Can I just say WOW?

I'm really not quite sure what to make of this. Can one of the LU Guru's please interpret this for me?

thx

Let me simplify.

:mad3:THEY LIE.:mad3:

...be sure to comment accordingly to old their feet to the fire!

Low quality requests won't get funding.

A side note concerning the preliminary grant requests, maps submitted by the agencies are not posted on the Division ( OLGA ) website.

Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO

:lmao: low quality :lmao:

Thanks.

That's what I thought, but I know for a fact they have NO OHV opportunity. Zip-Zero-Zilcho.

The 25 miles of Roads they speak of are bits and pieces of County Roads. I have the maps. :(

Bebe

Thanks for posting this one.
I am going through the list and getting ready to comment as I finish them up.

Todd

Actually that would be a good comment, that it's very unclear how their coming up with 25 miles, that puts the ball in their court to clarify it...TJ:smokin:

it is this crapp that is making me take a public policy class next semester... the class has an emphasis on land use

Actually that would be a good comment, that it's very unclear how their coming up with 25 miles, that puts the ball in their court to clarify it...TJ:smokin:
Tom, you're not getting it. This isn't a shade of gray... they don't support OHV recreation ANYWHERE and have been actively closing resources where such recreation might be available, then telling us that they don't want to be 'beholden' to the State for OHV monies.

I know for a fact they have NO OHV opportunity. Zip-Zero-Zilcho.
Going to them with a 'soft' comment that asks for more information is one approach. Taking them head-on and listing facts like Jacquelyne has -- well, to me, that's a stronger approach.

Why go milquetoast, when the facts are available?

Randii

Ok

The land use rookie will take a shot at it - see also http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=767780

Not just BLM Folsom but other BLM agencies have listed the total acreage and miles they superivse without regard to it being closed to OHV use. I suspect this is due to the 2008 regulations do not give definitions for these terms. An oversight by the program.

This arguably means you can use California regulatory general use of the terms.

In Kalifornia an OHV is any vehicle with a motor. OHV land/roads are anything that is not a highway. OHV road/lands are spoken as "potential" rather than "actual". So - got a Segway Personal Transporter that might roll over a foot of dirt? (or eroding to dirt sometime in the next million years)

BLM would probably argue that during geologic history - all land was subject to a motor vehicle driving on it. California OHVMR program funds restoration of lands traveled by OHV regardless of how many years ago that was - including if 100 years ago that was a town/mine/private road, not a trail. If it exists today it was caused by the nasty OHV people.

So - many of the BLM field offices answer the questions using figures that include the total of all land/visitors they supervise regardless of current use. This will cause problems because the information is used in scoring the applications and determining who gets the money. The OHVMR agency is going to have to straighten this out (if it was me I'd use the sections of code that support the 2007 definitions and give the BLM zero points scoring in this section).

2007 did give definitions, here they are (OSV is "over snow"):
I. OHV Opportunity – For the purposes of this form, “OHV Opportunity” includes all legal riding opportunity on public lands within the area managed by the Applicant. If Applicant does not have any legal riding opportunity within their jurisdiction, check the “N/A” box.
Data Period – Enter the starting month/year and ending month/year for which OHV Opportunity data is available. Do not include months of OSV opportunity; these will be reported in item II below.
1. Months of OHV Opportunity (OHV Months) – Enter the number of months, as indicated by the Data Period, for which OHV opportunity is available.
2. Total Acres of Open Riding Currently Available for OHV Recreation – For the purposes of this form, “Open riding” is land, other than designated routes, available for OHV Recreation.
3. Total Miles of Routes Currently Available For OHV Recreation – For the purposes of this form, “Routes” include all unpaved Roads and trails that are open for legal motorized recreation.
This is the total mileage of OHV routes for any type of OHV.
4. OHV Visitor Days – Every day or portion thereof that a visitor is engaged in OHV Recreation (other than OSV) in legal riding areas within the Applicant’s jurisdiction is considered one visitor day. Estimate based on surveys, personal observations, or counters.
5. OHV Ratio – Add the acres of open area and the miles of routes. Divide the total by the number of visitor days to get the OHV Ratio.

