BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 628 HEARING DATE: June 28, 2011
AUTHOR: Conway URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 23, 2011 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Vehicles: off-highway vehicle recreation: County of
Inyo.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law prohibits an off-highway motor vehicle (OHV) from
being driven upon any public highway or street, except to cross
a highway or when a highway is closed due to snow. Existing
law, however, also allows a local authority, the federal
government, or the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to
permit both OHVs and motor vehicles on road segments of up to
three miles in length under its jurisdiction (combined-use
highway), if all of the following conditions are met:
The segment connects OHV trails, connects an OHV
recreational use area and necessary services, or connects an
OHV recreational use area to lodging facilities;
The local authority finds that the road segment is
designed and constructed to safely permit the use of regular
vehicular traffic and the driving of OHVs;
The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
declares that allowing combined use on the road segment
would not create a potential traffic safety hazard;
The local authority adopts a resolution or ordinance
authorizing the combined use and prescribing rules and
regulations governing that combined use; and
The local authority erects signs on and along the road
indicating combined use.
Drivers of OHVs that are operated on the road pursuant to a
local authority's combined use authorization must comply with
all provisions of the California Vehicle Code, 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, however, may an OHV be operated on a
1
road after dark.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would allow Inyo County (county) to develop a pilot
project in which segments of highways can be designated for
combined-use to link existing OHV trails and trailheads, and to
link OHV recreational-use areas with necessary service and
lodging facilities so long as each segment does not exceed
10-miles each. Specifically, this bill would:
Require the county to prescribe a procedure to designate
combined-use highways. The procedure must be approved by a
majority vote of the Board of Supervisors.
Require the county to establish uniform specifications and
symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices to
control OHVs on combined-used highways including signs to
designate right-of-way, warning signs, and maximum speed.
Prohibit speeds greater than 35 miles per hour on
combined-used highways.
Require CHP to find that the designated combined-use highways
do not create a potential safety hazard before the county
designates a road segment for combined use.
The county, in consultation with the CHP, Department of
Transportation, and DPR shall prepare and submit a report to the
Legislature evaluating the pilot project by January 1, 2016. The
report must include a description of the combined-use highways
and an evaluation of the overall safety and effectiveness of the
pilot project including its impact on traffic flows and safety.
This pilot project would sunset on January 1, 2017.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the Inyo County Board of Supervisors, in support of
the bill, "Assembly Bill 628 represents an attempt by one local
community to enhance its recreational opportunities by improving
its ability to utilize existing OHV routes on public lands. The
means of doing so involves only the County roads within the
jurisdiction of Inyo County. By better utilizing existing OHV
opportunities, this bill will enhance OHV recreation without
detriment to those many among us who treasure the County's
wilderness experiences, or to the many among us who value both
non-motorized and motorized recreation. The Inyo County Board of
Supervisors believes this bill will improve our rural
communities and our rural economy by further promoting our
tourist opportunities."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
2
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), in
opposition to the bill along with a coalition of environmental
organizations, state concerns that the pilot program: (1) does
not require the county to consider protection of wildlife or
cultural resources and impacts to rural residents in the
designations, (2) will further stress law enforcement needs, (3)
unnecessarily enhances OHV recreation in a county where there is
already "ample opportunity," (4) will negatively impact
non-motorized recreational opportunities, and (5) sets a
precedent for other counties. In an earlier letter, PEER
emphasized that law enforcement in Inyo County is already
overwhelmed by OHV use and stated, "The Inyo County Sheriff's
Office recently requested a �law enforcement] grant from the
State's Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, citing AB
628's 'serious potential for a massive influx of OHV
enthusiasts' and 'the need for additional OHV enforcement.'"
Community ORV Watch, expresses concern regarding the safety of
allowing OHVs greater contact on roads and highways. For
example, they site the federal all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety
guidelines that state that ATVs should not be driven on paved
surfaces because their design makes turning on pavement
difficult and dangerous. ATVs can easily tip over and roll, and
ATVs do not have features to protect the rider from collisions.
Furthermore, they note "�Off-road vehicles] are not required to
carry insurance but on the road create hazardous conditions that
increase the liability for street legal vehicles."
COMMENTS
The 10-mile limitation is per each segment, with no limit on the
number of segments in the pilot program : Last year, the
Legislature passed a very similar measure, AB 2338 (Conway,
2010), which would have removed the three-mile distance
limitation on combined-use highways in Inyo County unless the
CHP Commissioner found that such a designation would create a
potential traffic safety hazard. The Governor vetoed the measure
stating, "This bill could expose the state to liability issues
if the CHP allows joint use by off-highway vehicles and vehicles
on roads in Inyo County and an accident occurs. The liability
could result in significant costs to the state."
The author has attempted to address the Governor's concern by
limiting the distance of each individual segment to no more than
ten miles. However, the committee should note that the bill
contains no limit on the number of segments of combined-use
highways that can be designated, nor does the bill place a
cumulative cap on the total distance of combined-use highways
3
designated in the county. The author submitted a map to the
committee with proposed routes that have been developed by a
stakeholder group. The map indicates at least ten areas where
the county might desire combined-use highways with some of the
areas potentially needing multiple segments to achieve the
desired route. The Committee may wish to consider whether the
ten-mile per segment limitation sufficiently limits the state's
liability.
