, a 96-percent increase from 2005, and many of these species are found in the northern third of the state, where many of the new proposed ATV trails are planned. Research has shown that ATV use can affect habitat, reduce productivity and survival rates, and alters animal behavior. The more ATV trail connectivity, the less wildlife habitat connectivity, such as wildlife travel corridors. With this legislation, potential impacts to wildlife can be mitigated.”
Retired DNR Conservation Officer Jeff Birchem, who patrolled the Beltrami Island State Forest, said that a major problem with having all trails open unless posted closed is that many ATV trails there were started illegally, often by riders removing a posted closed sign.
“In a very short time, a new trail would be developed once a sign was tossed aside, a trail by definition is now open for use,” he said.
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Commissioner of Natural Resources Kelly Applegate also spoke in support of the bill.
“This bill is designed to preserve and protect wetland areas and natural habitats, including our sacred manoomin, what we call wild rice, and other sensitive areas from the impacts of motorized off-highway recreational vehicles,” he said. “The state continues to issue permits … for the creation of additional OHV trails that may be located near reservation lands and ceded territories where tribal members have federally protected hunting, fishing and gathering rights. This activity has several acknowledged environmental impacts that threaten our delicate ecosystem.”
Applegate said the bill’s requirement for tribal consultation for proposed projects was a reasonable measure to address their concerns.
Eagles Nest Township resident Karen Graham welcomed the provision giving townships a voice in the trail planning process.
“Eagles Nest exemplifies the need for this legislation,” Graham said. “A local club announced a proposed ATV trail that was already designated the main route on printed and online maps. The (township) board voted no with resolutions in response to local concerns. So, the club went to the county. Other cities, townships, and tribal governments have similar troubles. This bill brings local governments and OHV organizations together to include local knowledge early in the state grant-in-aid process, instead of at the end.”
But ATV Minnesota President Ron Potter, representing its 70-member ATV groups, suggested that the bill “threatens the responsible trail development and maintenance that we’ve worked so hard to establish.” Potter said the process new trail development must go through before funding is awarded is thoughtful and sufficient to address concerns.
Lake County Commissioner Rick Goutermont voiced a concern common among many opponents that it would have a chilling effect on ATV tourism.
“ATV recreation is a major economic driver in our region,” he said. “These visitors support our rural communities by spending money at hotels, restaurants, gas stations and other local businesses that rely heavily on outdoor tourism to survive. Recreation is a major economic driver in our region, bringing thousands of riders from across Minnesota to explore the scenic trails. Our counties have made sure that trail development is done right. The Northeastern Regional ATV Joint Powers Board coordinates with the DNR, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, tribal officials, local ATV clubs, and environmental experts to make sure trails are designed with erosion control, habitat preservation and long-term sustainability in mind.”
St. Louis County Board of Commissioners Chair Annie Harala echoed the theme of responsible trail development in the region in a letter to the committee.
“St. Louis County and other northern counties have a long history of working in partnership with local clubs, landowners, and state agencies to ensure responsible OHV use,” Harala said. “Many volunteer organizations, such as the ATV Ambassador Program, actively patrol trails, educate riders, and report environmental concerns, demonstrating that responsible riders are committed to conservation and sustainability. Additionally, county and state forests are already certified as sustainable, with annual inspections that require proper management of roads and trails. These inspections provide a much stronger environmental safeguard than the unnecessary regulations proposed in HF1012 (and companion bill SF1245).”
In a letter written to the committee, Voyageur Country ATV President Mark Anderson touted the club’s mission to build safe, sustainable trails in an environmentally-friendly manner through collaborations with DNR, the U.S. Forest Service, and others. He emphasized that current processes for trail development are sufficient.
“Given that Minnesota has some of the most stringent laws and policies related to ATV trail construction and the economic and cultural benefits that ATV trails can provide for the citizens of Minnesota, our club asks that you strongly oppose House File 1012/Senate File 1245,” Anderson said.
The committee took no formal action on the bill, and it remains under consideration for future inclusion in a larger bill, but it’s far from a done deal.
Rep. Josh Heintzeman, R-Nisswa, the Republican co-chair of the evenly divided committee, called the proposal “an anti-ATV bill” and said it currently has no bipartisan support.
“It needs a lot of work to even give it a chance of surviving the committee,” Heintzeman said during Thursday’s hearing. With the committee equally divided among the DFL and Republicans, a party-line vote would prevent the bill from moving forward.