By KRIS PASTORIZA of Easton
Public lands belong to everyone and provide services that private lands cannot or will not provide. In an era of climate change and a 6th Extinction Event, the highest priority for management of public lands is to sequester and store as much carbon long term as possible, and to provide habitat for climate stressed plants, animals, and natural communities. This requires a focus on land health and human uses that are low-impact, dispersed, and have as minimal a carbon footprint as possible. ATVs in Nash Stream fail on every count.
Brief History of ATV Trails in Nash Stream State Forest
When New Hampshire and the US Forest Service acquired the Nash Stream Forest in the summer of 1988, ATVs had been prohibited for several years. The Easement negotiated between the State and the Forest Service called for the continuation of “traditional recreation uses” on the newly established Nash Stream State Forest (NSF). The ban on ATVs remained in place.
The Nash Stream Advisory Committee (NSAC), established by Governor Judd Gregg in December 1989, developed a “Management Vision” and wrote the first NSF Management Plan throughout the following year. The NSAC was bitterly divided over important issues such as forest management practices and ecological reserves in the early months. Gradually, as trust and respect for fellow members developed, it coalesced around a plan that in 1990[1]—and even today—was the most progressive state lands management plan in NH. On one issue there was unanimity from the outset: ATVs must remain prohibited on Nash Stream Forest lands. ATVs were explicitly excluded from the list of Traditional Recreational Uses on the Nash Stream Forest. On page 63 of that plan, one of the “goals of management” stated: “Recreation management will emphasize low-impact, carry-in/carry-out dispersed use.” (emphasis added)
In the ensuing decade, as ATV use grew, local political pressure built to override the ATV Ban in NSF. The US Forest Service, holder of the Easement for NSF and described by member of the NSF Tech Team as “uninvolved,” signed off on allowing ATVs on the NSF. The NH Legislature established an ATV Study Committee in 2001. A document prepared for the Legislature in December 2001 acknowledged a variety of problems with ATVs at that time:
• The State lacked a comprehensive policy to deal with “extremely complex” ATV issues. Note: There still is no plan.
• “Environmental concerns and the potential degradation of an area must always be the paramount consideration.” Near-zero monitoring; major washouts; Chronic erosion; but still the State pushes more trails in NSF.
• “NH Fish and Game, admittedly understaffed and underequipped to provide the necessary law enforcement component.” And it is far, far worse today.
• In 2001 citizens testified that they rejected the excuses for non-enforcement of ATV laws and regulations. Increasing numbers of citizens are still complaining.
• “A successful enforcement program is critical to the long-term success of ATV trail expansion and development.” No comment necessary.
• The 2001 Study Committee stated that new trails should be created only when:
-“DRED/Trails Bureau has the resources to monitor and maintain trails for ATV use,” and
-“Fish and Game has the resources and made the commitment to reasonably monitor ATV use and enforce applicable laws.” Since neither has ever been true, there is no case for any new trails on public lands since 2001.
This Committee met once for 90-minutes, requested no data or studies, showed no interest in convening a second meeting, and approved the proposal to open the West Side Trail to ATVs for the 2002 season. Peter Benson of The Nature Conservancy and David Publicover of the Appalachian Mountain Club submitted a Minority Report that challenged the legitimacy of that process:
Such a decision should not be inappropriately legitimized by reference to a Study Committee that collected little information, identified no issues or concerns, and produced no written report that could help inform the Nash Stream Advisory Committee, DRED, the legislature, or the public.
The Study Committee held only a single 90-minute public meeting, which was not sufficient to identify or review the complexities of this important topic. In no way did the Committee’s work represent the in-depth analysis called for by Director Bryce.[2]
Perhaps most importantly, if the proposed use were to be adopted with a defined trial period, what process and criteria would be used to determine if the use should be continued as is, curtailed or ended? (emphasis added)
Among the issues the Study Committee ignored were: erosion, sedimentation, siltation, and degradation of water quality in the fresh waters of NSF; impacts on native brook trout; habitat fragmentation; impacts of noise on wildlife and non-motorized recreationists; and conflicts between non-traditional recreation ATV traffic and traditional recreational uses that are explicitly protected by the NSF Management Plan;
In 2001-2002, there was no consideration of the impacts of ATV emissions on climate change, nor the impacts of ATVs on climate stressed species.