Why does the county desire authorization for combined-use
highway segments of up to ten miles instead of the current
three-mile limit? The author contends that Inyo County is a land
well-suited for OHV recreation and the three-mile limit is too
rigid. Allowing combined-use highways that are up to ten miles
in length will allow the county to connect more OHV trails,
thereby boosting the tourist economy in the area. The author
contends that this pilot program should improve resource
protection because by providing legal connections between
trails, OHV riders will be less likely to trespass across
private land and deviate from legal trails in order to get to
other trailheads or to access amenities. On the other hand,
opponents do not believe that there is a need for improved OHV
recreation in Inyo County, especially since the Inyo National
Forest recently designated over 900 miles of additional OHV
trails. Also, opponents believe that this pilot program will
encourage more OHV activity, which may spur more illegal OHV
activity (especially given insufficient law enforcement
presence), negatively impact rural residents, and cause
detrimental impacts to the county's significant non-OHV
recreational opportunities.
Given that the concerns regarding combined-use highway
designation go beyond traffic safety, the committee may wish to
require that the designation of combined-use be for the purpose
of unifying system trails, preserving traffic safety, improving
natural resource protection, and reducing trespass. (See
amendment 1)
How should the programs "effectiveness" be measured? This bill
would require the county to prepare a written report after the
fourth year of the pilot project that will assess the overall
safety and effectiveness of the pilot project. However, the bill
does not specify how "effectiveness" should be judged except for
traffic flows and safety. According to Susan Cash, the chair of
the Inyo County Board of Supervisors, the county will determine
if the pilot project is effective by "�considering] usage and
visitor data, as well as monitoring to see if incursion into
4
non-OHV areas is reduced." The committee may wish to ensure that
the pilot program be evaluated more holistically by expanding
the factors that the report to also include the project's impact
on OHV usage of existing trails, incursions into non-off-highway
vehicles areas, and impacts to non-motorized recreation. In
recognition that many trespass and off-trail violations do not
actually result in citations, the committee may also wish to
require that the county hold at least one public meeting to
receive public comment regarding the evaluation of the program,
which must be reflected in the report. (See amendment 2)
What is the appropriate length and boundaries of pilot program?
Given the interest of this pilot program to both supporters and
opponents, the committee may wish to require that an interim
progress report be submitted to the Legislature after the second
year of the program. (See amendment 3)
Also, to address concerns that this pilot program is precedent
setting, the committee may wish to explicitly express the
Legislature's intent that this pilot project not be expanded in
scope or to allow other areas of the state until the Legislature
receives the final pilot program evaluation report after the
fourth year of the program. (See amendment 4)
The Committee may wish to further require the county to
establish a procedure on how to remove a combined-use
designation, including as a result of the end of the pilot
program. (See amendment 5)
Clarification amendments : The Committee may wish to request two
clarification amendments that specify that the Board of
Supervisors must approve the designation procedures with a
majority vote and that the final report describe the actual road
segments designated, not the proposed segments. (See amendments
6 and 7)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 4, line 13, after "vehicles" insert:
preserve traffic safety, improve natural resource protection,
reduce off-highway vehicle trespass on private land, and
minimize impacts on county residents.
AMENDMENT 2
On page 5, line 14, delete "safety." and insert:
safety, off-highway vehicle usage on existing trails, incursions
into areas not designated for off-highway vehicle usage, and
5
non-motorized recreation.
(3) A description of the public comments received at a public
hearing held by the county in regards to an evaluation of the
pilot program."
AMENDMENT 3
On page 5, after line 2, insert:
(d) Not later than January 1, 2014, the County of Inyo, shall
prepare and submit to the Legislature an interim progress report
describing the roads allowed for combined use and preliminary
data regarding the overall safety and effectiveness of the pilot
program as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
AMENDMENT 4
On page 2, on line 26, after "state." insert:
It is further the intent of the Legislature that given the
significant change in policy regarding combined-use highways
being tested in this pilot program, that the pilot project shall
not be expanded in scope or to include other areas of the state
until the Legislature receives a final program evaluation.
AMENDMENT 5
On page 4, after line 17, insert:
(2) Prescribe a procedure for the county to remove a
combined-use designation, including designations that are
removed as a result of the end of the pilot program.
AMENDMENT 6
Beginning on page 5, on lines 9, delete, "proposed road
segments to be allowed for" and insert:
road segments designated to allow
AMENDMENT 7
On page 4, line 16, delete "designation" and insert:
designation. The procedure should be approved
SUPPORT
Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau
Bishop Lions Club
City of Bishop
Friends of the High Lakes
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Sheriff of Inyo County
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION
California Native Plant Society
6
Center for Biological Diversity
Center For Sierra Nevada Conservation
Community ORV Watch
Defenders of Wildlife
Desert Protective Council
Friends of Hope Valley
ORV Watch Kern County
Morongo Basin Conservation Association, Inc.
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Sierra Club California
Western San Bernardino County Landowners' Association
The Wilderness Society
Several individuals
7