New Changes to California's Off-Highway Program

[A Family of 4]

New Changes to California's Off-Highway Program


Last February, legislation was introduced by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and coauthored by Assemblymember Lois Wolk (D-Davis). This legislation – SB 742 – was designed to restructure the 2003 Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act. Since it was first introduced, the legislation went through seven amendments. The final version was passed by the Assembly 74-0 and by the Senate 30-5. This ecologically balanced bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 12th. The new changes become effective January 1, 2008.

Over the past eight months, a stakeholder group worked closely to create a comprehensive program that allows for increased off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreational opportunities, recognizes that these opportunities need to be funded, and understands that environmental damage associated with off-highway vehicles needs to be responsibly addressed.

The following are a few of the major changes that will help accomplish this:

The OHMVR Commission is currently made up of seven members. SB 742 changes the membership to nine. The number of Governor appointees increases from three to five, and will require Senate Confirmation. The Commission will become advisory much like the State Parks and Recreation Commission. The OHMVR Commission will no longer allocate money for the grants and cooperative agreements program or will they be able to approve capital outlay projects. They no longer provide general policy guidance for the program. The responsibility for allocating grants and cooperative agreements will belong to the Division. The Commission still approves general plans at the SVRAs.

SB 742 makes significant changes to the grants and cooperative agreements program. There will be a new formula for how grant money will be divided up. The old way of only a few hundred thousand out of $18M going to trails and maintenance did not provide for a balanced program. Under the new structure, now 50% of the allocated amount will go to Operations and Maintenance (and studies directly related to trails); 25% to Restoration (scientific studies not relating to trails will now come out of this allotment); 20% to Law Enforcement - 40% to local, 30% to USFS and 30% to BLM; and, 5% to Education and Safety. The law enforcement grants will be distributed on a non-competitive basis and non-profit organizations, as well as educational institutions, can now apply for funding of trail and facility maintenance, and restoration projects. The Division will be required to work with the Wildlife Conservation Board to develop criteria for restoration projects, and all applicants will now be required to provide a 25% match. Only applicants who actually disturb the ground will be required to complete soil and wildlife standards, and a new appeal process is available for applicants. On USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas, funds may be used on a road or trail to prevent resource damage, implement safety improvements and to maintain a system road or trail that exists on or before January 1, 2009.

The OHV community understands the importance of having more money available for operations and maintenance of our riding areas while also providing stable funding for law enforcement and restoration. In order to help pay for these programs, registration fees for the Green or Red stickers, will increase from $25 to $50 every two years. This additional $25 will be added to the current $8 that is transferred to the OHV Trust Fund. The amounts going to DMV ($7), CHP ($6) and County in lieu fees ($4) remain unchanged. As part of the grant process, counties must now show how they are using the in-lieu money which they get from the Green or Red stickers. The design of the Green and Red stickers will be changed so the identification numbers will be larger and easier to read. The OHMVR Division will be required to work with the OHV manufacturers to report to the Legislature on ways to improve the identification number of an OHV.

The OHV communities and the environmental communities both agree that riding in closed areas is not acceptable. It hurts our image and gives us a bad name. In SB 742 fines for operating a vehicle in a closed area have been increased from $35 to $50 for the first offense, $75 for the second, and $150 for the third. On the third fine, the court can charge for the damage you do and for the cost to repair the property.

The way the program is funded will be more stable. Currently funding for the program is based on the green sticker registration, entrance fees at the SVRAs and estimates based off of the fuel tax study. This is not a good idea since the fuel tax study is unreliable. With the elimination of the previous formula, money that now goes into the OHV Trust Fund will be equal to the percent transferred in the 2006-07 fiscal year and will be adjusted every five years starting in 2013. Adjustments may be made on the numbers of OHVs registered, the number of street legal vehicles anticipated to be used off-road, attendance and surveys.

One of the most important changes of SB 742 is the ten year extension of the program. It is the longest in the history of the program and cannot be changed without new legislation.


For more information, please contact Vicki Cossey, legislativeaffairs@americansandassociation.org.

