S.B. 249 OHV Division Reauthorization Legislation
- Thread starter Butch
- Start date
Amy Granat of CORVA is responsible for half the content.
ThumperX
Well-known member
see signature
Similar thread http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=515884 in General for more viewage...
trailgal
Member
Lodge a Protest against DPR
We have a very important complaint we need to lodge against a newsletter produced weekly by the Communications Office of the Department of Parks and Recreation. They included a link to a hit piece on OHV by the California Native Plant Society.
California Native Plant Society is the organization that Garamendi/Connelly have used to funnel their money and hire the lobbyist who wrote SB 249.
The inclusion of this hit piece goes against everything State Parks should stand for: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/cnpsbulletin/v47.3_jul-sep2017.pdf
Please write an email to the following people and tell them this action is unacceptable:
Dennis.Weber@parks.ca.gov,
greg.imura@parks.ca.gov,
gloria.sandoval@parks.ca.gov
I'll follow with the test of the email I sent earlier today.
Amy
We have a very important complaint we need to lodge against a newsletter produced weekly by the Communications Office of the Department of Parks and Recreation. They included a link to a hit piece on OHV by the California Native Plant Society.
California Native Plant Society is the organization that Garamendi/Connelly have used to funnel their money and hire the lobbyist who wrote SB 249.
The inclusion of this hit piece goes against everything State Parks should stand for: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/cnpsbulletin/v47.3_jul-sep2017.pdf
Please write an email to the following people and tell them this action is unacceptable:
Dennis.Weber@parks.ca.gov,
greg.imura@parks.ca.gov,
gloria.sandoval@parks.ca.gov
I'll follow with the test of the email I sent earlier today.
Amy
Thanks. I thought the departments were disallowed from taking a position on legislation.
Should we ask for a retraction?
"To whom it may concern: please retract the link in Communications... newsletter to the severely biased CNPS article endorsing SB249. It is not in the interest of California to promote the agenda of a special interest group spreading misinformation"
Something like that? I will start a new thread to bring attention to this.
Should we ask for a retraction?
"To whom it may concern: please retract the link in Communications... newsletter to the severely biased CNPS article endorsing SB249. It is not in the interest of California to promote the agenda of a special interest group spreading misinformation"
Something like that? I will start a new thread to bring attention to this.
trailgal
Member
This was the text of my email of complaint. We are holding onto the fact that DPR should not take any political positions to use at the most appropriate time:
In the most recent edition of the California State Parks Weekly Digest you chose to publish a link to an article by the California Native Plant Society in reference to off-road vehicle use.
If your goal for the Digest is to further the following mission; "To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation", you have failed with your publication of the most recent Digest.
Including a link to an article which paints a highly negative view of legal off-road recreation opportunities offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by extension casts aspersions on those who enjoy recreating off-road, only serves to alienate - not inspire, millions of Californians.
In addition, the clear purpose for the publication of the article by the California Native Plant Society was to garner support from decision-makers for SB 249, which if passed as proposed, would effectively shut out families and children from enjoying safe, well-managed parks that offer off-road recreation opportunities.
There is a place for unbiased reporting and an associated benefit of supporting all points of view, which would entail seeking an opposing viewpoint to publish at the same time as the article by the California Native Plant Society. But evidently you did not believe it was important to reach out to advocates such as myself, who work to support the Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Division of the Department of Parks and Recreation, and support their goal to offer environmentally sustainable off-road recreation opportunities to citizens of California.
This was a highly regrettable decision.
In the most recent edition of the California State Parks Weekly Digest you chose to publish a link to an article by the California Native Plant Society in reference to off-road vehicle use.
If your goal for the Digest is to further the following mission; "To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation", you have failed with your publication of the most recent Digest.
Including a link to an article which paints a highly negative view of legal off-road recreation opportunities offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by extension casts aspersions on those who enjoy recreating off-road, only serves to alienate - not inspire, millions of Californians.
In addition, the clear purpose for the publication of the article by the California Native Plant Society was to garner support from decision-makers for SB 249, which if passed as proposed, would effectively shut out families and children from enjoying safe, well-managed parks that offer off-road recreation opportunities.
