Agenda
Meeting of the
OFF-HIGHWAY MOTOR VEHICLE RECREATION COMMISSION
Four Points Sheraton/Palm Ballroom
8110 Aero Drive, San Diego, CA 92123
Friday, December 5, 2003

9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER

A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Swear in New Member

II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (1)

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 2, 2003

IV. PROPOSED CALENDAR
A. 2004 Schedule
1. February 20, 2004 - Sacramento
February 21, 2004 - Public Input Meeting, Sacramento
2. May 7, 2004 - Burbank
3. August 18, 2004 - Subcommittee on Northern CA Grants, Sacramento
4. September 1, 2004 - Subcommittee on Southern CA, Ontario
5. October 28-29, 2004 - Sacramento
6. December 3, 2004 - Sacramento

V. REPORTS (2)
A. Commissioner's Reports
B. Division Chief's Report
C. Federal Government Reports
Rich Farrington, USFS
James Keeler, BLM
D. Standing/Special/Sub Committee Reports

VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
OR-602 Alpine County Sheriff OHV Enforcement (Summer)
OR-2-E-64 USFS El Dorado Law Enforcement (Summer) 04
OR-2-ME-49 USFS Mendocino Owl Noise Study 04
OR-2-ST-51 USFS Stanislaus O&M (Winter) 04

VII. NEW BUSINESS
2003/04 Southern California Local Assistance Grants and Federal Cooperative Agreements
A. Review the status of the 2003/04 Local Grants and Federal
Cooperative Agreement applications as shown on the attached list, and process for Commission consideration and allocation of OHV funds. Consider applications, take public testimony, select priorities, and allocate funds for Local Assistance and Safety Grants and Federal Cooperative Agreements, as shown on the attached list.
1. Consent Calendar (See below footnote 3a )
2. Local Grants and Cooperative Agreements (See below footnote 3b )
B. Rescope of existing Grants and Cooperative Agreements
GRANT NUMBER AGENCY GRANT NAME REMAINING FUNDING
OR-2-ST-43 Stanislaus NF Stanislaus Resource Management $136,000.00
OR-2-LA-67 Lassen NF Lassen Resource Management $40,000.00
OR-2-T-68 Tahoe NF Tahoe O & M $19,481.00
OR-2-LTB-44 Lake Tahoe Basin MU Lake Tahoe Basin Winter O & M $19,946.00
OR-2-P-64 Plumas NF Plumas NF O & M $36,182.00
OR-2-SE-50 Sequoia NF Sequoia NF O & M $35,431.00
TOTAL $287,040.00

11:00 a.m. Public Comment Period (See below footnote 3c )
12:00 p.m. Lunch
1:00 p.m. Continuation of Agenda
5:00 p.m. Adjournment
(1) The Commission will proceed through the agenda in order until the agenda is completed. The Commission will take a lunch recess at approximately noon. The public comment period shown is for non-agenda items only. The agenda will be interrupted at approximately 11:00 a.m. on Friday, December 5, 2003, for public comment.
Commissioners/staff should request that an item be placed on the agenda prior to printing. No action may be taken on any item of business unless it appears specifically on this agenda [Gov. Code sections 11122, 125 (a) and (B )].
(2) No action may be taken on any item included under "Reports" [Gov. Code sections 11122, 11125(a) and (B )].
(3) PUBLIC TESTIMONY
(a) Consent Calendar: Items on the Consent Calendar are considered non-controversial. If there is public interest, concern or discussion regarding any consent calendar item or a request for public comment, then such consent items will be removed from the consent calendar and considered during the hearing on individual items. Any person or group, including grant applicants, who wishes the opportunity to be heard with regard to an item or items on the Consent Calendar must fill out the yellow Public Comment Form; Consent Calendar.
(B ) Individual Items: The Chair will entertain public comment as agenda items are discussed. Comment will be limited to two (2) minutes per individual or four (4) minutes for organizations. Any item taken off agenda at the time the agenda is approved may only be discussed during the public comment period.
(C ) Public Comment Period for All Other Items: Those persons wishing to address the Commission during the public comment period must fill out the Public Comment form. Members of the audience presenting public comments to the Commission are requested to provide a total of thirteen (13 ) copies and give four (4) copies to the Recording Secretary. Only those matters listed under Unfinished and New Business are action items upon which the Commission may take action.

Nice how they have these on week days

Yup. I was going to go, but I am stuck re upgrading a failed client upgrade.

We got screwed

Look at the stuff going on at the ASA's site.

Ed screwed us from the start and funded his own pet projects and it looks like he's kissing Spittlers ass.

http://www.americansandassociation.org/php...e72071bdae3d753

Instead of dwelling on what the OHV Commission did or did not do with the grant process, might we want to look into what BLM did with the appropriated funds from Congress for the ISDRA?

I'm hearing that Congress gave a considerable additional sum of money to BLM for this season for the management of the ISDRA. If indeed this is correct, then the sum given to the Imperial County LEO's for law enforcement, coupled with this additional sum granted by Congress, would well exceed the grant request by BLM that is a topic of this thread.

Under this scenario, both BLM and the County would in a sense, share management of the ISDRA.

No bull here, just the facts as related to me today from someone in the know.

BOTH are relevant.

I don't know who Duck's source is, but I do know the amount was $500,000 and Filner was among those who pushed for it.