[tomjeeps2]

With the fuel tax lock in at the FY 2006/2007 and the fee increases, many of us were under the impression there would be around $25 Million for grants. The only reason I briefly supported this bill was the good possibility there would be over $12 Million for operations, 50% of $18 Million would be around $9 Million. My concern is Parks keeps getting sewed because they at least according to CBD can't follow their own rules, we're paying more we should be getting more, frankly $18 Million will not cover our growing needs under the rules we (or our leaders at least) agreed to...TJ

[A Family of 4]

Tom,

Do you feel that our grant money would be compromised because of law suits? I'm not sure if you are stating a fact or your opinion....I'm sorry, can you elaborate more?

[tomjeeps2]

Yes we need facts, one just how much is in the so called left over restoration account, frankly I'm just Fed up with people sitting back saying state facts when there are none. Also Division needs to get out the information about this years grant applications, don't go there with me about facts, like I said before Geene needs to give up the information and but out, or clean out her desk and get out. Also if the Off road Community objects to me talking about this, I'm just going to take this to forums beyond their control.

OK...TJ

[A Family of 4]

Tom,

I don't understand. My article is about the new legislation. What does it have to do with the CBD and Parks and lawsuits and grants?

I'm asking for facts because I can't decipher between what is your opinion or what is actual fact.

[Sandcock]

What will be the benefits to us from this Bill in regards to the ISDRA I see $$$ earmarked for law enforcement. Would this $$$ be in addition to what BLM has requested funds for Will we see more a LEO presence How would the ISDRA benefit from Operations and Maintenance, and education $$$$

[crash]

As always, time will tell how this actually turns out for us off-roaders. We'll have to wait and see if we get stabbed in the back after they twist this stuff as far as they can to the greens side.

[A Family of 4]

What will be the benefits to us from this Bill in regards to the ISDRA I see $$$ earmarked for law enforcement. Would this $$$ be in addition to what BLM has requested funds for Will we see more a LEO presence How would the ISDRA benefit from Operations and Maintenance, and education $$$$

Great questions!


The biggest benefits from this new legislation will come from a combination of the new Grant Buckets and the new positive changes to the OHMVR Commission.

The Commission no longer has the duty of approving Grants, sure they can comment, but that is about it. (It's no secret how rotten the Commission has been to the BLM El Centro in regards to their grant applications - we can discuss that in another thread if you'd like more information) At least now the BLM can apply for Facility Operations & Maintenance (FOM) grants and know they have a fair chance at being awarded their request. Of course, the only way they'd benefit from FOM and Education Grants would be to apply.....that is up to them.

When it comes to the Law Enforcement, I can't answer your questions "Would this $$$ be in addition to what BLM has requested funds for?" and "Will we see more a LEO presence?" but I can say that the amount of money set for Federal Law Enforcement will be more than what has been available in the past, so again, they'll have a chance at being awarded their request without the Commission's hands in it. If you'd like better answers to your questions that I can't answer, here's the link to the BLM - El Centro Field Office. Neil or Jamie are the point of contacts in regards to grants.

The link to the OHMVR Grant/Cooperative Agreement 2006/2007 Final Allocations by Funding Category really show how the Division scored grants and the Commission's scores. The LE allotments start on page 4. The non-CESA starts on page 9.

I can go into more, depending on how much more you would like to know.

[Sandcock]

For Fiscal Year 2007, am I reading the OHMVR Grant/Cooperative Agreement right, i.e. OR-772 recieved funding; OR-1-CD-354 made the coin toss, but didn't get funded; and non-CESA OR-1-CD-351 did not make the coin toss Under SB-742 is it more likely for El Centro to recieve the grants/funding

[Brewster]

Under SB742 there should be much more money dedicated to trail and facilities maintenance. In the past, most of that money was diverted to "other" pet projects of the non-OHV side of the OHMVR Commission.

It will still be a competitive process. The agencies will still have to go head to head to try to show why their project should get funding.

Keep informed and active

Ride on
Brewster
CERA...assistant LAO

[A Family of 4]

El Centro is more likely to receive funding. (Again, they have to apply for it)

With the new buckets, (if we base the figure off this year's grant cycle amount of $18M) $9M would be for Operations/Maintanence, $4.5M to Restoration, $3.6M to LE and $900K to Education.

