Bureau to Supervisors: reasons for original road closures still
exist
In response to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors
opening the county roadways that go through Clear Creek Management
Area on April 6, the Bureau of Land Management and the board traded
letters during Tuesday’s meeting describing some of the possible
issues it could present.
The BLM letter, signed by Hollister Field Office Manager Rick
Cooper and dated April 13, listed six concerns regarding what the
opening of the roads could mean.
Bureau to Supervisors: reasons for original road closures still exist
In response to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors opening the county roadways that go through Clear Creek Management Area on April 6, the Bureau of Land Management and the board traded letters during Tuesday’s meeting describing some of the possible issues it could present.
The BLM letter, signed by Hollister Field Office Manager Rick Cooper and dated April 13, listed six concerns regarding what the opening of the roads could mean.
“The BLM still has concerns in that regard and nothing has changed in the ‘area of critical environment concern’ to reduce the concerns that led to its closure,” the letter states.
The first concern was questioning how the roads would be maintained after the board stipulated that it would not do roadwork.
“Some sections of the road will become impassable due to erosion and landslides,” the BLM letter warned.
The board stood by its stance that the county, despite some reservation from Supervisor Anthony Botelho, would not maintain the roads.
“I just feel that this is an important part of San Benito County, and we haven’t done any maintenance, but I don’t see why we don’t explore the work that needs to be done,” he said. “There is private property that these roads service and the county roads should have a basic level of service.”
If the county starts to maintain them, or allows others to do it, the county could open itself up to a lawsuit, County Counsel Matthew Granger said during the meeting.
“Right now the county has no liability whatsoever and there are no exceptions,” he said. “If we did any maintenance it could be argued that the county has opened up liability issues.”
Landowner Ray Iddings said he has a right to get to his land, and if the county road is blocked, he has a right to get by.
“I do have a right of way on a public freeway,” he said. ” If you impair my ability to do that, you are being negligent.”
Iddings then asked if he could do maintenance himself with a tractor despite rules that prevented non-street vehicles on the roadway.
Cooper said he would work with him to remove any boulders in the road.
“We have and will continue to work with the landowners in the area,” Cooper said.
The BLM letter included issues of allowing vehicles that are not street legal such as ATVs, off-road bikes and tractors to travel through the area.
“Allowing non-street legal vehicles will create a huge law enforcement issue for BLM along the entire length of the road,” the letter states.
The board’s letter then responded by saying that those vehicles would be allowed “under limited circumstances” because of the Californian Vehicle Code.
Non-street vehicles are allowed only on a highway system when the road is an integral connection to established trails and connects lodging to a trail system. As the board’s letter notes, both are the case with Clear Creek.
The BLM letter also stated the agency’s concern about visitors on the road traveling to areas that the BLM has closed off.
“There are a significant number of intersections with large roads that could be confusing to visitors using the county road,” according to the letter. “Visitors could be subject to citation because they get off the county road into the closed area.”
The county has no plans to put up any signs deterring travelers from the closed area, the board’s response letter said.
Finally, the BLM letter warned about the asbestos exposure to the public from traveling through the area.
The county took steps to warn people about the dangers by posting signs, the board letter said.
The letter also asked the BLM, how much of an asbestos risk is it to travel on the roads away from the designated risk area?
If there was a high risk, the letter asked if visitors could use the BLM decontamination station.
The board letter was passed in a unanimous vote.