There is a place for unbiased reporting and an associated benefit of supporting all points of view, which would entail seeking an opposing viewpoint to publish at the same time as the article by the California Native Plant Society. But evidently you did not believe it was important to reach out to advocates such as myself, who work to support the Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Division of the Department of Parks and Recreation, and support their goal to offer environmentally sustainable off-road recreation opportunities to citizens of California.
This was a highly regrettable decision.
ThumperX
Well-known member
I copied and pasted your article along with the following into emails.
"As an active volunteer who has regularly planted and maintained sensitive eco-systems within the designated vehicle recreation areas I find it personally offensive that the DPR would publish a truly biased article on the subject. Furthermore, I would highly suggest that someone from the Native Plant Society spend a day with volunteers at one of our OHV Parks and see for themselves why these parks generate future conservationists."
"As an active volunteer who has regularly planted and maintained sensitive eco-systems within the designated vehicle recreation areas I find it personally offensive that the DPR would publish a truly biased article on the subject. Furthermore, I would highly suggest that someone from the Native Plant Society spend a day with volunteers at one of our OHV Parks and see for themselves why these parks generate future conservationists."
this just sent:
Please issue a retraction of the posted "Off-Highway Vehicle Reform: Environmental Damage from Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) activity is outpacing California's ability to repair it”.
This is absolutely untrue as the OHMVR Division is mitigating the footprint of OHVs.
Please retract the link in subject newsletter to the severely biased CNPS article endorsing SB249. It is not in the interest of California to promote the agenda of a special interest group spreading misinformation”
Please issue a statement to the Water Parks and Wildlife Committee meeting today that this misinformatin has been issued in error and shold not be considered in their decsion, or the input from their constituants who were tainted by this misinformation.
Please issue a retraction of the posted "Off-Highway Vehicle Reform: Environmental Damage from Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) activity is outpacing California's ability to repair it”.
This is absolutely untrue as the OHMVR Division is mitigating the footprint of OHVs.
Please retract the link in subject newsletter to the severely biased CNPS article endorsing SB249. It is not in the interest of California to promote the agenda of a special interest group spreading misinformation”
Please issue a statement to the Water Parks and Wildlife Committee meeting today that this misinformatin has been issued in error and shold not be considered in their decsion, or the input from their constituants who were tainted by this misinformation.
I'k gonna print this for Metcalf:
Please HELP save our OHV riding areas! SB 249 is designed to close them.
This is a modified reprint, provided by Don Amador of Quiet Warrior Racing, an an access advocate, in response to the erroneous State Park Newsletter.
This, with pictures, can be found at https://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2017/07/op-ed-rebuttal-to-cnpss-anti-ohv.html
You can also find information at bayarearidersforum.com in the “Riders Rights” forum, and the AMA and CORVA.
Please contact your Assemblymember, find them here
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and express your desire to have him/ her stop this bill, and support A.B. 1077.
Please review; This is really important:
SB 249 was crafted in the dark of night by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and a small group of extreme environmental groups over the course of the last two years without OHV involvement. At this time, not one OHV organization supports SB 249.
The bill fundamentally redirects this environmentally sound, highly successful and nationally acclaimed OHV program - with a recreation focus - to a non-OHV program with a preservation focus that relies on lawsuits and trail closures as primary “management” tools.
-pic in original- Engineered OHV Trail with OHV Bridge to Protect Stream Course Eldorado NF - Supported by CA OHV Grant Program
Since the creation of the California OHV program with the passage of the Chappie-Z’Berg OHV Act in 1971, OHV leaders have played an important role as stakeholders each time the program has come up for sunset review and reauthorization. OHV leadership has a wide variety of expertise in all issues relating to OHV recreation, both technical and environmental, with specific knowledge on the interaction between state and federal land management processes.
-pic in original- Sediment Catch Basin - Rubicon Trail Collaborative Project between CA OHV Grant Program, Eldorado County, Eldorado NF and OHV Recreationists
Entire sections of SB 249 significantly alter priorities in ways that are obviously unacceptable to active California recreationists. There are also numerous examples of incorrect definitions, calls for unnecessary reports and demands for duplicative agency consultation that portray a lack of understanding of the interplay already required to create best management practices for areas that host OHV recreation.
-pic in original- OHV Travel Management Sign - Carnegie SVRA
It is clear that CNPS and partners crafted this bill with a goal of unduly hampering and purposely setting roadblocks to a program that is world renowned for its existing high standards with regards to both recreation opportunities and environmental conditions. They want the motorized parks to be held to an environmental standard equal to the non-motorized parks – an absurdity at every level.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Restoration Project Tahoe NF
Furthermore there is no accountability for either reliably foreseen or unanticipated consequences of the drastic measures called for in the bill. Based on estimates from DPR and OHV experts, the magnitude of the costs to the state for land restoration and mitigation for federal, city and county lands, as called for by SB 249, could range from $11M to $20M per year. Expected legal liability cost estimates could be in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
SB 249 focuses solely on management of natural and cultural resources while ignoring important recreation-related water quality and soil erosion mitigation measures and trail facility maintenance activities.
-pic in original- Engineered Contour OHV Trail Carnegie SVRA
SB 249 contains errors in the description of adaptive management as it is used in conjunction with a monitoring program. To those experienced in land policy, adaptive management is an ongoing process of evaluation leading to changes in operations to improve on-the-ground conditions. Many components are part of this process, although the bill stresses solely natural and cultural resources.
-pic in original- Engineered OHV Trail with Rolling Dip and
Sediment Catch Basin Eldorado NF
OHV stakeholders believe that water quality, erosion and sedimentation evaluations are equally critical, although none of these important issues are mentioned. Furthermore, natural and cultural resources are mentioned many times in the bill without adequate definition which will only lead to confusion in future decisions.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Meadow Restoration Project Stanislaus NF
SB 249 seeks to prohibit use of existing roads in state vehicular recreation areas that were created by previous land owners. The bill would require the state to compile reports of accidents, citations and other infractions from all areas of the state, including federal lands, where off-road recreation occurs. This is a burden placed on no other unit of state parks, the information is not currently collected by state parks, nor is it required by any federal agency. Furthermore there is no justification for the need for this report, leading OHV leadership to conclude this is an unwarranted data collection effort that will be used by SB 249 proponents to discredit public land agencies and off-road recreationists.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Multi-Use Trail Eldorado NF
SB 249 requires the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division to change its purpose from managing for sustainable off-road recreation to primarily managing for non-recreation focused on the protection of natural and cultural resources.
-pic in original- Specialized Equipment to Maintain Trails Supported by CA OHV Grant Program
SB 249 seeks to portray and require restoration work to be done in an absolute fashion and be fully mitigated no matter the cause of the damage. Wildfires, earthquakes, rain and other weather phenomena can cause considerable damage, yet the effect of this damage is not differentiated from ongoing maintenance due to OHV activities. Other state parks are not responsible for acts of Mother Nature and it is inappropriate to place that burden on this program and this division. Minimizing impact to land from all forms of human interaction, whether through motorized or non-motorized activities is a goal already undertaken by all park units to the extent possible.
-pic in original- Sanitation Facilities to Protect Water Quality - Supported by CA OHV Grants
Rubicon Trail - Eldorado NF
SB 249 adds numerous agencies for consultation and written reports as requirements to be produced, which does nothing to improve environmental conditions on the ground. The redirected time will make performing environmental activities and restoration difficult, be extremely time consuming and add a considerable cost consideration for all entities concerned when there is no indication that anything is amiss in the current program.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Restoration Project Stanislaus NF
The OHMVR Division does much more than manage State Vehicular Recreation Areas (SVRAs). Its efforts include everything from law enforcement to supporting the economic viability of rural counties. The program also supports OHV recreation on lands managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and counties.
-pic in original CA OHV Grant Program Supports County LE/Search and Rescue Programs
Again, I believe the regulatory mandates and related compliance requirements place the entire program (SVRAs and units managed by the USFS/BLM/counties) in both legal and fiscal jeopardy. The legislation creates a target rich environment for future litigation based on the alleged failure of the OHVMR Division and other units to comply with a host of new and unwarranted regulations and reporting schedules.