It is worth paying attention to what the BLM districts are doing. For example, BLM Inyo is saying one thing in the DEIS for closures, but something different here when they want funding. The Land Use people should download the documents for areas of interest.

I agree it's perhaps dishonest to make false claims, but look at the scoring matrix itself, then ask if it really matters it could be a moot point...TJ

I agree it's perhaps dishonest to make false claims, but look at the scoring matrix itself, then ask if it really matters it could be a moot point...TJ

I don't look at it as completely dishonest since the OHMVR forgot to define it this year. They are madated by the legislature to give 30% of the Law Enforcement budget to the BLM anyway. The OHMVR will consider these BLM projects that are in other areas, it might come into play if its a horse race.

"Eligible Projects shall be ranked by score. Projects shall be funded in order of score from highest to lowest until available funds are exhausted, taking into account the Project type funding restrictions in Section 4970.15.1(a)."

Let's see how much 4 points difference matter using their example for Ground Operation (GO funds). You get 5 for top versus 1 for bottom scoring on this section.

Final Score = Actual Score/ Possible Score
General Criteria 90 of 103
Project-specific Criteria 52 of 59
(90 + 52) / (103 + 59) = 0.8765
0.8765 x 100 = 87.65% = Final Score
verses
Final Score = Actual Score/ Possible Score
General Criteria 86 of 103
Project-specific Criteria 52 of 59
(86 + 52) / (103 + 59) = 0.8519
0.8519 x 100 = 85.19% = Final Score

So - what does ~2.5% matter when all the applcations are ranked? No idea since this scoring system is new. I notice they have decided to downgrade points in the past and have the right to ask for proof on anything. Since the RTF is a GO activity I am rooting for - just want as level a playing field as possible.

My point is where do they get any score for opportunity, seams like overall the program has mandates to provide everything but opportunity...TJ

My point is where do they get any score for opportunity, seams like overall the program has mandates to provide everything but opportunity...TJ

I hear you on that one. We're trying to get crumbs from the table and I'm sure that is a shock to some when all they know is the OHVMR public face facade.

I think an unfortunate consequence of having an OHVMR program is it has to let every guilt trip idea against OHV use also compete for money. But I have to remember this is California - it is amazing given the legislature we have that Sacramento isn't proposing we wear red and green stickers around our necks and placing us in camps!

So - the OHVMR division is walking in a political mine field. At least they are getting some money out to OHV that isn't all about closures.

But you know if we wish to nuke OHVMR it would be music to Sacramento ears. Kalifornia will be happy to continue to raise fees on OHV and extract every cent it can from the citizenry and give back zip, zero, nada. I want to support OHVMR enough to keep it around for when the politics have more funds to flow towards opportunity. If they go completely rogue - its always easier to destroy than create - no?

If a grant is bad for us you can't say it don't provide opportunity, the way scoring works you have to look at each scoring item, make an argument why each item should be scored lower...TJ

Hey Bebe...

Do you know when BLM Folsom change their website to say "No OHV" locations to "Limited OHV" authorized locations?

Hey Bebe...

Do you know when BLM Folsom change their website to say "No OHV" locations to "Limited OHV" authorized locations?

I sent a comment in on their grant request on 3/5.
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25752
it was put on the OHMVR website immidiately. at that time it stated "Folsom Field Office has no OHV authorized locations."

BLM Folsom got a copy of my comment at that time and has chaged the website because of it.

Now I would like to know, exactly where are those limted locations.

Thanks for the information!

I sent a comment in on their grant request on 3/5.
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25752
it was put on the OHMVR website immidiately. at that time it stated "Folsom Field Office has no OHV authorized locations."

BLM Folsom got a copy of my comment at that time and has chaged the website because of it.

Now I would like to know, exactly where are those limted locations.

LOL....they read here. I'll post up the FEIS maps, or you can look them up on the Folsom BLM website. :shaking: