New wrinkle in ATV debate

Louis Porter

MONTPELIER — The debate over whether all-terrain vehicles should be allowed on state land may rest in part on three words — or rather on their absence.

The transportation budget bill approved by lawmakers this year and signed into law by Gov. James Douglas deleted the phrase "on private property" from the statute that allows the state's association of ATV riders to spend fee and penalty money on trail maintenance and enforcement. That change — unnoticed by many lawmakers at the time — set the groundwork for permitting ATV trails on public land.

The heated dispute between supporters and opponents of a limited amount of ATV use on public land began because of a rule proposed by the Agency of Natural Resources that would allow a short corridor across state lands to connect private trails. That will open the door to more widespread use of ATVs on public property, opponents worry.

The public comment period on the rule has been extended by two weeks, and ANR officials have already gotten more than 1,100 e-mails and more than 100 letters about the issue. If the rule continues forward, it will likely come before the special legislative committee that evaluates rules made by state agencies, at which point the language in the transportation budget may come into play.

Agency Secretary Jonathan Wood said he explained to the House and Senate Transportation Committees the effect of the change.

"That was explained to them and that was passed," he said.

But both lawmakers involved in the ATV issue and conservation groups opposing the new rule said Monday they did not know the transportation budget included the ATV language, and that ANR had not warned them of the word change or the proposed rule during the legislative session.

The language was partly designed to solve a less controversial problem, Wood said. Some towns allow ATV riders to use class four roads — even where they cross state land — but there was no mechanism through which the All-Terrain Vehicles Sportsman's Association could spend money on keeping those trails in shape.

"We wanted VASA to use the money they get to maintain class four roads where they cross state lands," Wood said.

"It wasn't directly related to state lands," said Danny Hale, head of the ATV organization. "It allows VASA to fund (trails on) municipal public lands, also."

But the rule proposed since — allowing new trails in limited instances on state land — will also be aided by the budget language that was suggested by the agency, a possibility that was considered at the time, Wood said.

In fact, the transportation budget passed with little mention outside the transportation committees of the ATV wording.

"Striking the phrase 'on private land' was not front and center when we were debating the transportation bill," said Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, chairman of the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee, which also considered the bill. "We never talked about it in terms of what could or could not happen relative to state lands."

Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said he was surprised ANR did not do more to warn lawmakers about the ATV issue, given the working relationship established on another controversial matter, the question of wind towers on state lands.

"They never mentioned any word of this, and that is what I am most disappointed about," Klein said.

Given the length of the transportation bill, it is likely that lawmakers were not aware of the sections of the bill dealing with ATV's, said Anthony Iarrapino of the Conservation Law Foundation.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of legislators who voted on this 108 page bill had no idea or even thought about what the implications of this three word change would be down the road," he said.

Perhaps the agency could have done more to tell the legislative committees that deal with environmental issues about the ATV language in the transportation bill, Wood said. But he and others did tell members of the transportation committees about the language and its effect, Wood said.

Allowing "an extremely limited number of small connector trails" on public land is still a good idea, Wood said. "It will assist the public good by creating a legal riding system."

But others are far from sure.

Deen, who is also Connecticut River Steward, submitted comments on the rule and the potential effect on waterways of ATV use on behalf of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.

"Even if the trails are designed properly, unanticipated problems could occur if inadequate management results in insufficient observation to detect problems early on, or results in a lack of proper and timely maintenance, even on trails that are left unused after a revocation," Deen wrote.

Source: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090623/NEWS01/906230359/1002/NEWS01

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites