BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1345 Hearing Date: 4/19/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Berryhill |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |3/28/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Sarah Carvill |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Vehicles: off-highway vehicle recreation: County of
Sierra
DIGEST: This bill authorizes Sierra County to establish a pilot
program for designating road segments greater than three miles
in length for combined use by cars and off-highway motor
vehicles, and extends the sunset on Inyo County's existing pilot
program for the same purpose.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law generally prohibits an off-highway motor vehicle
(OHV) from being driven upon any public highway or street,
except to cross a highway under certain circumstances, or when a
highway is closed due to snow. However, existing law allows a
local authority, the federal government, or the Department of
Parks and Recreation to permit "combined use" by OHVs and motor
vehicles on road segments under its jurisdiction of up to three
miles in length for the purpose of connecting OHV trails or
connecting OHV trails with services. A road segment cannot be
designated for combined use if the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) finds that doing so would create a potential traffic
safety hazard. The entity with jurisdiction over the road
segment must also erect signs approved by the California
Department of Transportation indicating that combined use is
permitted.
Drivers of OHVs that are operated on a combined-use road segment
must comply with all provisions of the California Vehicle Code,
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 2 of ?
including possessing a valid driver's license, obeying speed
laws, possessing evidence of insurance, and wearing a helmet
while on a motorcycle. In no case may an OHV be operated on a
road after dark.
Existing law also authorizes Inyo County to permit combined use
on road segments within its jurisdiction of up to 10 miles in
length. This authority is granted on a pilot basis with a
sunset date of January 1, 2017. In designing the program, the
County must:
1) Develop procedures for selecting and removing combined use
designations from road segments;
2) Establish uniform signage for combined use road segments
to control OHV traffic and advise pedestrians and regular
traffic that OHVs may be present;
3) Require OHVs to comply with the same state and federal
safety laws that apply to OHV drivers on traditional
combined-use road segments under three miles in length;
4) Prohibit OHVs from exceeding 35 miles per hour on
combined-use segments;
5) Provide an opportunity for public comment at a hearing to
evaluate the pilot project;
6) Agree to defend and indemnify the state against claims for
any safety-related losses or injuries arising from combined
use; and
7) Not approve a road segment for combined use if the CHP
finds that doing so would create a potential traffic safety
hazard.
Inyo County is also required, by January 1, 2016, to submit a
report to the legislature that:
1) Describes the road segments designated for combined use
under the program;
2) Evaluates the effect of the pilot program on safety,
traffic flow, off-highway vehicle usage on existing trails,
incursions into areas not designated for off-highway vehicle
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 3 of ?
usage, and nonmotorized recreation; and
3) Describes the public comments received in the public
hearing.
This bill:
1) Expands the authority to establish a pilot program for
combined use of road segments up to 10 miles in length, as
described in existing law, to Sierra County.
2) Requires Sierra County to submit a report to the
legislature, subject to the same requirements Inyo County
must meet under existing law, by January 1, 2019.
3) Authorizes both Sierra and Inyo Counties to operate their
respective pilot programs until January 1, 2020.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author, this bill supports Inyo
County in better regulating, managing, and analyzing its OHV
trail system by extending the existing combined-use pilot
program. The author states that Inyo County has unique
circumstances that warrant the pilot project, as less than
2% of its 10,000 square miles is privately owned and many of
its nearly 18,000 residents use OHVs as a common mode of
transportation. In addition, the author notes that tourism
is the largest contributor to the county's economy, and
expects that this project will help visitors use ATVs
responsibly. The author explains that the bill will affect
roughly graded gravel roads in an unincorporated area of the
county, and notes that these roads also play an important
role in staging OHV vehicles. By allowing staging to occur
in parking lots closer to town, the author argues that the
bill could spare narrow forest trails from being disturbed
by trucks and trailers unloading. The author also notes
that the report on the Inyo County pilot program indicated
that additional time and designated routes are needed to
fully evaluate this change in public policy, and that
preliminary evaluation did not suggest any detrimental
results (e.g., deaths, injuries, public safety complaints,
etc.) of the pilot program to date.
2) What's covered. The category of OHVs encompasses a
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 4 of ?
variety of vehicle types, including motorcycles,
snowmobiles, sand buggies, dune buggies, all-terrain
vehicles, Jeeps, and recreational utility vehicles (also
known as utility terrain vehicles or side-by-sides) that are
intended to be operated or used exclusively off the
highways. They are therefore not subject to the same
registration and safety equipment requirements as vehicles
that are routinely used on public streets.
3) No new trails. This bill authorizes two counties to allow
OHVs on roads used by regular traffic. It does not
establish any new trails or OHV recreation areas.
4) Legislative history. In 2010, the Governor vetoed a bill
(AB 2338, Conway) that would have allowed Inyo County to
permit combined use on road segments longer than three
miles, citing concerns about state liability in the event of
an accident. The following year, the Legislature passed and
the Governor signed AB 628 (Conway, Chapter 532, Statutes of
2011), which allowed Inyo County to designate road segments
up to 10 miles in length for combined use on a pilot basis,
and subject to several conditions. The bill addressed the
liability issue by (a) prohibiting Inyo County from
designating a road for combined use if the CHP finds that
the designation would create a potential safety hazard, and
(b) requiring the County to indemnify the state against
claims in the event of an accident on a combined use
segment.