OHV organizations are urging legislators and the Governor to support reauthorization of the current program that was substantially improved upon 10 years ago in a bipartisan manner under the leadership of Senator Darrell Steinberg (SB 742).
Please HELP save our OHV riding areas! SB 249 is designed to close them.
This is a modified reprint, provided by Don Amador of Quiet Warrior Racing, an an access advocate, in response to the erroneous State Park Newsletter.
This, with pictures, can be found at https://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2017/07/op-ed-rebuttal-to-cnpss-anti-ohv.html
You can also find information at bayarearidersforum.com in the “Riders Rights” forum, and the AMA and CORVA.
Please contact your Assemblymember, find them here
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and express your desire to have him/ her stop this bill, and support A.B. 1077.
Please review; This is really important:
SB 249 was crafted in the dark of night by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and a small group of extreme environmental groups over the course of the last two years without OHV involvement. At this time, not one OHV organization supports SB 249.
The bill fundamentally redirects this environmentally sound, highly successful and nationally acclaimed OHV program - with a recreation focus - to a non-OHV program with a preservation focus that relies on lawsuits and trail closures as primary “management” tools.
-pic in original- Engineered OHV Trail with OHV Bridge to Protect Stream Course Eldorado NF - Supported by CA OHV Grant Program
Since the creation of the California OHV program with the passage of the Chappie-Z’Berg OHV Act in 1971, OHV leaders have played an important role as stakeholders each time the program has come up for sunset review and reauthorization. OHV leadership has a wide variety of expertise in all issues relating to OHV recreation, both technical and environmental, with specific knowledge on the interaction between state and federal land management processes.
-pic in original- Sediment Catch Basin - Rubicon Trail Collaborative Project between CA OHV Grant Program, Eldorado County, Eldorado NF and OHV Recreationists
Entire sections of SB 249 significantly alter priorities in ways that are obviously unacceptable to active California recreationists. There are also numerous examples of incorrect definitions, calls for unnecessary reports and demands for duplicative agency consultation that portray a lack of understanding of the interplay already required to create best management practices for areas that host OHV recreation.
-pic in original- OHV Travel Management Sign - Carnegie SVRA
It is clear that CNPS and partners crafted this bill with a goal of unduly hampering and purposely setting roadblocks to a program that is world renowned for its existing high standards with regards to both recreation opportunities and environmental conditions. They want the motorized parks to be held to an environmental standard equal to the non-motorized parks – an absurdity at every level.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Restoration Project Tahoe NF
Furthermore there is no accountability for either reliably foreseen or unanticipated consequences of the drastic measures called for in the bill. Based on estimates from DPR and OHV experts, the magnitude of the costs to the state for land restoration and mitigation for federal, city and county lands, as called for by SB 249, could range from $11M to $20M per year. Expected legal liability cost estimates could be in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
SB 249 focuses solely on management of natural and cultural resources while ignoring important recreation-related water quality and soil erosion mitigation measures and trail facility maintenance activities.
-pic in original- Engineered Contour OHV Trail Carnegie SVRA
SB 249 contains errors in the description of adaptive management as it is used in conjunction with a monitoring program. To those experienced in land policy, adaptive management is an ongoing process of evaluation leading to changes in operations to improve on-the-ground conditions. Many components are part of this process, although the bill stresses solely natural and cultural resources.
-pic in original- Engineered OHV Trail with Rolling Dip and
Sediment Catch Basin Eldorado NF
OHV stakeholders believe that water quality, erosion and sedimentation evaluations are equally critical, although none of these important issues are mentioned. Furthermore, natural and cultural resources are mentioned many times in the bill without adequate definition which will only lead to confusion in future decisions.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Meadow Restoration Project Stanislaus NF
SB 249 seeks to prohibit use of existing roads in state vehicular recreation areas that were created by previous land owners. The bill would require the state to compile reports of accidents, citations and other infractions from all areas of the state, including federal lands, where off-road recreation occurs. This is a burden placed on no other unit of state parks, the information is not currently collected by state parks, nor is it required by any federal agency. Furthermore there is no justification for the need for this report, leading OHV leadership to conclude this is an unwarranted data collection effort that will be used by SB 249 proponents to discredit public land agencies and off-road recreationists.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Multi-Use Trail Eldorado NF
SB 249 requires the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division to change its purpose from managing for sustainable off-road recreation to primarily managing for non-recreation focused on the protection of natural and cultural resources.