The 2002 Amendment to the 1995 NS Management Plan, that allowed “a pilot for 3 to 5 years beginning in the summer of 2002” on the West Side Trail, added: “No other roads or trails are open to ATV’s on the property.”
An essential element of the Management Vision of the original NSF Plan stated: “Establish monitoring of, scientific research on, and education about the management and ecological processes of the land…” The Goals of Management included a section on “Monitoring, Research, and Interpretation that stated: “Monitoring and research should be a high priority to gather information for wise long-term planning.”[3] Since the West Side Trail opened in 2002, no monitoring reports have been filed on its impact on the ecological integrity, water quality, and wildlife of the Nash Stream Forest. Indeed, the November 2021 Southern Connector Briefing Paper states: “No significant OHRV data had been collected since the inception of the West Side Trail.” For two decades, no effort has been made to comply with the law or the NSF Management Plan.
Prior to 2002, the West Side trail had been covered in vegetation which minimized any issues of erosion from the trail. By 2007, with heavy ATV usage, that vegetation cover was long gone, with the result that serious issues of dust, erosion and mud were commonplace. A “Monitoring” report submitted to the Citizens Committee in 2007 did acknowledge:
“The West Side Road went from a winter road to a 4-season road. The road needs to be graded at least every two years to keep the crown in the road and minimize erosion. Mud flap water bars also need to be cleaned out and maintained. Someone needs to be definitively in charge and responsible for maintenance.”
The NS Citizens Committee extended the “pilot” for three years in 2007, despite a lack of credible monitoring of the impacts of ATVs on ecosystem integrity, water quality, fish and wildlife, or traditional recreation uses. Impacts of ATVs on the climate crisis again went unaddressed. No “counter” had been set up to document the number of ATV’s using the West Side Trail, nor was there any effort to determine ATV traffic volume during peak hours (summer weekends and holidays). No information was provided about issues such as speeding, illegal off-trail activity, trail degradation, and enforcement and safety during this “pilot” period.
In 2008, the Citizens’ Committee minutes reported: “Some of the bridges on the [West Side Trail] are in disarray and seem to do little in diverting water so these bridges will be gotten rid of and the ditch will be filled in.” In 2014, Citizens Committee minutes reported: “The West Side Trail is under construction to fix water-bars to control runoff on the ATV trail.”
Beginning in 2004, NH Fish & Game and Trout Unlimited collaborated to restore the wild brook trout fishery in Nash Stream. Over the years, the project secured $1.3 million.
A December 26, 2012 memo from NH Fish and Game to the State Lands Management Team that was evaluating a request for the Kelsey Notch Trail (referred to as the “Columbia OHRV Connector Trail” and “Columbia Brook Road”) stated:
“This is the largest stream restoration project in the northeast and has received national attention. One aspect of this project is to restore connectivity at eight stream crossings (one of which is on the West Side Road where ATVs are currently allowed), and connectivity at several more crossings are planned to be done by 2016, including several on the Columbia Brook Road. Given the importance of the restoration project, both at the state and national level, it is imperative that connectivity of fish populations not be negatively impacted in the Nash Stream State Forest or watershed. Stream connectivity is not only a concern within the NSSF, but also the entire proposed North Country ATV trail system. Yet there didn’t seem to be a clear plan for maintaining the NS State Forest or other proposed ATV trails.”[4]
Aerial photograph of West Side Trail erosion looking south, Sept. 12, 2018. (BOT files)
Anglers and Fish and Game biologists have heard ATVs on the West Side Trail that are “several hundred feet away” from the mainstem of Nash Stream. In 2018, the West Side Trail was closed due to a large washout.[5] The November 18, 2018 minutes of CORD reported the NH Division of Forests and Lands had requested to move 750 feet of the West Side Trail away from the Nash Stream “… to prevent further sedimentation and erosion…. Siltation from the fill may be reaching Nash Stream during severe storm events…. This past summer DNCR discovered adjacent to a culvert that was buried 30 to 40 feet down in depth with fill on top. The erosion has caused the fill to start migrating toward the Nash Stream…”
No Cost-Benefit Analysis has assessed claims of net Economic Benefits of ATVs
ATV boosters tout the “economic” benefits of ATVs in Coos County. Neither then, nor at any time since, was there an independent assessment of those claims. Such assessment must also include the ecological costs of high impact ATVs; currently those costs are externalized onto the land and waters of the NSF, the atmosphere, and onto the public.