5) Implementation delays. The pilot program was initially
controversial in Inyo County, and the Board of Supervisors
did not approve any routes until January 2015. At that
point, it authorized seven combined-use segments totaling 44
miles in length. Shortly thereafter, the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) and Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) sued the county, arguing
that the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project
was inadequate. The suit was settled in May 2015. Four of
the seven approved routes have still not been opened due to
ambiguity regarding the County's authority to maintain roads
when the underlying land is owned by another party. The
County is currently working with Inyo National Forest to
resolve this issue, and the remaining three routes were
opened between July 14 and August 5, 2015.
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 5 of ?
6) Safety concerns. While many states allow OHVs to be
operated on public roads under some circumstances, opponents
of the bill argue that these vehicles cannot safely share
the road with regular traffic because they are not equipped
with the safety features required in traditional cars (e.g.,
airbags). As such, OHVs may leave occupants extremely
vulnerable in on-road accidents. Additionally, the U.S.
Consumer Products Safety Commission, ATV manufacturers, and
ATV safety organizations agree that ATVs in particular are
not designed to operate on paved roads and can only be
operated safely in an off-road setting. This is due in part
to specific features of vehicle design that make some
maneuvers, such as turning, difficult on pavement. These
concerns do not apply equally to all OHVs: Some are
inherently more stable and protective of occupants than
others, and may even have been designed for road use.
However, the bill does not make any distinctions between
types of OHVs that are allowed on combined-use roads.
7) Regulated use versus increasing use. Supporters of this
bill argue that making it easier for OHV users to legally
access trails and services makes it less likely that these
individuals will access trails and services illegally, in
ways that are more likely to damage the environment or
threaten public safety. Opponents point out that increasing
the convenience of OHV recreation may attract additional OHV
users to the existing trail system, resulting in greater
damage to the environment and potential for injury.
8) What do the data show? With respect to safety, OHV use of
existing trails, OHV incursions into areas not designated
for their use, and impact of OHVs on non-motorized
recreation, neither Inyo County staff nor the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), which manages the affected OHV trails,
have observed any changes since the combined-use segments
were opened. However, Inyo County submitted its report on
the pilot program on December 15, 2015, less than six months
after the opening of the three combined-use routes currently
authorized under the program. Supporters of this
legislation argue that extending the sunset and authorizing
an additional county to conduct a pilot program is necessary
to obtain a more complete picture of the effect of longer
combined-use segments on traffic safety, the behavior of OHV
drivers, and the experiences of other recreationalists.
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 6 of ?
9) Why add a second county? Most of Inyo County's population
is concentrated in arid valleys east of the Sierra Nevada,
and all of the combined use routes approved as part of the
existing pilot program follow relatively straight, flat
roads. Supporters of the bill argue that including Sierra
County, where existing OHV trails are located in mountainous
terrain, will provide topographic and geographic balance to
any evaluation of the effects of longer combined use road
segments. However, this also means that the program could
be expanded to areas with windy roads that provide drivers
less opportunity to notice and avoid OHVs, and present
riskier operating conditions for ATVs.
10) Ten miles how many times? Neither this legislation nor
the bill that established the pilot program limits the
number of combined-use segments a county may designate under
the program. In Inyo County, the CBD/PEER lawsuit
settlement capped the number of road segments that could be
designated in the absence of additional environmental review
at the seven routes currently approved. It is possible that
future controversy might be avoided or limited by amendments
that restrict the number of combined-use segments that can
be instituted under the pilot program. At 962 square miles,
Sierra County is much smaller than Inyo County (10,227
square miles), suggesting that the number of OHV trails and
services - and, by extension, the number of combined-use
segments truly needed to connect them - may be smaller to
begin with.
11) More time, more routes, more reporting? This bill does
not require Inyo County to undertake any evaluation or
reporting beyond what was already completed in 2015 under
existing law. The bill therefore misses an opportunity to
capture data from the Inyo County program as it matures - in
spite of the fact that the need for additional data is one
justification for extending the pilot in Inyo County. The
author and committee may wish to consider amendments that
require Inyo County to issue a second report to the
Legislature by January 1, 2019, when the bill requires
Sierra County to issue its first report to the Legislature.
12) Gauging change. The December 2015 report on the Inyo
County pilot program notes that the BLM, which manages the
OHV trails at the end of all three currently open
combined-use roads, is tracking use of these areas with
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 7 of ?
grant funds that did not become available until this year.
Because there is no data on OHV use of these areas prior to
the implementation of the pilot program, it will not be
possible to determine whether OHV use increased once the
program was initiated. This example illustrates the
difficulty of drawing meaningful conclusions about how this
type of policy affects OHV user behavior, since the OHV
trails that are linked via combined-use roads are likely not
to be the subject of robust monitoring, and in many cases
are not under the jurisdiction of the state.
Related Legislation:
AB 2338 (Conway, 2010) - would have allowed Inyo County to
designate road segments over three miles in length for combined
use. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 628 (Conway, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2011) - allowed Inyo
County to designate road segments up to 10 miles in length for
combined use on a pilot basis.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 13, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
Inyo County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
Sierra County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION:
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation
Sierra Club California
SB 1345 (Berryhill) Page 8 of ?
1 individual
-- END --