HB683

I hike Nh trails daily avoiding trails that allow OHRVS because of the noise, very vile smell, and the danger to me & my dog as the OHRVS often sneak up on you very fast especially around curves. Please veto this bill as it will destroy the natural serene quiet of NH forests and trails. Thank you for your time and attention, Thia Newport, NH

New Hampshire is known for its quiet and solitude, qualities which are valued by residents and visitors alike, and the consequences of this bill would disrupt that for all. I recognize the desire for additional OHRV access in certain areas around the state, however, I believe a broad approval like the language in HB683 is problematic and inappropriate for New Hampshire residents and communities. In a time when every dollar counts in our state and town budgets, it would be extremely problematic to allow additional activity that would require more town and state expenditures on road maintenance following the actions of a few individuals. All of us will end up paying more for the actions of a small segment of the population. OHRV use on state roads in the aforementioned counties will also quickly become a safety concern. Specific and major impacts are the noise and large amount of wear on and beside roads. It is also concerning that this bill would be considered without further understanding of the fiscal impact on the state.

Thank you for considering my opposition to this Bill. I oppose HB683 as I believe that OHRV petitioners should pay the cost for notifying abutters before any new OHRV activity. As a resident of Merrimack County, I believe that the operation of OHRV’s on state roads would have major unwanted impacts on the quality of roads and the quality of life for my neighbors and myself. I believe that the expanded potential for OHRV use on state roads in counties other than Grafton and Coos, where there is already interest and infrastructure, would increase unwanted costs for road maintenance for residents who value the safety and quiet of the woods without OHRV traffic. Thank you for considering my opposition to HB683. Alyssa Kreilick

I oppose this bill wholeheartedly because of the drastic environmental consequences to the land and wildlife, the additional pollution of the air, and the invasion of privacy that would inevitably take place.

Please don't allow "OFF-HIGHWAY" vehicles to drive on NH highways. This is a recipe for disaster. We're already seeing record numbers of accidents, include fatalities on our highways.

I don't want to allow OHRVs to use state and town roads (especially class 5 gravel roads and class six roads) in my municipality, Thank you

we would like to echo and reenforce the tesomony of others and "I oppose HB683 as believe that OHRV petitioners should pay the cost for notifying abutters before any new OHRV activity. It is their petition, therefore they should pay the cost. I am also extremely opposed to the operation of OHRVs on state roads in counties other than Grafton and Coos. Grafton and Coos counties have embraced OHRV use and have infrastructure to support it, however, the additional counties proposed do not. It would be unfair to NH landowners and residents in Merrimack, Hillsborough, Cheshire, Carroll, and Sullivan counties for an activity with such a significant impact to occur with state approval in this manner. Specific and major impacts are the noise and large amount of wear on and beside roads. It is also concerning that this bill would be considered without further understanding of the fiscal impact on the state. In a time when every dollar counts in our state and town budgets, it would be extremely problematic to allow additional activity that would require more town and state expenditures on road maintenance following the actions of a few individuals. All of us will end up paying more for the actions of a small segment of the population. OHRV use on state roads in the aforementioned counties will also quickly become a safety concern. Having lived on a road with OHRV use allowed, I have personally witnessed the dangers to pedestrians, bikers, vehicles and OHRV users themselves due to reckless behavior on public roads. New Hampshire is known for its quiet and solitude, qualities which are valued by residents and visitors alike, and the consequences of this bill would disrupt that for all. I recognize the desire for additional OHRV access in certain areas around the state, however, I believe a broad approval like the language in HB683 is problematic and inappropriate for New Hampshire residents and communities. "

Water is NH’s most vital resource. Vital to the health of its citizens and to its economy. House Bill 683 will negatively impact NH’s water quality. Most Class VI roads run through fragile ecosystems. OHRVs degrade the surface of these roads leading to erosion. This leads to the formation of gullies and channels which amplifies runoff, causing greater volumes of soil to be dumped into streams, ponds and lakes. It is these very water bodies which attract so many to NH for recreation (far more than come for OHRV use) and which serve as the backbone for the state’s drinking water. And what funding exists to repair the damage done to these roads by the OHRV’s? Many if not most of these Class VI roads are not currently maintained. Please let local boards and governing bodies make the decisions regarding which of these roads can best handle OHRV use.

I oppose HB683 as I believe that OHRV petitioners should pay the cost for notifying abutters before any new OHRV activity. It is their petition, therefore they should pay the cost. I am also extremely opposed to the operation of OHRVs on state roads in counties other than Grafton and Coos. Grafton and Coos counties have embraced OHRV use and have infrastructure to support it, however, the additional counties proposed do not. It would be unfair to NH landowners and residents in Merrimack, Hillsborough, Cheshire, Carroll, and Sullivan counties for an activity with such a significant impact to occur with state approval in this manner. Specific and major impacts are the noise and large amount of wear on and beside roads. It is also concerning that this bill would be considered without further understanding of the fiscal impact on the state. In a time when every dollar counts in our state and town budgets, it would be extremely problematic to allow additional activity that would require more town and state expenditures on road maintenance following the actions of a few individuals. All of us will end up paying more for the actions of a small segment of the population. OHRV use on state roads in the aforementioned counties will also quickly become a safety concern. Having lived on a road with OHRV use allowed, I have personally witnessed the dangers to pedestrians, bikers, vehicles and OHRV users themselves due to reckless behavior on public roads. New Hampshire is known for its quiet and solitude, qualities which are valued by residents and visitors alike, and the consequences of this bill would disrupt that for all. I recognize the desire for additional OHRV access in certain areas around the state, however, I believe a broad approval like the language in HB683 is problematic and inappropriate for New Hampshire residents and communities.

I choose quiet woods for healthier enjoyment by the public and healthier enjoyment for all woodland creatures

Southard Family HB 683-FN Testimony 2/12/25 Bradford, NH • Our family lives at the junction of dirt roads in Bradford, NH. We have years of experience with illegal ATV traffic causing extremely loud noise and often driving at excessive speed directly in front of our home. This activity risks the safety of our young children and impairs our quality of life. The goal of this bill is to increase Off Highway Recreational Vehicle access to NH highways by altering the abutter notification requirement. We are acutely aware why abutter notification is important. • On May 7, 2018 a proposal to establish an ATV trail on Bradford’s Class VI roads was made to our Select Board by an out-of-town ATV Club. There was no public notice of this proposal other than the Select Board’s agenda. • On May 14th the Chair of the Bradford Conservation Commission attended the next Select Board meeting regarding a separate issue and learned about the ATV proposal. Having been forewarned of ATV problems in Warner and Newbury, she alerted Conservation Commission members. In the meantime, the Select Board requested additional information from the ATV Club before moving to adopt the proposal. • On June 4th a standing room only crowd of Bradford citizens attended the next Select Board meeting and voiced their concerns. Meeting minutes reflect that the Board was still leaning toward adopting the proposal but wanted additional information. • On June 18 the Bradford Conservation Commission provided a formal presentation regarding the adverse impact ATVs would have on the environment, citizen safety, town expense and on the quality of life for families living along the trails. Testimony was also provided by an officer from NH Fish & Game regarding the challenges of ATV law enforcement with very limited resources and what responsibilities the town would incur by allowing ATV use on the roads. Minutes from this meeting reflected the following: “While the Board had been leaning towards supporting the request to let the Club adopt the roads, after the feedback and additional information presented, ultimately the Board decided against approving the Woodlands ATV Club’s request." • Removing petitioner payment for abutter notification significantly increases the risk that notification will not occur. As noted above, allowing the community to voice their perspective in Select Board decisions can change the outcome. Unfortunately, it appears that the intent of this bill is to limit community involvement when ATV expansion is being proposed. We believe that this is unfair and ask for your help in defeating this bill.

OHRVs are known to cause the following adverse effects to conservations lands: 1. Soil compaction and erosion 2. Damage to vegetation 3. Disruption of wildlife habitats 4. Increased runoff 5. Reduced water quality 6. Noise pollution 7. Potential damage to sensitive ecosystems like wetlands This is in opposition to the goals and purposes of our many land conservation organizations such as the Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust. Therefore, as a hiker, hunter and resident of the great state of New Hampshire, I strongly oppose HB683.

Plain and simple, I oppose legislation that promotes ATV’s

I 100% oppose this bill since I live with these horrible OHRV’s in my residential neighborhood for the entire summer. May through October.

Dear Members, I would like to express my strong opposition to HB 683. I understand that you may receive a larger number of supportive comments from the OHRV community, but their are certainly many more of us who do don't want to see additional expansion of OHRV usage on our state and town roads. Thank you, John Walsh

1. Not notifying abutters means private property owners will have no voice in decisions regarding their property. 2 OHRV on state roads is unsafe for riders and auto drivers 3 OHRV are OFF HIGHWAY Recreational Vehicles by design. 4. Recreation should not over ride the rights of property tax paying residents. Our taxes must pay for the road damage OHRVs do. I live on a rural road where OHRVs were given access without notifying abutters. Their noise, speeding and purposeful intimidation (we’ve had to call the police) has ruined our previously peaceful summer weekends. We don’t want that to happen to anyone else.

We live on a previously quiet rural road. OHRVs were allowed on our road without notifying abutters. The noise, speeding and intimidation of us private property owners has ruined our summer days. HB683 will do this to others. It also infringes on the free speech of property owners. Our property taxes are footing the bill for the road repairs OHRVs cause. After all OHRV IS OFF HIGHWAY Recreational Vehicles

I oppose this bill. OHRV operation on roads is problematic at best and defined in their description: "Off Highway Recreational Vehicle." To allow more of them on roads without notification to abutters at the expense of those wanting additional access is contrary to common sense and established policy. Home owners should have a say in what they will have to endure with noisy OHRVs going past their homes. At the very least, move this topic to the on-going HB1188 Commission to handle.

Isn't there a committee that is looking into the effects of OHRVs that has a couple years to submit their findings? I find these OHRV bills to be looking for ways for OHRV clubs to bypass that committee's input and foist their desire to drive where ever they wish. Petitioners wishing to change the use of a road should be paying to notify abutters so that they can have their say. This law would increase ATV use, bringing more riders into areas, bringing the problems that already exist in the north country down to more populated areas. I live on a small road in Hillsboro and ATVs are not allowed, yet we still have problems. The police can't help, as an ATV is gone into the woods by the time an officer can come.

I oppose HR683 because OHRVs on our highways, roads, and sidewalks will be dangerous for all who travel and increase road maintenance costs, especially for towns like Mason that have many miles of gravel Class V roads.

My family has owned our property for 40 years, and recently our right to quiet use and enjoyment has been significantly diminished by the Town’s permitting of ATVs on our road. The ATV riders have substantially increased overall vehicle traffic during ATV season. They are very loud, damage our road and parts of the roadside, which the town pays to repair at the end of the season, and they create a substantial amount of dust, particularly when riding by in groups, as they often to do. HB 683-FN would enable even more riders to access our road. Almost everyone who has chosen to live on our road has done so because our area was once peaceful and secluded, and it is ironic that our once sleepy road has been recently converted to a summer highway for loud recreational vehicles.

I absolutely do not agree with allowing OHRVs to use town and state roads, no matter how rural the community is. This is a very bad and unsafe idea. Also, when new trails are being proposed, and land owners who are abutters need to be notified, it is the people who are using the trails who should be responsible for paying for this process. It should not be citizens who have nothing to do with OHRV use that should have to pay for those expenses. Vote no on this proposed legislation.

I absolutely do not agree with allowing OHRVs to use town and state roads, no matter how rural the community is. This is a very unsafe and bad idea. Also, users should pay user fees when they need infrastructure that costs money. OHRV users should be paying for notice to abutters when trails are proposed near their land. This is not a fee that town citizens should be paying.