California state parks meeting
>> Stand by for realtime captioning ,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> Captioner needs audio, please contact at 775-835-8945
Or contact at marciaferrell @ hot mail.com
>> Please contact captioner at 775-835-8945 Thank you
>> The highlights represent most of the decision points to develop regulations. When the law came out there were things we will to mechanically make clear or how it's going to work, so the decision points that are in the highlights reflect that. And we're going to go through that and answer your questions, and after that we'll just open it up to any questions you have about the regulations, the criteria, anything that you want to talk about.
So yes we have the focus groups last April, and there were five themes that we just heard over and over again, and we really took those to heart, and tried our best to apply those to the law, and make them work for you.
One of those was that priority is for on the ground projects.
Another was we want to take care of existing trails and facilities first.
Well rounded programs should receive the highest scores.
All law enforcement applicants should get something.
And the last one was reevaluate caps. So we have taken all that into consideration as we develop these draft regulations, and I'd ask you also to remember that my staff has worked many long hours over the last few months, putting this together, and I really many proud to be the leader of this group, they're very dedicated, they're very committed to this program, and we've worked very hard to come up with a package that we believe reflects 742, and the comments that we heard from the focus groups.
So let's look at that draft regulation highlight.
And the first issue there is condensed regulation format.
So those of you that were around last time, and I think that's most of you, remember there was a regulation, and then there was a manual, with chapters, and some of the information on a topic might be in the regulations, some might be in a chapter, some might be in the criteria, and it was a little hard to make a nexus between all of those things and pull that together. So we did away with the manual and the chapters, and we laid out this regulation in what we think is a logical order.
So if you were a person that knew absolutely nothing about the program, and you opened it up, the first thing you see is what's the purpose of the program.
Who is eligible.
How much money is available.
What would I have to do to apply?
How will the applications be evaluated?
And then, article four, the last, is the administration procedures.
So that's what we're trying to achieve is to put this in an order that just makes sense to the viewer, the reader, that has never seen it before.
So hopefully, we've done that.
Any questions on that? I like it so far. All right.
Doing good.
Let's talk about the grants cycle, and you'll see up here on the board, we have a chart that illustrates the grants cycle that would be the actual dates that are up coming for the next year. So because we're dealing with the regulation, and we did not want to put in firm dates, because that means the next year we'd have to change those dates and go back to the administrative law process, and do that again, we made them generically so we would say that application process is going to begin the second Monday in January. Whenever -- whatever date that is. It will always be the second Monday in January, and then so on, you know, throughout this table it shows the milestone points.
And then what we're going to do is every year we'll post in plenty of time on our website what those actual calendar dates are for that next grant cycle. And that is illustrated up here on these charts, so the process is going to begin January 12th. And then application -- the whole application period is through May 4th. So that is an extended version of what we've had in the past.
And looking up here, you'll see that we have the third item on our chart up there, says preliminary application filing. What we are striving to do this year is something we saw last year, was we knew that some applicants did not complete their application correctly. They had checked wrong boxes, they didn't check boxes they should have, and when we went to evaluate them, we look at it, oh, my gosh, they checked the wrong box.
But because of the regulations last year, there was nothing we could do about it. And those folks just suffered.
So we don't want that to happen. So by putting a preliminary application that they're going to file, we will have a chance to review the application, and those things that jump out at us, like there was a forest that said they had no special species last year, we know that's not right.
We're going to call them up and say would you go back and take a look at that, and make sure that you checked the correct box? Because we don't want someone's application not to be funded just because they checked the wrong box.
We want to reward the merits of the project itself, rather than the skills and accuracy of the person that's completing the application.
Another thing that this does is it gives us an opportunity to preview what's coming up, and if we have questions, we may want to go out and do a site visit.
Especially in some categories like a restoration project, where we look at the project description, and we say, you know, this really isn't clear what this project is really all about. And so it will give us an opportunity to go out and do a site visit, take before pictures, and have a better idea, rather than look at a project description that's -- you know, mediocre at best.
So that we can really get a fair gauge on this application. And we're working with WCB, right now, that they will help us in this evaluation of restoration projects they're the experts in restoration, they have biologists on staff, and they're going to help us through the pros and cons of the restoration applications and do site visits as necessary with us.
Something else this preliminary application is going to do is the public review is now going to be done on our website. So the applications are going to be done online, and I'll take this point to say that we are working to get a contractor to develop a new database for us so that you'll be applying online.
And this is really going to be a big plus for a lot of reasons. However, we're being held hostage by the budget situation right now because the governor is supposed to put out an executive order on Thursday that would not allow us to hire a contractor to put together this database until the budget is resolved. And it's going to take quite awhile, months, to put this database together and test it and make sure it's working in time for our next cycle next January.
So if this budget impasse continues, it's really going to jeopardize our plan to have an online application.
But that's our goal, and it's going to be a really important tool.
Any questions so far? No? Good, okay.
That's Olga that you see in the regulations, online grant applications, that's Olga. What we -- is -- is that in a certain time frame our public can go on database online and they can review everybody's application and they can make their comments and shend them to the applicant and to us, so we have a one stop shop where they can go see, or it's going to be Ed McMahon is everything you want to know is going to be in one place, rather than gathering from various forests BLM offices it's all going in one place, and we see this as a real positive from all you folks, that are especially interested in looking at the global value rather than just a local or regional view, you want to see the entire program, you're going to have one spot that you can go and do this.

So we see that as a real, real positive -- we need my roveer. And you sir, what is your name
>> Don Huston California Ohio association I've got a question there of your time frame. You're saying that from March through the first Monday of April, the public will be able to review these and make comments date for filing isn't until the first Monday in May, so we're like a month off there. What do we do with the ones that come in after the first Monday in April, the public is not going to be able to comment on those?
>> Ones that come in after applications you mean?
Okay, applications, you have to do a preliminary application. So the preliminary application -- help me out here, Jean -- is due March 2nd.
>> Correct.
>> And then the public review process begins on March 3rd.
>> Well, then, why do we have an application final filling date?
>> Okay, that's a good question, and we're headed that way. So you have a preliminary application, and then the division may ask questions of the applicant to make sure that their application is correct. The public is going to have a chance to review the application, and make comments.
Then the applicant has about a month to consider the advice we gave them, to consider the comments by the public, so they can go back into our online system and make changes as appropriate based upon the comments of the division and the public.
And then you're going to hit that final submit button, and that will be your final application. So your preliminary application should be prylt darn close to your final application, unless you have some public comments or some comments from the division, where you need to make some changes. Okay?
>> One comment.
>> Who are you, sir?
>> So -- and just to clarify that, so what we're want to go avoid is, I know that it's really frustrating that when an applicant has an application that they turned in last year, in a few instances, the applicant made a glaring mistake, maybe checked the wrong box, or did something wrong on the final application, but it was a final application, so we couldn't fix it. Because we could fix -- you know, consequential defects, you couldn't change those big things that would change if you were going to be in the program after program, or really competitive or not so competitive.
So by doing this system that Allen has been outlining gives the -- program and everybody look at your application and say hey you guys should have taken credit for, why did you want mention you know all those things that come up. This gives the applicants time to hear those comments, and time to make those adjustments before that final application is due. So hopefully by the time the final application is due, everybody has had a chance to like fix the glaring mistakes and get a better application. That's what we're after, is a better application.