-pic in original- Specialized Equipment to Maintain Trails Supported by CA OHV Grant Program
SB 249 seeks to portray and require restoration work to be done in an absolute fashion and be fully mitigated no matter the cause of the damage. Wildfires, earthquakes, rain and other weather phenomena can cause considerable damage, yet the effect of this damage is not differentiated from ongoing maintenance due to OHV activities. Other state parks are not responsible for acts of Mother Nature and it is inappropriate to place that burden on this program and this division. Minimizing impact to land from all forms of human interaction, whether through motorized or non-motorized activities is a goal already undertaken by all park units to the extent possible.
-pic in original- Sanitation Facilities to Protect Water Quality - Supported by CA OHV Grants
Rubicon Trail - Eldorado NF
SB 249 adds numerous agencies for consultation and written reports as requirements to be produced, which does nothing to improve environmental conditions on the ground. The redirected time will make performing environmental activities and restoration difficult, be extremely time consuming and add a considerable cost consideration for all entities concerned when there is no indication that anything is amiss in the current program.
-pic in original- CA OHV Grant Funded Restoration Project Stanislaus NF
The OHMVR Division does much more than manage State Vehicular Recreation Areas (SVRAs). Its efforts include everything from law enforcement to supporting the economic viability of rural counties. The program also supports OHV recreation on lands managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and counties.
-pic in original CA OHV Grant Program Supports County LE/Search and Rescue Programs
Again, I believe the regulatory mandates and related compliance requirements place the entire program (SVRAs and units managed by the USFS/BLM/counties) in both legal and fiscal jeopardy. The legislation creates a target rich environment for future litigation based on the alleged failure of the OHVMR Division and other units to comply with a host of new and unwarranted regulations and reporting schedules.
OHV organizations are urging legislators and the Governor to support reauthorization of the current program that was substantially improved upon 10 years ago in a bipartisan manner under the leadership of Senator Darrell Steinberg (SB 742).
Last edited:
this is the grants for preservation this year:
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/2016-17Restoration-FINAL.pdf
Anyone who supports dissolution of the OHV program (like my Senator Beall) obviously does not support preservation of habitat and the desert tortoise.
It is sad when legislators support legislation to support their pals, not to public service. We have to stop electing incumbents.
End of rant.
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/2016-17Restoration-FINAL.pdf
Anyone who supports dissolution of the OHV program (like my Senator Beall) obviously does not support preservation of habitat and the desert tortoise.
It is sad when legislators support legislation to support their pals, not to public service. We have to stop electing incumbents.
End of rant.
This is good, though my posting is messy...
From the Calif Trail Users Commission, CTUC. I had to edit out the images.
June 30, 2017
The Honorable Ben Allen
California State SenatePosition: Oppose
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814Location: Senate Floor
Re: SB 249 (Allen) Off-highway motor vehicle recreation (As Amended June 26, 2017)
Dear Senator Allen,
On behalf of a coalition of off-highway recreation associations (Coalition) representing off-road recreation enthusiasts throughout the state of California, we regret that we must continue to oppose your Senate Bill 249 as it was amended on June 26, 2017. We also regret that not a single organized OHV group is able to support this bill – believing that the high price tag associated with the legislation inhibits safe, environmentally alert, legal and family oriented OHV recreation.
The legislation was drafted without our involvement and, while some concessions have been made as it wends its way through the process, the bill still re-focuses a highly successful recreation program at the nine of our two hundred and eighty parks set aside of motorized recreation, into an environmental wishlist that appears to us to be one-sided. It is our belief that the program put in place by the Steinberg bill ten years ago may not be perfect, but the focus on recreation, environmental protections – including Best Management Practices designed and implemented by environmental scientists and cultural archeologists –law enforcement and education is working.