We do know that fishing and hunting licenses sales increased between 2019 and 2020, and AVT registrations declined”
Year OHRV Registrations Hunting Fishing
2019 38,029 56,295 159,699
2020 35,172 60, 699 191,034
Change -2,857 +4,404 +31,335
Kelsey Notch Trail
RSA 215-A:42: ATV and Trail Bike Trails: “No ATV or trail bike trail shall be established [unless]… the Fish and Game Department shall enter into the memorandum only if it can commit sufficient resources to reasonably monitor for proper ATV use or trail bike use on the property and enforce the applicable laws.” Kelsey Notch has been in violation of State Law since the moment ATV’s rolled over the KN Trail.
In December 2012 the State Lands Management Team solicited Agency comments on the Kelsey Notch and Southern Connector ATV trail proposals. Jim Oehler submitted comments from NH Fish and Game on January 28, 2013.[6] Below are important quotes pertaining to the ecological impacts of ATVs using the proposed Kelsey Notch trail:
• “… The proposed trail will cross over streams in some locations.”
• The proposed ATV trail is a snowmobile trail. “… but winter use may not impact wetland habitats and associated fish and wildlife the same way as summer use (i.e, reptiles and amphibians not active during winter). Intensity of use is hard to predict, but an important factor in determining habitat and wildlife impacts. Intense use of snowmobile trails by ATVs can cause significant trail erosion … which could lead to wetland sedimentation and damage to stream crossings that would render them impassible to fish and wildlife.” Note: “Counters” to tally number of vehicle trips on KN were not installed until the seventh year of the “trial”—in mid-June 2019.
• “Summer use could have a negative impact on breeding birds…”
Accordingly, Oehler wrote, “The NH Fish and Game Department will concur with the proposed trail expansions at NSSF only under the condition that the planned expansion go through an amendment process that effectively gains input from a broad array of Nash Stream stakeholders. The plan amendment should adequately address potential impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, especially wetlands and stream connectivity issues, an assessment of law enforcement and trail maintenance needs, and how those needs will be met, and an assessment of alternate routes. Not following an amendment process that provides opportunity for all stakeholders to voice their opinions will likely lead to intense criticism by individuals and groups who are interested in the State Forest’s other uses for which the property was originally acquired.” (emphasis added)
The proper preliminary steps, including a coarse filter-fine filter analysis before the KN trail was opened, were not followed. The ecological data and studies Fish and Game insisted upon have not been performed.
Tremendous Sediment Coming Off this Road
The Tech Team visited the Kelsey Notch Trail in November 2015. On August 2, 2016, NH F& G biologist John Magee wrote a troubling note to F&G Director Glen Normandeau: “I was disappointed to see the road erosion problems on this trail and the resulting truckloads of sediment that were obviously entering the perennial streams there. This is a direct result of a lack of suitable erosion control on this OHRV trail…. [No agreement between DNRC (Department of Natural and Cultural Resources) and the OHRV club] has been sent to the Technical Team…. The erosion issue may be even worse now because the needed work still has not been done. Therefore, it seems that this trail should be closed until a solid, signed agreement is in place and the erosion problems are fixed. Furthermore, the agreement should include details about how often and when assessments will be done and by when erosion issues will be fixed. Again, the sediment coming off this road and entering perennial streams is tremendous.” (emphasis added)
In the late 1980s, the Council on Resources and Development (CORD), an interagency group, was charged with oversight on lands acquired by the Land and Community Investment Program (LCIP). The Nash Stream was one of the first such lands, and the largest acquisition. In 2016, the Appalachian Mountain Club, The Nature Conservancy, and The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests submitted to CORD a challenge to the legality of the Kelsey Notch Trail. On December 8, 2016, CORD agreed with the challenge and required DRED (now DNCR) to create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between state agencies over the management, monitoring, and reparations of ATV trails in Nash Stream, and a MOU between the State and the Metallak ATV Club regarding these issues. In this latter agreement, section 6 stated: “The STATE maintains the right to close the TRAIL when any of the following occur: [bullet #6]: Any other reason that is insurmountable by the state and club which would cause public safety or environmental concerns sufficient enough to close the trail to ATV use…”[7]
In the fall of 2017, nearly two years after John Magee had reported encountering “tremendous” amounts of sediment coming off the KN Trail, 105 loads of gravel and fill (12 cubic yards per load) were trucked in to replace the gravel and soil that had eroded in previous years. The cost was $22,000 and was paid for out of the nearly $4 million the Bureau of Trails receives annually from ATV registration fees.[8] This is an extraordinary amount of erosion. Where did the equivalent of 105 loads of eroding materials end up? We have no monitoring report to answer that question. Where are the water quality samples to assess the impacts of all this erosion on trout habitat? None have been reported upon, so it is reasonable to conclude that no water samples have been taken. We are invariably informed that funding is too tight for safety and enforcement and proper monitoring, yet the BOT can truck in hundreds of loads of fill to cover over the huge impacts ATVs have on trails and ecosystem integrity.
Safety, Compliance & Enforcement on Kelsey Notch Trail
RSA 215-A:41 I(d) requires that ATV trails on public lands are “regularly monitored for overuse, compliance with laws and regulations, and environmental degradation, with curtailment of trail use if such conditions are found to exist.” RSA 215-A:41 I(e) requires that the ATV trails system “ensures safe and legal use through consistent enforcement of all laws as set forth in this chapter.”
Overuse: A trail counter was not installed on Kelsey Notch until mid-June 2019, the seventh season of the “Trial” KN Trail. It only registered the number of vehicles passing through. It provided no data on peak traffic on summer weekends and holidays, when noise, dust, and the potential for wear and tear are greatest. No trail counter has been installed on the West Side Trail, which completed its 20th season of ATV use in 2021.
Compliance: In January 2013, Jim Oehler wrote that the amendment process for both Kelsey Notch and the Southern Connector must provide “an assessment of law enforcement and trail maintenance needs, and how those needs will be met.” Oehler warned: “The continued expansion of North Country ATV riding opportunities has increased the demand on law enforcement substantially…. Additional enforcement efforts on the Nash Stream SF or other new trails in the North Country will be marginal at best. There doesn’t seem to be a clear path for meeting law enforcement needs on the expanded Nash Stream SF ATV trail system or other proposed North Country ATV trails.” (emphasis added)
Even before the KN Trail trial began, NH F&G’s ability to patrol skyrocketing ATV traffic in Coos County was inadequate and overwhelmed. Every year the Director of NH F&G pleads with the Legislature to increase funding for safety and enforcement; every year, the Legislature ignores this request, but supports efforts to expand ATV ridership, especially in Coos County. Every year this untenable situation becomes worse.
In 2017, F&G enforcement officers patrolled Nash Stream ATV trails on 10 days during a 150-day ATV season. In 2018 enforcement officers made 4 visits to NSSF, and in 2019, they made five visits. On the issue of “compliance,” the State is not in compliance with RSA 215-A:41. If the State refuses to provide adequate funding for safety and enforcement at current levels, ATV traffic must be reduced to levels that NH F&G can adequately handle. And, the state must cease to promote and subsidize increases in ATV trails and traffic volume.
Monitoring of Impacts of ATVs on NSF Ecosystem Integrity:
RSA 215-A:43, II(i) requires “a monitoring and response system designed to detect and correct adverse environmental impacts.”
Reasons for Trail Closing:
The November 2021 Southern Connector Briefing Paper (page 9) states: “If at any time during the pilot status negative impacts to the resources highlighted in the recommendations are reported, verified, and documented by the same annual review members of the Tech Team, the trail shall be shut down promptly, until the negative impacts are properly mitigated. If repeated incidents occur, the trail may be suspended and brought back to the Nash Stream Citizen’s Committee and CORD for reconsideration of pilot status.”
Yet, in the 2018 Kelsey Notch Monitoring Report (page 6), we read: “There was a discussion about trying to get some of the repairs done before the end of the season; however the Trails Bureau was concerned that funds wouldn’t be available to complete repairs more than once a season.” The solution to this funding problem, of course, is shut down the trails until the funds are available to complete repairs. However, the unrepaired trails remained open to ATV traffic that would further exacerbate the problem.
Fish and Game’s 2013 Conditional Approval Ignored by BOT
Although Fish and Game only signed on to the trial opening of KN in 2013 on condition that ecological impacts of ATVs be properly assessed, baseline data, necessary to evaluate those impacts, was not gathered before the KN Trail was opened in 2013. Monitoring of those impacts from the Kelsey Notch Trail only began in 2017, following the intervention of CORD in December 2016. And trail counts were only installed in mid-June of the seventh season the Kelsey Notch Trail was opened to ATVs.
The four annual monitoring reports submitted between 2017 and 2020, while deeply flawed, provide sufficient evidence that ATV traffic on NSF trails exert an unacceptable negative impact on ecosystem integrity. If independent, objective, comprehensive monitoring had been conducted, the case against expanding ATV traffic to Kelsey Notch would be irrefutible.
Formal Monitoring occurs after annual Fall Maintenance work
This defeats the purpose of assessing the “impacts” of ATVs on trails and ecosystem integrity. It smooths over and covers up problems of erosion degradation of water quality, and makes it nearly impossible to follow erosion from the trail to streams and wetlands. Beginning with the 2018 Monitoring Report, Maggie Machinist has recommended that monitoring occur before fall maintenance. Her recommendation, repeated in the 2019 and 2020 reports, has been ignored. Since F&G and DFL appear to support this recommendation, it appears the BOT is responsible for the perpetuation of this wrong-headed approach to monitoring.
Informal Monitoring prior to Fall Maintenance
Informal visits to KN prior to fall maintenance provide deeply troubling evidence of the extreme impacts of ATV traffic on ecosystem integrity and water quality. The 2018 monitoring report stated: “The bridge decking was beginning to be a problem. The decking in some spots on the two bridges and the approach to the bridges were starting to erode.”
Also from the 2018 Monitoring Report:
• “The steep section of this trail had some significant humps, which were caused by use.” The water bars had been removed the previous year and were not re-installed until the end of the 2018 season.
• “There was a significant washout in the ditch that was caused by water overwhelming the culvert. This washout was found in the early summer, but was unable to be fixed.” But the trail remained open, and the threat to water quality increased.
• The trail had seen a lot of wear and tear in the last few weeks, which had caused some damage to the trail and some erosion on the trail. None of the erosion appeared to be directly getting into the brook.” Visual observations are not an acceptable substitute for routine water quality sampling near trouble spots.
The 2020 Monitoring Report stated that Maggie Machinist and Todd Caron had visited the KN in early August. They found “wear and tear on the trail at most times. Some of the hills had some washing and it was very bumpy (washboard), but none of it seemed to be getting into the larger streams, but there was evidence of erosion into the intermittent brook and drainage ditches. It was obvious that the bridges were overdue to be re-built and appeared to be dangerous.” Two ATV seasons passed before a dangerous situation was addressed; all the time it was getting worse. Still no water quality sampling.
Formal Monitoring After Fall Maintenance
Even after the fall maintenance, all is not well on KN Trail. The 2020 Monitoring Report found:
• “wear and tear… near the boundary line (SW) and evidence of siltation in the ditches…”
• “… water diversion devices (rubber flaps) had been cleaned out…. however the rubber flaps were already filled with sedimentation again.” Very shortly after fall maintenance, the rubber flaps were already inoperative.
Photos above are from page 2 of the 2018 KN Monitoring Report. The problems went unaddressed until 2020, yet the KN Trail remained open throughout the 2019 and 2020 seasons. It is clear where much of the sediment from this erosion ended up.
Fish and Game written report included in 2020 Monitoring Report:
For the first time, F&G submitted a written monitoring report. Biologist Jacob DeBow’s report raises very troubling questions:
• “Some slight amount of erosion at the lip of two bridges. Sedimentation from runoff and settling dust from high trail use is of concern in these runoff streams for wildlife that require clean and clear water….”
“This section of trail crosses multiple first order streams…. Increased sedimentation in these upper water bodies can be detrimental to lowland swamps and wetlands. Increased degradation can fill in high quality vernal pools and other important seasonal habitats. Sedimentation and turbidity within aquatic systems can alter food chains by depleting food sources at the highest trophic level, depress growth rates, and limit reproduction. Due to limited information on this section of trail we do not know the level of sedimentation that enters these streams but assume it is present based on observations of other ATV trails during summer months. Localized research would have to be completed to better address this concern.”