>> Don (inaudible) again. I like the system, the only thing I hope that does not happen is the preliminary applications, and the final applications, become totally different. Because there's huge differences in them, because we've seen that happen before where we've commented, I'd say we the public, have commented to the agency -- -- has commented to the agency, and then nothing changed, or it radically changed before it got to -- when it got to the division, you know, and after that point, it looks like we as the public are not going to get a whole lot of say-so.
So we need to see how this is going to work, just being a little skeptical here, that I hope the agencies do not change dramatically, so that it was totally different than the preliminary.
>> Don, do you want to come up here and sit by me?
>> DON: No.
>> AL: Because this is the same struggle that we're having, we're trying to measure out the pros and cons by having this preliminary application, we don't want the applicant to completely change and modify and sneak something in, or something like that, at the end. So the way that we wrote the regulation is that the applicant can't change their application, except for based upon public comment or division comment. So they can't just go off on a tangent on their own.
So there are definitely some pros and cons, and I'd like to hear from some more of you about this preliminary application. You know, another scenario that could happen, I know it never would, but it could, is everyone submits their preliminary application, now you as an applicant could go in and size up the competition, and say well, gee, some other folks have scored a little higher than me. Maybe I need to change some answers. So I score a little higher.
So that's why we put that limitation of you can only make changes based upon comments from the public or from the division. But I want to hear from some more people, we have someone over here.
>> Yeah -- smismt (inaudible) with sheriff's office I happen to agree, and my suggestion would be that you have track changes so that as an applicant makes changes to that initial filing, that those show up like in Word, where it shows track changes, and maybe an extra step in there that's just prior to that final filing date there's a five day lockout so you have to make those changes right up until that five days before that first Monday in May, that gives everybody an opportunity to look at those track changes, and then, you know, the first Monday in May happens, and then it becomes final, with those track changes disappearing and that goes up.

That way there's clear transparency as to you know what it initially said and what the track changes say. So if there's something that's been changed substantially, somebody sized up the competition or changed a little bit it's going to be current with track changes and that can be disallowed by the division or the public has an opportunity to make a harsh comment about it.
>> AL: Okay, we have some questions over here. The lady in green was first.
>> Oh, excuse me.
>> AL: Karen please state your name.
>> KAREN: Karen (shefard) if you can change the application, due to the public comment, one person could make the comment that perhaps most of the public is happy with an application the way it is, if it changes -- you know, as a result of comments by -- you know, somebody -- if it changes -- so that people don't like the changes. Is there any way so that the final application, after all the changes are made, is available for the public to look at and say -- you know, we don't like it or not.
>> AL: Well, the applicant wouldn't be compelled to make the change, if only one person sent them a comment, then what they would have to do is they'd have to document what the comment was, and for us they would have to say why they didn't implement the change. They're not compelled to.
Because they have a big overall management plan, and they may only be talking about one project, which represents just a small percentage of their overall plan.
So, you know, they wouldn't be necessarily making the change, they could, that would be grounds for them to make a change, is based on comment.
>> KAREN: I guess my point, though, is people tend to comment more if they disagree with something than if they agree with it.
>> AL: Good point, yes.
>> KAREN: So you could have 90 percent of people pretty happy with an application, then have -- you know, somebody not like it, and have them change it. I guess my big point is that it would be nice to see the applications after they're finalized, and be able to give your support or opposition to the final product before they start -- because public comment is part of the evaluation criteria.
>> AL: So you're suggesting there be a comment period, and then like a second comment period for changes that they made, for like maybe a shorter period of time?
>> KAREN: I think it's important to be able to comment on the final application.
>> AL: Yeah, okay.
>> My name is Cisco Fernandez. This one topic has generated a lot of internal discussion on that topic. The draft application. And so we're hoping to get some feedback from you guys what exactly you guys want to see, how would you proceed with this topic, so any ideas would -- would be very helpful.
>> JIM: Jim keeler I'm California state office. I sort of like your idea of track changes. Another possibility for that would be some kind of a manual form that actually documents what changes you've made, and provides a rationale for it. And I think Karen has a good point, too.
>> AL: Okay. In the back?
>> -- -- Forest Service. I like it just the way you have it. I think it's good, I don't think we need anything-- the changes are going to be driven by public comment, and you have to have a rationale for the change, anyway, I don't know that -- I don't know that track changes wouldn't work, but I'm just (inaudible) an online application how that creates a function, but maybe there's a way, I think it's good just the way it is, you've done a good job.
>> AL: Thank you. Meeting adjourned.
>> Mark (inaudible) -- sheriff's. Are you saying on our online application if we have 107 comments about our grant, then in our final we would need to address all 107 comments as to why we are, or are not going to -- the comments in our grant --
>> AL: Usually there are some common themes.
>> MARK: Right.
>> AL: So you can lump a lot of them together. What have we done in the past, Daniel?
>> Dan -- -- speaking. In the past it's been a requirement of applicants in their application and in the (inaudible) just a final application there wasn't a preliminary. But in that application, the applicant would describe what comments were received, how the application was changed as a result of those comments, or why it wasn't changed as a result of those comments.
So we've maintained that, that still exists in the application. So it's something that applicants have dealt with in the past, basically just tell us -- we've received a bunch of comments that said we should do this, we're not allowed to do it so we didn't do it. Or wee received comments to do this, and it was a good idea so we did that.
So -- nothing massive, a couple paragraphs and it's built into one of the forms that the applicant will be -- that will -- -- to complete.

>> AL: So you don't have the address the 100 plus comments.
>> Dan (inaudible) capital wheel. I like your setup here. The only thing I do not see there is when it goes to the commission and (inaudible) the advisory. But if it went to the commission after the final filing date, you'd have to have a meeting in May, the public then could look at them then, and if they had a real problem with something, voice it to the commission, which you guys of course will hear, along with the commission. That might give us our second shot at the -- if the -- -- on the particular changes on them or not. I don't know what your feeling, what your idea was when it would go to the advisory.
>> AL: Well, it's not required by law, but we could certainly have a meeting of our own, and give folks an opportunity to come forward and make their comments.
More comments? The commission is still required to have a meeting on -- and making recommendations on grants prior to the beginning of the grant cycle, but not on the back end.
No more questions on that? Okay, then the next step after the final applications are due, then the division is going to do our analysis and scoring, which will take about a month, and then we're going to post an intent to award on our website, which is the result, who is getting funded, who is not, and that then kicks off an appeal period.
And appeals are limited to someone who is an applicant, and on the grounds that the division did not follow the regulations, or that we didn't have sufficient information to either make an award or deny an award.
So those are the two reasons you can apply, and only applicants can apply for an appeal.
There's 30 days that the appeal process is open. We cannot award any agreements during that time, because we have to let that time pass until we can make -- execute the agreements.
So it's an intent to award up until that point.
Should someone file an appeal, then there is a process where the appeal would be reviewed, the division has 30 days to respond, and then there's a second level appeal.
So if you don't like the answer, if you're the person submitting the appeal, and you don't like the answer you got, you can appeal a second time.