We are also concerned by the maneuvering that removed the financial aspects of the bill in an effort to mute the voice of policymakers. Senator Steinberg and others respected the idea that policy and cost should be considered together, and the result was a collaborative bill that resulted in near unanimity of support in the Legislature.
Since the creation of the California Off-Highway Vehicle program with the passage of the Chappie-Z’Berg OHV Act in 1971, Coalition members have played an important role as stakeholders each time the program has come up for sunset review and reauthorization. Coalition members have a wide variety of expertise in all issues relating to OHV recreation, both technical and environmental, with specific knowledge on the interaction between state and federal land management processes.
We recognize the amendments to the bill that have been made in response to our previously submitted comments. However, the disadvantage of working off a bill sponsored by those with little appreciation for OHV activity instead of beginning with statute as we have done in the past leaves us with entire sections that significantly alter priorities in ways that are obviously unacceptable to active California recreationists. Reading through the bill there are numerous examples of incorrect definitions, calls for unnecessary reports, and demands for duplicative agency consultation that portray a lack of understanding of the interplay required to create best management practices for areas that host off-road recreation.
It is clear that off-road knowledge and expertise were not used to craft the bill, but that the bill was conceived and written with a goal of unduly hampering and purposely setting roadblocks to a program that is world renowned for its existing high standards with regards to both recreation opportunities and environmental conditions. Furthermore there is no accountability for either reliably foreseen or unanticipated consequences of the drastic measures called for in the bill. The magnitude of the costs to the state for land restoration and mitigation for federal, city and county lands as called for by SB 249 because the corresponding agencies are eligible for grant funding through the OHV Trust Fund, would be in the millions of dollars if it would even be possible. This may be an unintended consequence of the bill, but is an example of the errors in fact and judgment that would cause extreme hardship to the state.
Some of the most concerning issues:
• Sections 3 and 4 contain errors in the description of adaptive management as it is used in conjunction with a monitoring program. To those experienced in land policy, adaptive management is an ongoing process of evaluation leading to changes in operations to improve on-the-ground conditions. Many components are part of this process, although the bill stresses solely natural and cultural resources. We would add that water quality, erosion and sedimentation evaluations are equally critical, although none of these important issues are mentioned. Furthermore, natural and cultural resources are mentioned many times in the bill without adequate definition which would only lead to confusion in the future.
• Section 9 contains some of the more disconcerting changes proposed in the bill. Subsection (g) seeks to remove access to existing roads in state vehicular recreation areas by the public that were created earlier by previous land owners. This subsection would seek to benefit adjacent landowners with easements through state property while creating a management burden for the state. More troubling is subsection (m) that would require the state to compile reports of accidents, citations and other infractions from all areas of the state, including federal land, where off-road recreation occurs. This is a burden placed on no other unit of state parks, the information is not currently collected by state parks, nor is it required by any federal agency. Furthermore there is no justification for the need for this report, leading the Coalition to conclude the need lies in a wish to discredit off-road recreation.
• Section 11 requires the Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Recreation Division to change its purpose from anything to do with offering off-road recreation, instead stating the most important mission is the protection of natural and cultural resources. Leaving aside the lack of definition for ‘natural and cultural resources,’ this is an inappropriate change for a division that manages state vehicular recreation areas. This is not even a definition that has been adopted by parks, because the department recognizes the need to combine recreation activities with environmental protections. Some areas are set aside by the state as reserves that have extraordinary natural conditions, but state vehicular recreation areas are largely located on highly disturbed land that was acquired by the state for the specific reason of offering motorized recreation. The need to redefine the purpose of the division is not explained because the premise is contradictory by its very language.
Section 11 also has proposed the elimination of the words; ‘to the extent possible’ when talking of restoration work taking place in state vehicular recreation areas. The bill seeks to portray and require restoration work to be done in an absolute fashion, and be fully mitigated no matter the cause of the damage. Rain and other weather phenomena can cause considerable damage yet the effect of this damage is not differentiated from ongoing maintenance due to OHV activities. Other state parks are not responsible for acts of Mother Nature and it is inappropriate to place that burden on this program and this division. Minimizing impact to land from all forms of human interaction, whether through motorized or non-motorized activities is a goal already undertaken by all park units to the extent possible, therefore we request the restoration of those words to this section.