In the absence of necessary research, it is a violation of the Vision and Goals of the Management Plan to allow KN to remain open. Such research would almost certainly strengthen the already overwhelming case for permanently closing KN Trail to ATV traffic.
• DeBow concluded: “In summary, New Hampshire Fish and Game has continued concern surrounding the intensity of use on this section of trail and how increased use affects ecological integrity of the Nash Stream Forest and the surrounding sub-watersheds. In particular, sedimentation from OHRV’s impacts terrestrial and aquatic habitat and increased noise pollution from higher traffic and loud machines is of concern as it displaces wildlife….
“In regards the influence of noise on local wildlife, we have concern about potential increases in flight behavior around active trails. While little research is available for New England trails, impacts from ATV use have been documented on western wildlife like Rocky Mountain elk, showing impacts up to 3000 meters [approximately 2 miles]. There are several steep sections of this trail which inadvertently causes ATV’s to increase RPM’s, creating louder noise. We have concern for how this may disrupt the normal cycles of wildlife within ear shot of the trail by interfering with breeding behavior, decreasing time spent foraging, and increasing time spent on alert and on edge as machines constantly pass by.” No credible noise studies have been conducted on KN or in NSF where noise problems are greatest (such as steeper grades) when ATV traffic is greatest (summer weekends and holidays).
Invasives
The 2020 KN Monitoring Report recorded alarming news: Invasive plant species are hitchhiking into the Nash Stream Forest via ATV trails. The Report stated: “This year we observed phragmites growing next to the trail in the ditch. This was not observed last year, but it may have been overlooked. There were a few spots that has small populations of this invasive species. It should be treated so that it is not spread. While the source of the invasive is not exactly known, it is logical to conclude that it was brought in either on equipment working on the trail or by ATVs.”
“It may have been overlooked” does not inspire confidence that monitoring is sufficiently thorough. At a minimum, much more comprehensive monitoring for invasives must be added to the list of essential monitoring practices (such as water quality sampling, noise measurement, wildlife data).
Herbicides: The 2020 monitoring report recommends: “Treat the invasive species with herbicide to minimize the spread. Flag those areas so that future road work and trail maintenance does not disturb those areas and spread the phragmites.”
The 1995 NSF Management Plan (page 58) stated: “Notwithstanding state law, the Nash Stream Vision prohibits the use of chemical agents that would adversely impact natural ecosystems.” The 2017 Plan changed this to read: “Herbicides, insecticides, or other pesticides will not be applied to, or within, the Nash Stream Forest unless necessary to control an invasive species or a forest health crisis.” This clearly shows that there has always been a strong desire to avoid use of biocides in the Nash Stream Forest.
Minimizing the ability of invasives to enter Nash Stream is the surest way to minimize the problem and to avoid use of biocides that can degrade water quality and ecosystem integrity. It is against the spirit of the 1995 and 2017 Plans to allow behaviors that spread invasives and then justify the use of herbicides as a response. While we cannot achieve 100 percent prevention of invasives, we can eliminate one of the most common carriers of invasives: motorized vehicle traffic. The proper response is to close the KN Trail and re-evaluate the West Side Trail as a potential route for invasives to enter the NSF. There has been no monitoring of the West Side Trail since 2002; this is alarming and must be redressed immediately.
Climate Change
The NH Climate Action Plan directs agencies to follow “10 Overarching Strategies,” to slow anthropogenic climate change, including: “3) Support reginal and national actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 4) Reduce vehicle emissions through state actions; 5) Encourage appropriate land use patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled; 7) Protect natural resources (land, water, and wildlife) to maintain the amount of carbon fixed or sequestered; 8) Lead by example in governmental actions; and 9) Plan for how to address existing and potential climate change impacts.”
The EPA estimates that a 4-stroke ATV operating one hour emits hydrocarbons equal to a passenger car traveling 290 miles. A 2-stroke ATV operating one emits the equivalent of one car traveling 6,470 miles. In the US, ATVs emit nearly 6 million tons of carbon annually.