If you add all the time together that's available, it's 127 days. So depending upon the appeal, it could hold up certain project types, for 127 days at the maximum.
Now, if the appeal does not affect some of the project agreements -- for example, if there's an appeal in restoration, it doesn't have any effect on law enforcement, it doesn't have any effect on operations and maintenance, so we could go ahead with those. But we may be limited to the folks that are in the restoration category. And again, depending upon what the appeal is, it may be limited to we it would only have an effect on certain projects, and so there may be some flexibility that we may be able to go ahead and execute some agreements that would not be affected if the appeal is upheld. So it's kind of a play it by ear, depending upon what the appeal is.
Any questions on the appeal?
And then you all get your money and you're all happy.

So any questions on the grant cycle? And I don't know how well you can read the dates up there. We will get this up on our website, but right now the application period would begin January 12th, and the finals would be due May 4th. And the intent to award would go out June 1st, 2009. And with no appeals, for those of you online I'm crossing my fingers, then we could execute agreements on July 1st.
>> The appeal period ends approximately (November fift
>> Yes.
>> That starting period is predicated on us getting through the office of administrative law process. So (inaudible) about that, says what now, that's what our days are, that's because we don't have those dates firmly until we have finished the whole regulatory process (inaudible) before we can commit to a start date.
>> AL: That is correct, so we are going to submit to OAO the middle of August, that way it gives us a couple of weeks to respond to your comments tonight, and then there's a 45 day comment period, and based upon the outcome of that, then it gets kind of flexible if there are comments that don't require changes, if OAL doesn't question us, or if they do, then that changes that timeline. So this is a proposed timeline at this point, but that's what we're shooting for.
Phil Jenkins.
> PHIL: Just one other minor point on that.
As the timeline was put together, our proposed timeline was put together, one of the aspects that we were looking at in trying to address -- and trying to address as another comment funded issue that's come up, that hopefully that would allow we're able to have the -- you know, the decisions essentially in June, a 30 day appeal period, and then get the money -- the contracts out the door, but the federal agencies would have the time to do the process they need to have, so that they have a spending period -- the spending period or the project period for their projects could more nearly match their fiscal year.
So we'll see, as things go through the system, if we've achieved that or not. But that had a big part to do with the way that everybody put that timeline together. And recognizing you're never going to meet everybody's needs, so if it goes out in July, if you're a month behind the local agencies that have perhaps the June to July fiscal year, but hopefully getting out in July is presumably in the middle and everybody is happy and we've succeeded.
>> Don -- -- question, or Phil, to you, is if the AOL process slows things down, does that mean that we -- aren't no grants again in 2009?
>> No.
>> DON: So even though it would be in regulation you can adjust the dates
>> We would have to do an emergency reg to do that, and it's not a big piece of cake it's like the process we're going through now. Okay, the next topic is nonprofit applicants.
>> Well, government agencies are nonprofits.
>> AL: Well I've been nonprofit all my life, so I guess I qualify.

So we took quite a long look at this topic, as to which nonprofits we should allow to participate in the program, and we compared our program with the sister program that we administer, the RTP. We also looked at other state agencies that allow grants for nonprofits, we also looked at the federal government and some of their grant programs, and across the board, it's a 501 C 3. And presumably that is because the 501 C 3 cannot be involved in lobbying. So that eliminates, you know, some potential for some conflicts of interest, and it's what everyone else in government that's giving out grants to non profit is doing, so we stayed with the status quo and went with the 501 C 3. Any questions on that? This is a great group.
Okay. Does anyone want to talk about law enforcement?
>> Absolutely.
>> AL: All right. Law enforcement is the next topic. And I think there was a notion way up front when 742 passed that law enforcement is going to be noncompetitive, it's going to be the easiest change that this law gave us, and it turned out to be the opposite. Because it's non competitive, and we are measuring based on a need, how do you determine need?
We have ran through -- I don't know, maybe close to a dozen different scenarios, most of those based on equations that have statistics, you know, how large is the area you patrol, citations you give out, and it became obvious to us that all this criteria and these equations are this long, it would be very easy to wait one category -- weight one category incorrectly, that would skew the numbers, we don't want people to say hey the more citations I give out, the more grant money I get so I'm citing everybody. The collection and reporting of statistical numbers, varies between agencies and locals, no one does it uniformly, and so we may not be comparing apples with apples.
And in keeping with another thing that we heard at the focus groups was keep it simple. Keep it simple. So Martha, could you bring up a sample? We've come up with what we've called proportional funding plan.
And what this involves is that every applicant -- and the sample here is with local law enforcement -- every applicant gets something. That's something we heard very strongly in the focus groups. Everybody gets something, you're not cutting everybody out.
So we said that if you apply for $25,000 or less, you'll just get that amount. You'll get 100 percent funding. And that was done because when you put things into a formula and if you only ask for $12,000, and you ended up getting $7,000, it's not a lot of money for someone to do something with, so we thought that folks that are just asking for a small amount of money, let's just give them what they ask for.
So that would be the first thing we would do, is give 100 percent. So there in our chart you see that applicant county sheriff number five, and number six, and eight, and nine, ask for $25,000 or less, so that's what they get.
Then we take the remaining folks and we say everybody gets $25,000 plus. And that plus then is based upon a formula where we take, after we've taken out the people who got funded 100 percent, and the $25,000 rest of the applications, now we have a remaining pot of money, and we have a remaining amount of requests after taking out the 25,000 and less, and the 25,000 across the board.
Then we do a math formula that then creates a percentage. So in this example, it's -- over here in the right hand you can see it's 61, zero, blah, blah, blah. And then you would take that percentage, and multiply it by their adjusted request.
So an example there on county sheriff number one, they originally asked for $220,000, they got their base amount of 25,000, and then based upon the formula, they got another 119,000 and change. For a total of $144,000. I'll let you digest that for a moment.
>> Dan can field speaking.
>> Go ahead sir
>> I just want to chime in this is a very stylized sample, the amount available 4 million dollars, obviously that's not what we're anticipating it was mostly for illustrative purposes, king county sheriff's obviously it was a limited pool, the idea was we wanted to show, at a glance, how the formula works. Keep in mind that we are -- you know, that category will receive more than 1 million dollars and we anticipate more than 10 applicants. This is only done to illustrate it, but the same formula works if you've got 1,000 plikts or 10 applicants, if you have 10 dollars available or 10 million dollars available, it's a basic formula, keep that in mind that's a highly stylized sample.
>> AL: Uh-huh.
>> Karen shell heart. I have a question. This is needs based but it looks like needs is just whatever the applicant --
>> AL: Good question. So in their application,
>> She had a question.
>> AL: Oh, restate the question, Karen, a little louder.
>> KAREN: This was going to be needs based, and it works like -- if I understand what you just said, the need is basically what they're requesting.
>> AL: So they'll have to submit, in addition to the request amount, they have to submit a description of the project of what they're going to do. So it would be so many patrol so many days twals the 220,000, for example, for county sheriff number one.
So there would be a plan, as to how they got to that number.
We struggled with how do we tell all the locals what your need is. They need to tell us what their need is.
>> KAREN: So how is this different than the way we've always done it.
>> It's still competitive.