**With the new fee increase on the green/red sticker, I've heard the forecast for Grant Buckets will be about $25M, so then it would be $12.5M for O&M, 6.25M for Restoration, $5M to LE and $1.25M to Education**

So when you compare this year's grant cycle of only $5.5M for non-CESA to what next year's O&M Bucket will be, and take the Commission out of the picture, it looks like El Centro will get their past due, long deserved funds. (and we're not even talking about LE)

Thoughts?

[Brewster]

**With the new fee increase on the green/red sticker, I've heard the forecast for Grant Buckets will be about $25M, so then it would be $12.5M for O&M, 6.25M for Restoration, $5M to LE and $1.25M to education**
Thoughts?

Why would the forecast for the Grants Bucket only be $25 million? $30 million seems more reasonable. The money from the fuel tax will remain close to this years level and WE will be adding an additional $12.5 million a year on top of what we already add with OUR Green Sticker fees.
OHMVR Division hasn't been able to spend much in the way of property purchase money so they shouldn't be needing much of an increase in operating funds.

Ride on
Brewster

[Sandcock]

I'm a dummy here What is performed under O&M I would assume that the dumpsters and the maintaining of the vault toilets are already budgeted for under separated contracts For instance, would maintaining Gecko Road fall under O&M Just curiuos of how all this works.

[A Family of 4]

**With the new fee increase on the green/red sticker, I've heard the forecast for Grant Buckets will be about $25M, so then it would be $12.5M for O&M, 6.25M for Restoration, $5M to LE and $1.25M to education**
Thoughts?

Why would the forecast for the Grants Bucket only be $25 million? $30 million seems more reasonable. The money from the fuel tax will remain close to this years level and WE will be adding an additional $12.5 million a year on top of what we already add with OUR Green Sticker fees.
OHMVR Division hasn't been able to spend much in the way of property purchase money so they shouldn't be needing much of an increase in operating funds.

Ride on
Brewster

Brew! I'd rather be low than give a number that is too high!!!!

[A Family of 4]

I'm a dummy here What is performed under O&M I would assume that the dumpsters and the maintaining of the vault toilets are already budgeted for under separated contracts For instance, would maintaining Gecko Road fall under O&M Just curiuos of how all this works.

I'm just finishing up packing so we can get out to the sand. (I didn't want you to think I was skipping out on you). I will explain more this evening once I get settled in at camp.

Vicki Cossey

[Sandcock]

Enjoy your weekend. Forget about the pesty questions until next week

[Brewster]

I'm a dummy here What is performed under O&M I would assume that the dumpsters and the maintaining of the vault toilets are already budgeted for under separated contracts For instance, would maintaining Gecko Road fall under O&M Just curiuos of how all this works.

1) Operation and maintenance.
(A) Fifty percent of the funds appropriated by the Legislature
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5090.61 shall be expended
solely for grants and cooperative agreements for the acquisition,
maintenance, operation, planning, development, or conservation of
trails and facilities associated with the use of off-highway motor
vehicles for recreation or motorized access to nonmotorized
recreation.

Ride on
Brewster

[A Family of 4]

Thanks Brew for posting that.


SC,

In regards to the ISDRA, vault toliets, trash, kiosks, maintanence of the pads on Gecko, etc. are examples of what would be applied for out of the O&M Bucket.

For more specifics, I can ask one of the TRT guys to explain more in detail about the expenses of the ISDRA if you'd like?

[Voice]

In regards to the ISDRA, vault toliets, trash, kiosks, maintanence of the pads on Gecko, etc. are examples of what would be applied for out of the O&M Bucket.

And the Fees are for .... ?

[A Family of 4]

The fees? Which ones? The increase of the Green Sticker registration increase? or the fees charged by the BLM?

[Voice]

In regards to the ISDRA, vault toliets, trash, kiosks, maintanence of the pads on Gecko, etc. are examples of what would be applied for out of the O&M Bucket.

And the Fees are for .... ?

These are all items supposidly paid for out of the Permit Fees at Glaims. There should be no need for any other funds.
If not, then what are we paying for when we purchase a permit at Glamis?