The highest priority for the management of the Nash Stream Forest is to make an optimal contribution to slowing and reversing climate change. This includes preservation of habitat of climate-stressed species (pretty much all species native to NSF), preventing habitat fragmentation and reconnecting previously fragmented habitat, maximizing the amount of carbon stored in above ground trees and roots and soils, and minimizing carbon emissions from harvesting (machinery in logging operations and intensive cutting) and motorized vehicles. ATVs are a non-essential, optional recreation activity, and their carbon emissions are considerable. On the issue of Climate Change alone, ATVs should be banned from all public lands, especially NH’s Crown Jewel, the Nash Stream Forest.
Impacts of ATVs on Traditional Recreation in Nash Stream Forest
When there is a conflict between non-traditional and traditional recreation activities in the Nash Stream Forest, non-traditional uses, such as ATVs, must yield to the traditional activities that were a central part of the original management vision and goals.
Anglers seek peace and quiet while fishing. NH F&G biologists report hearing ATVs several hundred feet from the mainstem of the Nash Stream.
$1.3 million dollars was spent to restore brook trout to the Nash Stream and its tributaries. Dust from ATVs and erosion caused by ATVs negatively impacts the clean and clear water that trout require to survive and reproduce. The failure to take regular water quality sampling jeopardizes this investment and places the “rights” of non-traditional recreationists ahead of those of traditional recreationists as well as the mandate of the state to protect ecosystem integrity.
The Cohos Trail serves hikers, another cherished traditional recreation activity in the NSF. Hikers on the Cohos Trail have endured noise, intense dust, and unpleasant interactions with some ATV drivers. The trail has had to re-locate some sections to avoid danger and unpleasant encounters. This is another example of ATV users externalizing the costs of their high-impact activity onto others. Did the BOT pay for this relocation out of ATV registration funds?
Economic Studies—Never Performed
When reviewing the KN Trail proposal in January 2013, Ken Desmarais of the Forest Management Bureau wrote to then-Director of DFL Brad Simkins: “The Forest Management Bureau’s approval of Kelsey Notch was predicated on the economic benefits of Ride the Wilds, which were not, and have not been, supported by any credible documentation.”
The MOU for Kelsey Notch touts the “economic benefits” of ATVs. No supporting evidence is offered.
Every new call for more ATV trails on Nash Stream is accompanied by claims of the
economic benefits of ATVs to the North Country Economy. Nearly nine years after Ken Desmaris lamented there have been no credible documentation of these claims, we still have no credible study that shows that the benefits of the unprecedented growth of ATVs are enough to justify the clear harms and costs of this unplanned, largely unregulated growth of ATVs.
No one disputes that some businesses benefit from the infusion of ATV riders to the North Country. Boosters of ATVs never acknowledge the costs. Here are some harms that must be calculated in any honest cost-benefit accounting of ATVs:[9]
• We need to document externalities imposed by ATVs on the natural and human communities of Coos County. These externalities must be internalized so that those who cause the problems must either cease causing them or pay the costs for addressing the harms they inflict.
The nearly $4 million the BOT receives annually from registration fees should pay to internalize ATV-caused externalities, including:
-The rehabilitation of degraded lands and water quality;
-Harmful impacts on wildlife, including habitat degradation and fragmentation, and stress;
-Pollution (including oil and gasoline particles in wetlands);
-Greenhouse gas emissions;
-The costs of monitoring are another cost imposed on the general public. BOT funds should pay for independent, comprehensive monitoring.
• An Economic Study needs to document where funds spent on ATV recreation end up. What percentage remains to re-circulate in the regional Coos economy? What percentage of total ATV expenditures leak out of the regional economy and go to ATV manufacturers and gasoline corporations? How much of the local shopping goes to locally-owned businesses, services, and downtown stores? How much goes to absentee corporations such as Wal-Marts and McDonalds?
• We need an independent inquiry to answer the question: Are ATV’s the solution to the economic crisis in Coos County that began with the demise of the paper industry over two decades ago? What sort of diverse, low-carbon economy do we require and desire?
ATV Master Plan
In January 2013, Jim Oehler of NH Fish and Game lamented the absence of a coherent ATV plan for the North Country: “Additionally, due to the potential cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife from an expanded North Country ATV system, and the need for increased law enforcement to regulate use of that system. The NH F&G Department requests that the NH Trails Bureau develop a North Country ATV plan that includes maps that clearly indicate the location of proposed trails, their proximity to the state and other conserved lands (including easement trails), and locations of stream crossings. Plan text should also discuss potential impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats and how those impacts will be mitigated, an assessment of potential impacts to other types of outdoor recreation including hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching that also contribute significant dollars to local and state economies.
“This plan should be completed prior to moving forward with additional North Country trail expansions. Not doing so will surely lead to negative unintended consequences, some of which may be irreversible. Others of which will take substantially more time and effort to address compared to dealing with them up front.” (emphasis added.) Oehler’s advice has been ignored by BOT for nine years.
Many commenters to the 2017 Draft Revision of the 1995 Management Plan complained of inadequate planning of trail expansions, the opening of town roads to ATVs, and significant negative impacts to residential areas.
A representative committee of citizens, along the lines of the 1990 Nash Stream Advisory Committee that wrote the original NSF Management Plan, should develop such a Master Plan for ATVs in Coos County. It should be part of a more comprehensive plan to transition Coos County to a low carbon economy.
Recommendation
There is a misunderstanding about approval of high impact projects such as adding more ATV trails to the Nash Stream Forest. The burden of proof is not on the public to demonstrate harm; the burden of proof is on the proponents of ATV trail expansions to demonstrate that a new trail will have no adverse impact on ecosystem integrity, wildlife, and traditional recreation activities, nor will it undermine in any way efforts to slow and reverse climate change.
• Despite its flaws, monitoring of the KN Trail has documented considerable erosion that poses a threat to water quality.
• Erosion and dust generated by high ATV traffic, exacerbated by warming stream temperatures due to global warming, jeopardize the long-term viability and survival of brook trout in Nash Stream, where $1.3 million was spent to restore depleted populations. ATVs have access to over one thousand miles of trails outside the NSF, whereas brook trout have nowhere to escape to if Nash Stream water quality is degraded by dust and sedimentation and stream temperatures rise due to climate change. ATV trails in NSF are not essential to the survival of ATV trail access in Coos County. Pure, clear, cool water in Nash Stream is essential for the survival of its recently restored brook trout population.
• Monitoring has discovered invasive plant species hitchhiking into the NSF on ATVs and maintenance vehicles. The proposed treatment of invasives—applying herbicides—makes a bad situation worse. Closing ATV trails is the surest and cheapest way to deter the spread of invasives into NSF and protect water quality and wildlife from carcinogenic herbicides.
• Despite claims that ATVs have minor, mitigatable impacts on Nash Stream Forest ecosystem integrity, no studies or other documentation has been provided to back up those claims.
• Alleged economic benefits of ATV access to trails in NSF have not been confirmed by any credible, independent economic study that assesses both benefits and costs, including the costs of externalities and foregone economic opportunities.
The Nash Stream Forest Citizens’ Committee must recommend that CORD terminate the Kelsey Notch Trail experiment and permanently close the Kelsey Notch Trail to all OHRV traffic.
[1] Though written in 1990, the formal release of the NSF Management Plan occurred in 1995, probably due to delays in assembling Tech Team data.
[2] Peter Benson & David Publicover, “Minority Report” to Nash Stream ATV Study Committee, 2002.
[3] NSF Management Plan, 1995, pages 61 and 64.
[4] Nash Stream Management Plan, 2017, Appendix C. The Appendix pages are unnumbered, but this passage occurs on page 287 of 340).
[5] Nash Stream Citizens Committee Minutes, June 27, 2018.
[6] See pages 286-289 (out of 340 pages) in the current NSSF Management Plan.
[7] Current NSF Management Plan, page 309 of 340 (these pages are unnumbered.)
[8] Nash Stream Citizens Committee Minutes November 2, 2017.
[9] Note: In addition to a cost-benefit analysis, we need a regional economic assessment of the potential for low-carbon, locally-owned, value-adding forestry and agricultural opportunities, as well as low-carbon recreation and tourism opportunities and other economic and cultural options to achieve a low carbon, diverse economy that benefits local citizens and communities, rather than absentee investors and exploiters, as, sadly, is too often the case today.