The Environmental League of Massachusetts (ELM) asks to be recorded in opposition to S.1031. In essence, this bill would repeal existing regulations governing the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in our state’s forests and parks, allowing unlimited, year-round access.

If adopted, S.1031 would amend section 38A of chapter 132 (MGL 1994) by allowing motorized trail bikes and ORVs equal access to all parklands managed by the DEM. Not only would ORV users have new access privileges, but these privileges would extend to the entire year. The damage that would result from the passage of this legislation would be both far-reaching and long-term.

Allowing ORVs unlimited, year-round access to forest and park trails would interfere with traditional outdoor recreation and result in ecological devastation that would reflect a major setback in environmental protection. ORVs are heavy, treaded vehicles, contributing to soil compaction and erosion, which depletes nutrients that are vital for the continued health of forest flora. New, unauthorized trails are often created, and trails are widened as riders attempt to avoid obstacles.

Severe impact to wetlands and rare species habitat have been cited as a result of excessive ORV usage, which in turn affects local wildlife populations. In fact, the DEM must restrict current patterns of ORV use or risk violating the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Outdoor enthusiasts, who visit state forest and parks to enjoy the tranquility and peace they afford, are greeted by roaring motor bikes and concerns of physical safety.

The DEM’s original proposal to limit ORV use to no more than three permitted events per facility per year met with strong, vocal opposition from user groups, causing DEM Commissioner Peter Webber to agree to a compromise proposal in May of 1996. The current regulations allow ORV usage from May 1-November 1 in nine designated parks. The policy requires the DEM to enter into Memoranda of Agreements with ORV user groups. The agreements hold trail rider groups responsible for damage to trails, and require them to help with trail maintenance. While not ideal, these regulations offer a level of protection to the parks that would be lost under S.1031. Furthermore, as agreed upon, these regulations are currently under review. The review began at the end of the 1998 riding season and according to the published timeline will conclude at the end of this month. It is unclear to me what will be gained by undermining this systematic process for examining the policy of ORV use.

It is worthwhile to note that ORV users in Massachusetts make up a small percentage of the population – 7.2% of park visitors and 1.1% of the state. Interestingly, a significant percentage of riders that turned out to voice opposition to Commissioner Webber’s original proposal were from neighboring states where ORV use on state lands has been banned.

Adopting legislation that removes current restrictions on ORVs would succeed in placating the cries of ORV users, but would fall terribly short of limiting environmental damage, and undermine the thoughtful process of policy review which DEM is already undertaking. We, therefore, urge the Committee to reject S.1031.

Thank you for considering my testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

Namrita Kapur

Legislative Director