It was brought up at the OHV leadership meeting the other night.

Vicki

I think you all need to go to

http://www.americansandassociation.org/php...b1d6f2dc313a35c

and read whats really going on there is some powerful stuff there.

some people just can't face the fact that ed waldehiem blew us off for his el mirage tribute to himself

Vicki is on course. I don't wish do disclose my source, as I was given this information in confidence.

I would suggest that you contact your Congressperson, Congressman Filner, and the BLM to (are you not on the TRT for the Fee Program?) ascertain the validity of this information.

And Mr. Valve, is it more important to express your displeasure with Mr. Waldheim's OHV Commisson vote, or as I've been informed, see BLM get Congressionally appropriated funds that will help to get the job done?

Also, based upon my understanding of the mood of the OHV Commission, they are not about to fund any more than a "bare bones" grant to the ISDRA. In light of this, with all due respect; do you really believe that the Commission would have granted the El Mirage funding to the ISDRA?

Duck, if your source is asking you to keep this information confidential, you should check to see which leg is being pulled

Filner has spoken publicly about this "supplemental funding" so it's absolutely no secret.

Perhaps I mis-spoke. The information is public, and since this mail was only part of a much larger and in depth piece, the author asked me to keep the mail private. Since the rest of the mail was sensitive at this time, I only wanted to share the public knowledge portion in this post. The point that I must have not made clear, was not wanting to disclose the source of the information.

Thanks for posting the press release Vicki. I though I saw this information before. Now this old brain recalls what you have posted.

I fully agree that the ISDRA deserves a share of the OHV Fund. The amount from the same is always a question. Vicki, what is the entire budget for the IDSRA? How much is provided by Congress, the fee program, and any other sources of funding?

Has an audit been performed on what was allocated from these sources, and what was actually spent? I’m told that the “bean counters” of BLM have pulled monies earmarked to the ISDRA, and sent to other projects around the country. This might account for the funding shortage.

My final point for this post is that we need to do a better job in influencing the OHV Commission. Public displays of disappointment on the decisions of the OHV Commission are acceptable. But when these displays attack individual members of the Commission, I question how the same improves our relationship so that the Commission makes decisions that are more favorable.

When we start questioning the amount of money from the fee program when discussing how much the OHMVR should fund, the argument could get quite circular as well as raise the ire of more than a few of us.

While I think that the ISDRA should get more money, I understand the accountability part needs to improve. I don't have quite the same animosity toward Ed that some do. He is and always has been a "hard pack" centric person. It should come as no surprise that he will be focused on those areas and not the dunes. That doesn't mean that he is the enemy, just that he may not always be aware of nor as concerned about our needs. He hasn't ever pretended to be any other way either. Not from what I have seen.

I believe that is why we have sand specific organizations. Some of them claim to have people with all this knowledge and inside contacts. Maybe they should be pushing that angle. I guess it goes back to we really need to watch all of our dune centric leaders.

"Duck sez...

"My final point for this post is that we need to do a better job in influencing the OHV Commission"

In a perfect world, with open minded commissioners without an agenda, this approach might work. Read the "Off road to ruin" POS by Spitler and then say that...He has deceived the OHV community before, he will do it again, and until he is somehow removed, nothing will change.

Nice, well thought out post Jeff. I've always admired your thought pattern. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

Frankie:

Your thoughts are on the mark. But I don't see Mr. Spitler going anywhere soon.

Mr. Spitler reminds me a bit of Marge Sutton back in the day, a Sierra Club activist, appointed to the OHV Commission. In the early days, Ms. Sutton had some similar tendencies toward OHV recreation as Mr. Spitler, although Mr. Spitler was a bit more militant in his views.

Also on the OHV Commission at that time was Mr. Waldheim. The upshot of this story is that by the ending years of Ms. Sutton’s days, efforts by this community and Mr. Waldheim to work with Ms. Sutton on some issues paid off.

I don’t recall the specifics, but I can fully remember that their were times on important issues that Ms. Sutton didn’t vote “party line” with the anti OHV folks. Instead, Ms. Sutton looked at the issue, and made conclusions and decisions based upon information garnered from all accounts.

I really liked and admired Ms. Sutton through the years.

In a similar way, I now see Mr. Waldheim “reaching out” to Mr. Spitler and others on the OHV Commission. The fact that they have a good working relationship might just help us in the long run.

"Duck" sez...

"In a similar way, I now see Mr. Waldheim “reaching out” to Mr. Spitler and others on the OHV Commission..."

Well, OK...but Ed had better count his fingers every time he gets his hand back...and the hand Ed extends had better be "untied". If he wants to give something to get something, remember that Spitler is a lawyer!

Why do you impune scorpions so?

I'm not sure, but I don't beleive that Mr. Spitler is a lawyer.

This from the Resources Law Group, LLC.:

Program Officer. Paul Spitler works on wildlands, Wilderness, and public land issues. He formerly served as Executive Director of the California Wilderness Coalition, where he initiated several land conservation campaigns. He was a founding member of the California Wild Heritage Campaign, a statewide effort to designate new wilderness in California. He currently serves as Chair of the State Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. Mr. Spitler will be attending Stanford Law School in the Fall of 2004.

Scorpion hater !

hehehehe

I work for scorpions er I mean lawyers... I am qualified to give an opinion!

Vicki

Lawyers are to scorpions what volcanos are to teddy bears.