To be clear, adding numerous agencies for consultation and written reports as requirements to be produced, does nothing to improve environmental conditions on the ground. The redirected time will make performing environmental activities and restoration difficult, be extremely time consuming and add a considerable cost consideration for all entities concerned, when there is no indication that anything is amiss in the current program. These new requirements would cause a diminishment in environmental conditions, which those with experience in off-road recreation management recognize with great concern.
• Section 12 seeks to expand the concept of ‘wildlife corridors’ beyond the limited and voluntary scope defined in PRC section 1305.5 (c) (1), which was discussed in this Committee as recently as the last session of the legislature. Accepting this language will expose the OHV program to additional litigation and could open up ramifications to all state parks should this concept be expanded as proposed here.
Senator Allen, we respectfully regret that the coalition must request the members of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee take an oppose position on SB 249.
The OHMVR Division does much more than manage State Vehicular Recreation Areas; everything from law enforcement to the economic viability of rural counties and the interests of federal and local partners is integrated within the management of this division. Unfortunately, in talking with Parks the new environmental costs exceed eleven million dollars, and the environmental precedents being set are above even what is expected in non-ohmvr parks.
From the Calif Trail Users Commission, CTUC. I had to edit out the images.
June 30, 2017
The Honorable Ben Allen
California State SenatePosition: Oppose
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814Location: Senate Floor
Re: SB 249 (Allen) Off-highway motor vehicle recreation (As Amended June 26, 2017)
Dear Senator Allen,
On behalf of a coalition of off-highway recreation associations (Coalition) representing off-road recreation enthusiasts throughout the state of California, we regret that we must continue to oppose your Senate Bill 249 as it was amended on June 26, 2017. We also regret that not a single organized OHV group is able to support this bill – believing that the high price tag associated with the legislation inhibits safe, environmentally alert, legal and family oriented OHV recreation.
The legislation was drafted without our involvement and, while some concessions have been made as it wends its way through the process, the bill still re-focuses a highly successful recreation program at the nine of our two hundred and eighty parks set aside of motorized recreation, into an environmental wishlist that appears to us to be one-sided. It is our belief that the program put in place by the Steinberg bill ten years ago may not be perfect, but the focus on recreation, environmental protections – including Best Management Practices designed and implemented by environmental scientists and cultural archeologists –law enforcement and education is working.
We are also concerned by the maneuvering that removed the financial aspects of the bill in an effort to mute the voice of policymakers. Senator Steinberg and others respected the idea that policy and cost should be considered together, and the result was a collaborative bill that resulted in near unanimity of support in the Legislature.
Since the creation of the California Off-Highway Vehicle program with the passage of the Chappie-Z’Berg OHV Act in 1971, Coalition members have played an important role as stakeholders each time the program has come up for sunset review and reauthorization. Coalition members have a wide variety of expertise in all issues relating to OHV recreation, both technical and environmental, with specific knowledge on the interaction between state and federal land management processes.
We recognize the amendments to the bill that have been made in response to our previously submitted comments. However, the disadvantage of working off a bill sponsored by those with little appreciation for OHV activity instead of beginning with statute as we have done in the past leaves us with entire sections that significantly alter priorities in ways that are obviously unacceptable to active California recreationists. Reading through the bill there are numerous examples of incorrect definitions, calls for unnecessary reports, and demands for duplicative agency consultation that portray a lack of understanding of the interplay required to create best management practices for areas that host off-road recreation.
It is clear that off-road knowledge and expertise were not used to craft the bill, but that the bill was conceived and written with a goal of unduly hampering and purposely setting roadblocks to a program that is world renowned for its existing high standards with regards to both recreation opportunities and environmental conditions. Furthermore there is no accountability for either reliably foreseen or unanticipated consequences of the drastic measures called for in the bill. The magnitude of the costs to the state for land restoration and mitigation for federal, city and county lands as called for by SB 249 because the corresponding agencies are eligible for grant funding through the OHV Trust Fund, would be in the millions of dollars if it would even be possible. This may be an unintended consequence of the bill, but is an example of the errors in fact and judgment that would cause extreme hardship to the state.
Some of the most concerning issues:
• Sections 3 and 4 contain errors in the description of adaptive management as it is used in conjunction with a monitoring program. To those experienced in land policy, adaptive management is an ongoing process of evaluation leading to changes in operations to improve on-the-ground conditions. Many components are part of this process, although the bill stresses solely natural and cultural resources. We would add that water quality, erosion and sedimentation evaluations are equally critical, although none of these important issues are mentioned. Furthermore, natural and cultural resources are mentioned many times in the bill without adequate definition which would only lead to confusion in the future.
• Section 9 contains some of the more disconcerting changes proposed in the bill. Subsection (g) seeks to remove access to existing roads in state vehicular recreation areas by the public that were created earlier by previous land owners. This subsection would seek to benefit adjacent landowners with easements through state property while creating a management burden for the state. More troubling is subsection (m) that would require the state to compile reports of accidents, citations and other infractions from all areas of the state, including federal land, where off-road recreation occurs. This is a burden placed on no other unit of state parks, the information is not currently collected by state parks, nor is it required by any federal agency. Furthermore there is no justification for the need for this report, leading the Coalition to conclude the need lies in a wish to discredit off-road recreation.
• Section 11 requires the Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Recreation Division to change its purpose from anything to do with offering off-road recreation, instead stating the most important mission is the protection of natural and cultural resources. Leaving aside the lack of definition for ‘natural and cultural resources,’ this is an inappropriate change for a division that manages state vehicular recreation areas. This is not even a definition that has been adopted by parks, because the department recognizes the need to combine recreation activities with environmental protections. Some areas are set aside by the state as reserves that have extraordinary natural conditions, but state vehicular recreation areas are largely located on highly disturbed land that was acquired by the state for the specific reason of offering motorized recreation. The need to redefine the purpose of the division is not explained because the premise is contradictory by its very language.
Section 11 also has proposed the elimination of the words; ‘to the extent possible’ when talking of restoration work taking place in state vehicular recreation areas. The bill seeks to portray and require restoration work to be done in an absolute fashion, and be fully mitigated no matter the cause of the damage. Rain and other weather phenomena can cause considerable damage yet the effect of this damage is not differentiated from ongoing maintenance due to OHV activities. Other state parks are not responsible for acts of Mother Nature and it is inappropriate to place that burden on this program and this division. Minimizing impact to land from all forms of human interaction, whether through motorized or non-motorized activities is a goal already undertaken by all park units to the extent possible, therefore we request the restoration of those words to this section.
To be clear, adding numerous agencies for consultation and written reports as requirements to be produced, does nothing to improve environmental conditions on the ground. The redirected time will make performing environmental activities and restoration difficult, be extremely time consuming and add a considerable cost consideration for all entities concerned, when there is no indication that anything is amiss in the current program. These new requirements would cause a diminishment in environmental conditions, which those with experience in off-road recreation management recognize with great concern.
• Section 12 seeks to expand the concept of ‘wildlife corridors’ beyond the limited and voluntary scope defined in PRC section 1305.5 (c) (1), which was discussed in this Committee as recently as the last session of the legislature. Accepting this language will expose the OHV program to additional litigation and could open up ramifications to all state parks should this concept be expanded as proposed here.
Senator Allen, we respectfully regret that the coalition must request the members of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee take an oppose position on SB 249.
The OHMVR Division does much more than manage State Vehicular Recreation Areas; everything from law enforcement to the economic viability of rural counties and the interests of federal and local partners is integrated within the management of this division. Unfortunately, in talking with Parks the new environmental costs exceed eleven million dollars, and the environmental precedents being set are above even what is expected in non-ohmvr parks.
It is butch that earned barf the CORVA award.
He earned my respect and appreciation long before that. :cool
