Recently, I’ve posted about the possible end of the CA State Parks OHMVR Division and CORVA’s (CA Off Road Vehicle Association) promotion of a bill to keep that OHV funding source in place.
There is now a bill that has been put forth to END this grant funding for OHV.
If you do nothing else this year for OHV, make a call or send an email to your local elected representative to support the continuation of the CA State Parks OHMVR Grant Program and oppose SB 249.
As a citizen of Nevada, not California, it’s a little tricky for me to contact “my” elected CA representative. But I will use the CA address of my family cabin at Tahoe and submit that I recreate (read as bring money to spend) in CA and the continuation of this grant program with promote me to continue to recreate in CA.
This is HUGE people. I don’t often ask for my readers to act. This blog is for your enjoyment and education. I didn’t start this blog to promote myself or any ’cause’. I try not to rant too often. But, I am promoting this cause because if we lose our OHV funds, our trails will close do to lack of maintenance.
The old saying is: “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” Well the new quote will be: “If you didn’t speak out to save the CA State Parks OHMVR Grant Program, you can’t complain when your OHV sticker funds go to maintain a State Park that doesn’t allow OHV use and our OHV trails get closed.” Not as catchy but you get my point.
Contact your politician and tell your friends to do the same.
The Eldorado National Forest (ENF) just put out an email about an open house regarding the OHV rant process.
This is a good opportunity for the user to tell the forest service how we want our grant funds spent. Regarding the greater ‘Tahoe side Rubicon area trails’, there is only one trail, the Richardson Lake Trail that runs up to Sourdough Hill. Currently, that trail has maintenance well in hand, been adopted by a motivated user, and should be good for years to come.
ENF does a huge amount of work on the Rubicon itself in cooperation with El Dorado County. There are a few spots along the trail that could use some work (read as fill material) in order to prevent temporary closures due to running/standing water on the trail. These efforts should be emphasized and supported.
The old saying is “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain”. This is similar, if you don’t take the time to inform the forest service what you want to see them do for your trails, don’t complain when it doesn’t happen. ‘m sure there is a way to email in any thoughts or comments you have if you can’t make the meeting.
It didn’t copy and paste well but here it is…
As a new CORVA (CA Off-Road Vehicle Assoc.) Field Representative, I felt the responsibility to phone in to and participate in the Board of Directors meeting Monday night. It is an open meeting, anyone call phone in and participate or just listen. For the most part, it was your typical meeting reviewing minutes, President’s report, old business, etc.
The one thing that jumped out at me was someone (sorry I didn’t note who brought it up) spoke about the new CA Senate Bill SBX1-1. Look it up. (I think there’s a similar one in the Assembly.) In a nut shell, it proposes the ability to change the allocation of the gas tax revenues that usually funds CA State Parks OHVMR grants to be used for all things vehicle related such as general highway repair, adding bicycle lanes to state roads, etc.
I’m not a legal scholar, so I’ve provided a link to the bill below for you to review the bill as well as copied the two paragraphs from the bill that I think sum it up:
(8) Article XIX of the California Constitution requires gasoline excise tax revenues from motor vehicles traveling upon public streets and highways to be deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account, for allocation to city, county, and state transportation purposes. Existing law generally provides for statutory allocation of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to other modes of transportation, including aviation, boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles, to particular accounts and funds for expenditure on purposes associated with those other modes, except that a specified portion of these gasoline excise tax revenues is deposited in the General Fund. Expenditure of the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to those other modes is not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution.
This bill, commencing July 1, 2016, would instead transfer to the Highway Users Tax Account for allocation to state and local transportation purposes under a specified formula the portion of gasoline excise tax revenues currently being deposited in the General Fund that are attributable to boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles. Because that account is continuously appropriated, the bill would make an appropriation.
This could be a huge blow to funding OHV maintenance and repair. Along with this bill, the entire OHMVR program is coming up for review (it will go away unless it gets voted to continue) and the OHMVR division will be rolled into the CA State Park system and no longer be a different division.
These are a lot of changes facing our grant source all at one time.
CORVA is on it. They are already voicing support to renew the OHMVR program. They are keeping an eye on how this system will be managed under CA State Parks directly. And they are aware of and will work to correct any bill that would defund or reduce funds to our OHV grant program.
As a life member of CORVA, I would ask that you help support the efforts of CORVA in this issue and the many others that CORVA champions. www.CORVA.org
This OHV season, the CA State Parks OHV Division made available almost $11 million dollars for OHV issues, projects, maintenance, law enforcement, education, etc.
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) failed to obtain a single penny of it. In comparison, the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) received $438k and the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) received $650k.
There is a 30 day grace period for the agency requesting funds to ask that their grant be reviewed and rescored but don’t hold your breath. This is the second straight year the grant writers and administrators at the LTBMU have fallen short. I think it’s safe to say the LTBMU needs a new grant writing staff.
Here’s the problem, even though the LTBMU didn’t receive CA State Parks grant funding, they are still required to manage OHV on their forest. It’s just going to be that much more difficult without specific funding for OHV.
I’m using this lack of funding problem to push the LTBMU to reinstate the Adopt-A-Trail program they dumped two years ago.
If you or your club, group, business or organization would like to adopt an OHV trail within the LTBMU, email them, call them, hound them, do not take no for an answer, Right now I only know of the Twin peaks Trail in South Lake Tahoe, the Buck Lake Trail off the Rubicon and the Middle Fork Trail up Blackwood Canyon (just north of the Rubicon) that historically have been adopted.
That list doesn’t include the pre-Placer County Rubicon when the Lake Tahoe Hi-Lo’s had the entire east side of the trail adopted. For adopting a section of the Placer side of the Rubicon Trail, contact the Rubicon Trail Foundation.
Here is a list of OHV trails within the basin from the LTBMU website. Not all trails are listed. Check the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for more trails.
Lake Tahoe – East Shore
- Genoa Peak Road 14N32
- Kingsbury Stinger 18E39.3
- Logan House 14N33
Lake Tahoe – North Shore
- Kings Beach 18E18
- Mt Watson 73E
Lake Tahoe – South Lake Tahoe
- Corral Trail 18E14
- Hellhouse Road 12N01D
- High Meadows Trail 18E33A
- Power Line Road 12N08
- Sand Pit 12N08
- Sawmill Pond 12N30
- Twin Peaks 12n30
Lake Tahoe – West Shore
- Buck Lake Road – 14N40
- McKinney / Rubicon Trailhead
- Noonchester 14N34A
Please step up, adopt a trail, push the LTBMU to work with the users!
Earlier, I reported that the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit had failed to apply for any funds for four wheel drive trails. They had only applied for a motorcycle trail that is frequented by mountain bikes. (The project is being lead by TAMBA – Tahoe Area Mountain Bike Assoc.) Then I reported that the Basin had failed to received any funding due to a technical error.
Well the results are out regarding who actually got the money.
Here is a link to the page with the results of those awards. There are several catagories of grant funding so let me cut to the chase for you.
Planning – this would include Placer County’s plan to GPS the east half of the trail:
Placer County: $51,000 (they had asked for ($89,000)
Tahoe National Forest: $90,000
Tahoe National Forest: $488,000
Tahoe National Forest: $623,000
Eldorado National Forest: $591,000
El Dorado County: $590,000
All I can say it that’s a lot of green stickers being bought!