>> AL: It was competitive in the past,
>> (Name) it appears still competitive with the additional award on top of there's a need, and then there's some type of criteria to find out the additional award. So it's still somewhat competitive, because they're still competing against other counties to get the initial award amount.
>> AL: I would say that's a fair assessment. And we could not come up with any sort of formula that didn't have at least some little element of competition.
>> (Name) san marine 0 county sheriff. One of the things I had a hard time digesting with this program is looking at it what you've got as far as the criteria, we're suppose -- that we're supposed to address, you don't ask for any raw data for you as the evaluators to make these decisions. You ask for a narrative style. Some of these things that you say are areas that would go to weight -- -- specific category, I totally agree with you, but you need as an evaluator to know the whole picture. And I've said this many, many times, I want you guys in the division to be the experts, but past experience what's going on in these areas that's not the case you don't have enough staff to be able to do that.
Some of the questions that need to be asked is maybe-- partner -- federal partners that are concerned -- -- but how many officers do they have on the ground. That shows the need perhaps the need to cover their areas that (inaudible). So I think there's a need for raw data whether it be calls for service, number of acres.
And also about the proportional there are some law enforcement agencies in the state that don't have a -- -- so we're going to -- them?
>> AL: No they would have to apply and they would have to have a plan that's related to OHV enforcement.
>> Okay we've spent millions and -- -- spent millions on -- -- reports we're reinventing the wheel again, and trust me I'm not saying (inaudible) subject matter experts on some of these studies, or a combination thereof, you -- we need to give you all the data, and not in a narrative style. I mean, there's some raw data that you need. And I think also that as applicants, we should be required to give you the proof of that data. Whether it be (?) (?) And envelopes R nevertheless we still have the proof of that data and we're not just coming up with things.
And I don't think as a applicant. San -- -- county we wouldn't mind at all submitting documentation to support our facts and figures in the application itself.
Part of the reason for -- (inaudible) law enforcement moving towards these -- we have some -- -- or everyone smaller aagencies that deal with a tremendous number of visitors, and those numbers are being overlooked and that's why we're needs based so they can't be overlooked. So I don't see how proportional funding in this budgetary system we're dealing with, it can't be fair for everybody. We need to make sure that those agencies that truly have a need are funded, and funded correctly, so they can deal with their issues.
And some of that is going to change over time, as you as the evaluators, whether it be a new applicant coming into the system that has a new need based on, you know, stringent law enforcement in a certain area or whatever the case may be, obviously that shift is going to adjust and you as the evaluator would be able to or should be able to adjust with that.
>> AL: Appreciate your comments, and we've been struggling with this for months.
Do you have the sample of the -- Phil Jenkins would like to jump in at this point.
>> Phil: No, you go first.
>> Ron -- -- undersheriff alpine county. You've lost the --
>> Oh, we can bring it back.
>> RON: A couple of thoughts I have, and I think also to back up Shannon's comments is that you know there's a concern that you're going to have other agencies given the tightening of budgets for cities and counties as seeing this as hey if I just apply I'm going to get $25,000 and they're going to want to jump in the pool. And that is concerning.
I agree with Shannon, there's got to be some degree of raw data that applies to both big counties and small counties. A county like mine, for example, there are more dirt roads and OHV opportunity than there are paved roads and driving a sedan opportunities. So in that sense, and then given on top of that my agency's size, our potential have more miles to patrol, and more back country areas, and wilderness interface, which some of the other counties don't have, it becomes an important issue and an important need for us.
So I would advocate that we need to look at the need is why is there a need now that the regulations have changed, there has to be some degree of analysis on that. Who has got existing priority. cal boding you didn't jump into cal boding early on, they'll say to you what's your need now, you really have to justify becoming a new member of cal boding, we don't (inaudible) because we're not able to justify that from cal boding standpoint. So I think there has to be critical -- -- to jump in on this space now.
I think the other thing -- and I would also agree with Shannon in regards to narrative, is that a lot of time the division doesn't after clear picture, and I think that it's critical that maps be provided as part of the project.
Turnover staff, a lot of folks maybe aren't familiar with (inaudible) county. If there are something to say these are the arrest there's the map, hey there's where the wilderness boundaries are or there's where the city interface is, I think those are key components to any grant application.
>> AL: All right, thank you.
>> Greg (name) I think the base award or applicants, like I said earlier, is just going to open a door to many, many more people applying, knowing that they have a possibility of getting $25,000, thus lowering the amount of additional award available.
And I believe that there should be, again, starting with -- some weight for existing number of successful and moneys put towards that to keep them going so they don't (inaudible).
>> AL: Okay. Go ahead. You go first.
>> Mark --
>> So the guys on the internet can hear.
>> Mark row Len (inaudible) sheriff. Is there still going to be a requirement for the agency's matching funds as there has been in the past?
>> Yes.
>> So even though we county -- you know four comes in there says we need $305,000, you're still going to expect matching funds that they have earmarked just for OHV purposes.
>> Yes.
>> So these new programs coming up even Ho they come in asking for 25 they're still going to have to show an ear mark for 25. And is there any like the other gentleman said, is there any priority for existing programs, as opposed to the new agencies that sep this as a funds revenue? Because there are a lot of people in this room that have struggled through the previous grant processes, and established their programs, and hung on to their programs even fighting, now see a way that other cities are coming in saying hey, there's a patrol car and a half right there, all we have to do is say that's for off highway use. So I think that's one of the concerns, I'm sure you have an answer to that.
>> John Lyons (inaudible) county sheriff's office a couple comments. I actual like the proportional award idea.
Last year the county got zero during the process, we have just as much need as every other agency that put in for it.
I however don't have any federal lands I only have one riding opportunity in my entire county but I still have over 1400 square miles, I've got levees I've got barns, huge agricultural area, and I agree with what's being said, that we look at the grant, you have to look at the actual needs that are being put in, but I think -- and the statistical data I think should be utilized by those agencies putting in to Jeff what that need is. But I don't think we can weigh it saying, well, because he's gotten 1200 citations we've got to give him more of a priority than those other agencies that don't have the -- you know, riding opportunities or top partnerships. We work as closely as we can partners as we can, but that's one -- you know, so I like the proportional idea, and I think the agencies should not only just do the narrative, but should provide statistical data to support need.
>> AL: Okay, and that's a good point. And it came up in our Ontario focus group that there are other grant programs that do base it on statistics. So an officer there talked about how they go through these cycles, is they don't have enough funding, so they qualify to get all these great grants, now everything is going good, citations go down, callouts go down, now they don't get any funding, then it gets bad then, and then they get qualified to get lots of funding so it goes up again. So we didn't want to create, you know, that cyclical thing, where hopefully it would be a stabilized funding, where you year after year, unless the need really changes, you would pretty well count on what you're going to get in your budget: It wouldn't be feast or famine depending on whether you were funded or not.
>> As a follow up, Ben can't well -- -- division.
One of the comments -- couple comments we heard is that applicants that have been active in the program should receive preference or that should be weighted somehow in the analysis.
So when we envisioned this proportional funding plan and we kicked around a lot of the problems you guys have brought up and a lot of the issues that have been mentioned, we started thinking about how do we get to the true -- the true need. And yes, statistics is a component of that. And-- it's one component. And so what we look at is the -- (inaudible) you guy toss give feedback how to make it better. One of the regulations in this section, is the applicants provide with a budget, how much they're going to -- (inaudible) for patrol. That's part of the application.
And then the division staff, in cooperation with the applicant, we're going to look at some elements. One of the elements that's identified in the regulation, section 4970.195.3 subsection D -- applicants historical law enforcement grant request.
That would be starting spot, where those applicants that have been in the program, have been successful, where we would take a look at what level of funding they've been receiving. That's one component sh that's not all of it.
Then we'd also look at the statistics. How do you come about that you need X amount of patrol hours, how did you arrive at that. So that's stuff that all of the things that we envision working with the applicant during that preliminary phase, to fine tune that need. And so that was kind of how we envision utilizing statistics, past history, and other items that you can see in that section of the regulation. Of which we're certainly welcome to -- would welcome information what we would add or fine tune that. We want to get a better idea of what the true need is. That's what our goal was, so please give us some feedback about how we can do a better job of doing that.
>> Let me address a couple issues, just briefly, too.
So as we were coming up with different formulas, we started off with a lot of complex formulas, looking at how many stickers are registered in the county, what's the proportion, what kind of typical recreation is occurring in the county, what's the population of the county, we looked at some statistical data on county miles of urban roads versus u know, the mix of roads that all the data could get there was based on how much housing density was around the roads it wasn't based on whether the road was paved or dirt.
So that was used.
When you look at the heart of it when we look at the task that we had in front of it we look at the three different law enforcement we were dealing with we looked at Forest Service, BLM, and looked at local agencies.
It's a lot easier to do math to try to describe based on statistical data to compare one BLM area to another BLM area, because they're competing in their own little pocket, remember. That's part of the beauty of it we thought we made it easy on us, let's compare like to like, so you have a more competition. So Forest Service is competing against other Forest Service needs. So you can do math, come up with formulas that come pretty close that when we gauged them out we took last year's applications the year before's applications we said if we use this formula, based on the information that was turned in from these various Forest Service areas, how would the funding have worked out and it's a fairly good predictor sometimes. Sometimes, not always. And it's the anomalies that throw you all off.
But when we got to the counties we had the hardest time, because we went through and we tried formula after form la you should see the whiteboard in my office it looks like a mad math professor's office.
>> Yeah.
>> That's the outcome of the formula. You know that show of numbers on top? I feel like that guy drawing on the window. What we came up with were some formulas that we thought got pretty close, but the difficulty, particularly in county and smaller police departments and different agencies, is to come up with measuring criteria that worked across the board.
So for a large county, there are certain things that you would measure that make a lot have 0 sense. How many people are reck rating in that county (recreating in the county. How many green sticker vehicles are registered in that county. Which can give a goodnator of their work lood because some of those folks might be driving out the back road and looking for a place to eat so that's one, you can get that.)
When you try to compare some of those numbers to a very large county to a very small county it gets really very difficult to compare.
When we would do the math, to try normalize different factors weighting different ways you can get some where the bottom ones look right or top ones look in right but looking at the mix we saw agencies that have historically coming in for $10,000, $15,000 and when you do that whole math formula they're coming in getting 38, 40, $60,000 on the math and we talked to some of the smaller county and no we want money for maps and a few other things, we don't want to have to track the rest of that money, we don't want that money. So it becomes a very difficult process and we expected the kind of conversation we're having tonight because it's like, well, you know, let's go with something that we think will actually work, let's see how everybody here reacts to that, and we have the beauty of it is by having this meeting tonight, well, ahead of the time we're going to RAO, we still have some time to go back and make some (inaudible) adjustments.
So as we discuss it, though, I mean, and I would like to hear some -- we're over on time but we'd like to hear some more about how do you see that working as far as the math. Because that's what Dan is saying, and I think Dan articulated it very well, that what we imagined in this system, where we leave it to the agencies to explain to us what their need is, and that's where, like a county that may not have a lot of opportunities, still can come in and articulate a very pressing need.
You might have a river bed where there's no legal opportunity, but that doesn't stop people from coming out their garages or driving down in their pickup and unloading an OHV and driving in a river bed. No opportunity in the county, and yet the agencies responsible for that jurisdiction have to go out there and address the problem.
And the part of the trust fund, the reason we have the program, is to address those kinds of issues. And if we don't address those issues, we're not fulfilling the program.
And so you can't just say the county doesn't have opportunity, it's just not that simple. There again, if you're measuring the need pace based on math, you say the more opportunity you have, the higher the formula there's another group we spoke with that said no, the more opportunity they have the less need to have law enforcement, because now they have a place to send all the people. Give all the money to the counties that don't have the opportunity, because they've got the biggest problem they've got people going in illegally because there's no opportunity. So the math comprises the amount, sometimes it's really good but it takes the judgment factor out which we were getting at what we were trying to get to here, I guess I'll say it a leap of faith to trust the division would be where the agencies would articulate not just -- this is my budget, and this is what I plan to do with it, the agency would articulate, here's the need that I have to address, here is how I plan to address it, and this is how much money that will cost.

And so when you do that, that leaves the latitude to describe you may need that money because you have everybody riding in their back yards all over the county, and that's your need. You may have a need that I've got a lot of miles of roadless boundary and that's how I address that need. I might have people riding in the river bids that's your need, everybody has a different need, they can articulate it they can give us a plan how to address it, we can look at that as a division, public comments from the public, and weigh in on the decisions through the public process we've set up and gp we come to a conclusion where we might say to the division, you asked for one million bucks we've never done it for more than 20,000 and you never showed us why you need a million bucks so let's make that real for you in the final application. So that's the program we have up on the board.
So still having that kind of a little bit of explanation, go back out for questions.
>>
>> I understand (inaudible) inaudible point on this.
And I guess my suggestion would be if you only have one riding opportunity there should be a component that says if you border ol me, there should be -- -- basically the enforcement model, if you have one opportunity, you have a tremendous amount of illegal opportunity, then it has to be a declining enforcement model that says we provide maps of brochures how to get to these other destinations, and over a three or five year period we're going to have declining requests -- -- you're going to solve the problem.
I understand that -- -- are a renewable resource.
But there's at least got to be a plan. And we -- -- how we're going to curtail incurgz in our agencies, and -- so it's no different than levy incurgz or orchard incur shuns, it's all illegal.
>> -- I'd agree it's not what you want to use as a measuring stick but I think as evaluator a lot of (inaudible) is necessa.
Especially when they're talking about the example earlier about (inaudible) BLM actually, we have people going out on a big weekend, if we don't know that (inaudible) laying out these programs exactly how we're going to handle the division's budgeting and that's in addition to people moving into our area, because we do have a riding opportunity, and they can drive up in their homes to those places, but illegal writing plays in that also, so I think a lot of the raw statistics, I'm not advocating necessarily a (inaudible) but I do want evaluators, the best information they can to understand the need.
Some of it has to be in their style but depending on professional grant writer versus, you know, the beat cop in Tuolumne California trying to get this grant taken care of, there's two different (inaudible) -- make that decision.
>> Good idea that as I listen to you I'm thinking it sounds a lot like our old PAR form, for those of you -- there used to be a law enforcement program, remember the PAR form, what does it stand for?
There you go, it was kind of phasing out as I came in, my apologies for not remembering what it stood for project activity report. There was a lot of concern, from various agencies, that PAR generated information that wasn't reflected, and looking through transcripts from years before I got here there was a lot of debate about how much should the PAR play into the commission's decision on when to award and not to award. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the crux of making it work, is deciding what information is on that form, and then to what extent would the division -- the division and the public as they're weighing in on comments, refer to that would be a reference I think that's what you're getting at, it's like a reference to back up the needs that you're describing, as opposed to just a raw formula that just spits out numbers.
>> Yes. I want you to use some of the things that are at your disposal, to do some of the studies and (inaudible) I'm sure your staff is quite familiar with most of those studies, and -- make their decisions (inaudible) but the land mass size, the number of -- -- on the ground, I don't see how you can (inaudible) how do you picture if you picture a need if you don't have that basis.
>> When we're doing formulas, those that have any input, then you run into that -- it's not just raw numbers, or all the money goes to Southern California essentially, so you have them proportional, but proportional to what, it's not just how many officers do you have on the ground, but how many officers do you have on the ground compared to the bad guys going out trying to contact you. And not just how many bad guys out there, but how widely are they spread throughout the countryside so you can find them. You have a very controlled situation in one sense when you talk about law enforcement the SVRA is a wonderful situation because we have a confined area we can patrol in that confined area, it's very controlled. I realize every one of you has a much harder job, because of the sheer range of territory you have to cover, and -- you know, so many officers per -- you know, hundreds of acres, et cetera.
So just going with boots on the ground is part of it.
So yes we need to probably look at those numbers, it's just how -- how much weight you put on those, as opposed to the other factors of not just how many are out there, but what's the size of the job they have to do. I don't know if I'm being clear.
>> You're being clear, but you clicked on some of those in (inaudible) it's in its entirety. That you guys as the evaluators take a look at and use your experience. But the only way we can give you that lingo is to look you not only the narrative format how you plan on handling our problem but to give you the raw data, because you don't have the raw data for each one of the counties. I'm not saying put a numerical number on any of those things, but just give your evaluators a real-world look into what's going on.
Because when you're (inaudible) or we have a few hours with each one of us they try to get them to digest when they come out I have to fly them in a helicopter to (inaudible) and that's the --
>> I want to go in a helicopter. No, I hear what you're saying. And I think we're hearing it pretty clearly, and we're going to have to continue to look at how that plays.
That being said, I would like to hear, perhaps, from some of the federal agencies, did we come anywhere near the mark for your programs. You don't have to comment, just -- if you you don't have any comments that may be a good thing.

>> Well, I guess at the Forest Service we'd like to see cooperation with a lot of counties that we're in, that federal lands border and there are some counties that partner with us very well and there are others that don't want to play. And I don't know about the whole base award thing, I think it's a good idea and needs to be tested to see how it works but I certainly like the concept of forest competing against forest and BLM competing against BLM because in a lot of cases the law enforcement is different, what they're doing is different. It's dramatically different to go and do enforcement at the sand dunes than it is to do enforcement at Georgetown on the El Dorado national forest, so I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out. But we're advocating the partnership with the counties, because we'd like to pool the money and the resources and have increased enforcement and that's pretty much that what this year we're advocating because like I said we don't see a lot of partnership problems in county sheriff's, then others that do a great job partnering with us, and it works very well and our whole goal is to try to improve that.
>> Don -- -- I think you came up with something that needs to be tested, here. I agree with the concept, I like the idea of the base award to help the small counties. And one of the things that law enforcement as well as division is going to have to work with is the public, here. I mean, the idea that San Francisco city is going to put in for a grant, I'm going to be on that internet big time. And there are some counties that feel the same way I understand the problem here, every county and semilarge city put in, there would be no money, this is where you're going to have to rely on the public, and I will tell you the OSB community will chime in, there's a need we know where the needs are out here, we've seen them and we're all for taking care of them. And just because it's a little county or it's a huge coin we're going to tell you hey these people need some funding, and go from there.
>> Brazil California riders association. I keep hearing the request is going to be based on need. What happens if the division happens to read through the application, and there are some things in there that are questionable, but the agency that submitted it wants to stand with their information. I see nothing in the proposed regulations that allows the division to adjust any of the figures.
>> AL: The law says that the division determines the need.
So what we've asked for in the regulation is for the applicants to tell us what their need is, that's part of how we're going to determine. But overall, it's the division's responsibility by the law to determine the need.
>> And so the division will have the authority to adjust the figures?
>> As a follow up let me jump in.
>> Jump in Dan.
>> -- in that category reads, the HNVR division shall review the request and may at its sole discretion increase or decrease the amounts based on the following conditions, and there's a list of conditions. Then we drafted, let me hear if those conditions aren't stringent enough or too stringent, that was what we envisioned as our tool to get to the need. And I would strongly suspect that public input is going to play a role in that as well. So perhaps that needs to be pulled back into that.
>> And also there's reference to --
>> Yes, page number -- one of the draft regulations page number 28 -- regulation 1079 -- -- 1276. There are five conditions that would allow the division to adjust the need up or down, number one, failure to follow the program regulations.
>> That's 1275 up on the screen.
>> Number two, the applicant has -- the applicant has remaining funds from previous LHV law enforcement grants, so residual money.
Number three, comparisons with similar jurisdictions.
Number 4, applicants historical law enforcement grant request amounts, and finally number 5, circumstances unique to the applicant. That's where we would get at those wilderness interfaces, where all those unique elements that you've heard mentioned today, and cooperation with that applicant, during that preliminary review base, we'd get -- phase we'd get at all those elements. And that was our vision of getting at the need. If that list is incomplete, let's add to it.
>> AL: And that last one there, number five, line 1280, circumstances unique to the applicant. We were specifically thinking about situations, for example, BLM had to close clear creek, so folks that used to ride there, now they're going somewhere else. So someone who -- a local law enforcement agency that's a border area, may have a greater need now, so they ask for a bunch of money that they haven't asked for historically, and that would be a legitimate reason. Clear creek is closed, we're getting a lot more folks.
>> John Williams, Selma county. One of the things I don't see on there is the ability to increase or decrease at base line the agency's failure to support their need. Maybe some of that statistical data that should be included with the narrative to help support is the actual need for the program, and I think if you don't put something in there that, you know, they failed to show the support for their need, then (inaudible)
>> Okay.
>> They camenty -- the only thing I wouldn't lose on this what Don press man says, some of the -- -- departments, it may not have a big area in -- county that has to be used, but at one point earlier they may have had a lot of illegal use, now, Marin county or San Francisco or something, put it in the grant that would make me mad but I look at 101 in Nova to there's a big huge area that's been established now that's all illegal with single track trails and four wheel drive trails on some guy's private land. That's getting to the deputy's point that's a completely illegal area, the deputies are out there, They put their fence back in there again, I don't know if any particular county should be penalized because they have a tiny legal OHV area but they've got a huge illegal issue going on, they're doing their best to fight it, and I think like the guy in (inaudible) county said there's crooks born every day so I think there's got to be some leverage for the tiny counties as well as big counties.

>> Al en, -- (inaudible) going to the law enforcement projects, and certification, maybe if we can inaudible mawbl and talk about those maybe add some things. Identify your areas of high priority law enforcement adds, I think that (inaudible) under item nup one, item number 3 describe the formal and informal cooperation of law enforcement agencies,-- also the number of (inaudible) if you dopt have a backup for that that will be submittals to BLM in areas where we have joint area, or joint problems, is obviously where the numbers ran.
>> Going down to item number 4. I've got an issue with this one, that's what they pay their fees for. And I think if I'm a county and receiving law enforcement counties they should be able to ask to receive my assistance because that's what they're paying for. I think where there would be a die many in aic shift there is if for some reason their event exceeded my capabilities in other words for a small team that perhaps some of the funding would have to be used to augment that law enforcement funding. But specifically I just don't want to see another excluded that that team can't be used to support OHV recreation enthusiasm at an event. And to say that they have to Augustment that with funding. In other words if they approach me and we have law enforcement resources due to grants to be able to assist them for their security needs, then we provide that.
As far as training program OHV safety program, I don't -- again, in the interest of streamlining this, a lot of law enforcement agencies participate in the dirt bike stool and ATV institute, That's -- or for agencies that are coming into the system instead of them trying to create what is that, point them out to some of these agencies that already exist and are doing a good job, and cover resource protection in their curriculums as well as law enforcement.
Item number 9, I have a real difficult time with this, and I understand where the division is going, I understand the position the division is in, but the bottom line is it sounds like you're making your law enforcement agencies responsible for the funds, and those funds don't necessarily go to them, they go to city governments, I would like to see where people who get the check are the ones that have to report back as to where their money goes. Some of the processes that you folks are putting in place here will definitely cause us to find out where some of that funding is going and try to get the funding so we can create better chains or regional chains and getting law enforcement and federal enforcement to do for a long time.
However we're responsible to you for the grant.
If it's somebody else that's responsible for it, we need to seek out those people.
It's the law enforcement project certification.
>> Appendix?
>> Yes.
>> And Jean can help me out here, but I believe all of those things are in the law, they're not a creation of the division, they're requirements of 742. So we did have an option.
>> Just a quick on that item 9, if that could be included in the board certification of the grant project, they have identified those funds and it takes us out of the loop of being the -- -- police and it makes the board have to certify the county or city board what they're doing with A nu A funds. So you get immediate response back what they're doing and we don't have to police that, and if the division has a problem with what a county is doing that becomes a discussion between the division, and the cops are left out of the discussion.
>> And Dan maybe you can help me out here, where it says in the regs or in the laws, that it does cover A nuA funds, I didn't see that.
While we're on the same topic, are we still looking at doing -- obviously it's goinging to be internet based but individual projects for counties that have multiple stations are we looking at one project per county? Has a decision been made on that yet.
>> We'd like one application per county.
>> Okay one application with individual projects or one application covering the county's entire need as far as that county operation is concerned?
>> It would be the entire need for the county.
>> And how about, for instance, agencies that have contract cities since they have their own governing body would they be a separate project?
>> That would be a separate project. Okay, Shannon, we'll look up that reference in the law for you. This has been really, really good, on law enforcement but we have some more ground to cover, so what I'd like to do right now is take five minutes and come back and we'll broach a new subject. Thank you.
Break.)








>>
>> Okay, let's take our seats Okay, another minute.
Okay, let's get started.
Okay, we're going back to the highlights. And I promised Martha that I would go in order so that she wouldn't have to be jumping around all the tume. I said absolutely I'm going to go in order. And she said no, you won't. And I wanted her to be right. So we're going to skip funding caps because I think it will make more sense to talk about the operation and maintenance category first, and then the funding caps I think will be a little bit easier to understand.
So within the operation and maintenance category, similar to foam that we used to have, there are some project types that are very dissimilar, and it's really hard to compare dissimilar project types against one another with criteria to determine who is going to get funded and who is not.
We found that last year that the questions were too easy for OHV safety and/or education as was -- last year, so in difference to trail maintenance questions that were tougher, so trail maintenance some of those didn't get funded as almost everything in safety and/or education, that they all scored well. So when we looked at the O&M category we decided to break it down into four subcategories.
So that acquisition, -- it just really doesn't compare to anything else, so it needs to be a stand-alone project category, where we're going to measure acquisition projects against acquisition projects. Planning, and development. The same.
Then we created a new subcategory for some projects that are very similar in nature, and that is the maintenance of facilities and trails and the conservation of trails.
It really made sense to lump those together. Often when folks are out on the ground doing the work they do autopsyical hours of trail maintenance, they do a couple hours -- a couple hours of trail maintenance, they do autopsyical hours conservation work then they go clean the toilet and it's really hard when we ask these folks, now track it out separately for your grant. So it made simple ler to lump those kinds of projects together and we call those ground operations.

So we have criteria that is for acquisition projects, and criteria for separate criteria for planning, separate for development, and separate for go, so those projects are competing against each other.
However, because all these projects are within the same funding category, after we have done that initial scoring, we're going to put them all back into the same matrix so that the best scoring projects rdd ones that are going to be funded first.
We had a concern, for example, if we had a project that, say, didn't score very well in GO, but if we slanted our money towards GO, because that's what we heard in the focus groups ws ground operations, we want money on the ground, maybe a week, GO project would be funded, but a really good acquisition project would not be funded.
So we put them back into the matrix, and saying once we compared like projects, we're putting them back into a matrix, and the highest scoring projects will be funded.
So can you bring up Dan's example? Just through her a curve ball again. But she's so good, she can handle it.
Right, Martha? Okay. So what we've said is that for both acquisition planning and development, we will fund up to a maximum of 10 percent of the funds available in that category. And we will fund at least 70 percent of the ground operations projects.
So in theory, for acquisition, planning and development, the maximum they would get is 10 percent of the funding available, which is 13 million. But if they didn't score well, they might get zero. No one may qualify.
So we are weighting this towards the on the ground trail maintenance, facility maintenance and conservation efforts. And this is our attempt to weight it in that direction, but also, not -- not prevent a really good project in planning or acquisition from being funded while we're giving preference to ground operations, we don't want to say well, these are really good acquisition, but you know we're doing ground operations first. So this is our attempt to do that. And we've got a hypothetical up here, and I'm going to ask Dan, who created this, to kind of walk you through how this hypothetical -- and again, this is just hypothetical, just for illustration purposes, we just said there's a million dollars available.
Okay, take it Dan.
>> Thank you, Allen. Dan -- -- division I'm going to reiterate again this is just a stylized example we are anticipating pending the approval of the budget, $13 million in O& m, which would be divvied up based on our graph here.
My example, to keep ipt simple so I can get it all on one slide here, what if we had $1 million available, and the caveats that Allan mentioned, so with that million dollars available, the rel laigz as they stand now, would require that at least $700,000, 70 percent, would go to these ground operations that are GO projects.
Up to 10 percent or, in my example, 100,000, would go for development if it scored well enough to get funded.
So if you walk through the sample, so I have a collection of various projects, with fictitious applicants, the green shaded projects are GO projects or on the ground work, the more pink more violet is planning, and gold is acquisition, these are scored highest to lowest, so that's the first steps, you take all your propts within O&M and score them from highest to lowest, not unlike what we've done in past years. So in the column where it says recommend, we're going to start funding these projects from highest to lowest, so the first project requested 220,000, it scored a 92, top score, so it's going to be recommended for funding at 220,000, and the next column is we start eating away that million dollars. So now there's 780,000 remaining.
So let's start working our way down this column, we have two more GO projects that scored very well, they got funded at the requested amount, which drops down the remaining, and then we come to the first violet, or planning project, scored 88.5, asked for $100,000, so okay, the next one in line score-wise, so we want to fund it. But there's something special about planning oh that's right there's a restriction, we can only fund up to 10 percent, on this case, 100,000. Good news they only asked for 100,000 so that budget was funded at $100,000. Also the remaining amount gets decreased, the next one a approached that gets funded 10085,000, then we come to a development pro P project. Scored an 88 not bad B plus, they asked for $90,000, and again I ask myself a restriction 10 percent we're still good but it gets funded $95,000. Next project, another planning grant, scored an 87.88, requested an amount of $70,000, but the recommended amount is zero.
Why is that? The comment reads the up to 10 percent for planning has already been allocated so the planning has been used up.
So even though this planning grant scored relatively well, in this model, it doesn't get funded because we're giving that preference to on the ground work.
So that project is not funded so the remaining amount doesn't drop any further, and you go down and you fund next two GO projects. When you get to the second to the last project, the request amount is 115,000, the recommended amount is 103, simply because the comment reads that's the balance of the available funds.
In this case the acquisition grant, scored an 84.8, the money is all gone, doesn't get funded.

>> AL: Thank you, Dan.
>> DAN: Again, a purely fictitious amount of projects and order. I just made them up, I was not favoring one over the other beyond the caveats that we identified earlier.
>> AL: Okay, and this is a lot to absorb right now, but really love to hear your comments on this formula.
>> Bruce Brazil, California enjoy riders association.

>> I think it's not on.
>> Bruise Brazil California endure riders association. I see that you can go at least, in your model, 700,000, for ground operations. But implies to me that if there's other moneys left over from development, acquisition and planning, that could be transferred up into the (inaudible) operations is that correct?
>> AL: That's correct.
>> What happens if there's money left over in the whole account, could money be transferred back to development, acquisition or planning, if there is requests that exceed the percentages? I was thinking something like on the acquisition, if one of the counties wants to expand an OHV park, they could possibly go over the million dollars or whatever is available. Could, if there's money left over in the total category, could it be transferred back? Thank you.
>> AL: In the models that we did based upon past history, there will not be sufficient funds to fund everything the way it's come in the last couple of years.
So that scenario could happen, not likely. But we also considered having a caveat that if there's money left over from a particular category, that it would then roll to the category with the most amount of dollars not funded.
Did I explain that well? So in this example, if we all -- if we had money left over, we didn't have enough GO, so we ran out of money in acquisition, the money could roll into acquisition.
Well, we're considering language that would do that.
>> Okay.
>> That's why we want your feedback, is that something you guys would like to see?
>> Dan -- -- California. I was out of the room you may have answered this already but I'm going to ask it anyway. On the acquisition are we still going with a score, and then the score being the percentage of the acquisition?
In other words, if they ask for 100,000, and they only get 60 on the score, are they only going to get 60 percent?
>> AL: No, they would be fully funded as long as we have money available in that category. The only time it wouldn't be fully funded if it's on that cutoff line.
>> We were real concerned about that, what do you do at 50,000, when you're asking for 100, you can't buy the piece of property, so --
>> AL: Right. Or in development, you just build half the building.
>> DAN: That's been done.
>> The top half.
>> AL: So what are thoughts on this? Mr. Camp field.
>> Dan camp field -- division. I'm not sure exactly what the scenario was that was described. We did envision a scenario where, when there's not enough GO projects to use up at least 70 percent, we run into the regulation that says-- this is regulation 4970.90.1,
>> AL: Page?
>> DAN: One moment, please, I lost it. Page 27, line 12-14, subsection C. It goes on to say -- rank by score like we described in the sample, project shall be funded in order of score from highest to lowest, until available funds are exhausted, taken into the restrictions we discussed, at least 70 percent, et cetera.
If there are not sufficient GO projects funding requests to consume at least 70 percent of the available O& m funding category the other O& m subject category projects shall receive funding in order of score. So we go to the -- it would go to the next highest development acquisition or planning.
>> AL: Any questions on this formula, any other questions, comments? Okay. Okay, so
>>
>> AL: So we're going to talk about under ifing caps, and this again was a topic from our focus groups. Don't have caps, have caps, have caps in some projects, not in others.
So this is what we came up with as a recommendation.
So hopefully, the O& M project category now is a little clearer, so we're saying that $10,000 is the minimum pro amount, no matter what kind of project you're talking about.
Then we have would be the O& M law enforcement, a maximum of 100 -- excuse me, $1 million for that project type. So say for example, in GO, you could have three or four different projects, as long as they are at least $10,000, but then the aggregate is not more than $1 million.

But within that O& M category, there's a category maximum amount of one and a half $ million. What we took away is there isn't an umbrella application maximum, it's based on the project types. Because we wanted restoration, recognizing there are some really big needs out there, we didn't want to have any maximum on restoration.
Oo's and aah's? Law enforcement is kept at a minimum education and safety at 200,000, comments Mr. Includes man >> Don includes man -- I have mixed emotions about this because in that O& M category, 1.5, I've been -- mawbl inaudible we've been doing lots of acquisitions even though now it's crystal clear but say you have a million there, and then they still have O& M projects, then the most they could get would be another 500,000. Where the need may be that you need that other O& M, on a GO project or development, because once you buy the land you're going to have to do some fencing examine so forth like that.
So that total category one under O& M bothers me a little bit. Your maximums per project, I have no problem with. I don't know about not having a maximum on restoration, but we'll have to see how that works out.
But to have in that total category one in O& M bothered me a little bit. I'm not going to write a comment against it, I think we need to have a grant cycle or two and see how it works out, and see if there are problems.
Can you give us the reason why you limited safety, education to 200,000?
>> AL: Just so there would be more applicants funded. Spread it around.
And we put a lot of thought into the O& M in the 1.5, and essentially, again, we want to spread the money out, so we're saying that the applicant is going to have to make a decision, do they want to go for that big acquisition dollar one, or not. So it's kind of up to them to decide what they want to ask for, but we do want to make sure that, you know, there's only 13 million, so if one applicant is getting three or four million, that doesn't leave much for anybody else. So you know, trying to -- you know, keep a playing field where there's lots of players. That was our thoughts.

Any other thoughts or comments on that? Okay, the next topic on our highlights, and we've really covered this a lot. Is OLGA our online grant application, and providing the budget is past in time, we have sufficient time to put this together, this is just going to be a really cool feature. For example, the first year, you're going to have to put in your baseline static information. You know, who you are, what kind of entity you are, and all that. But from then on, for future grant applications, you just have to update it if there's a change you're not going to go back and enter all that same static information once again.
We're going to have an accounting feature, where you as the applicant, you'll have a password, you can go into your grant, you can see how much money you've requested, how much has been paid, what the balance is, what your match is.
It's going to essentially be a tool for you to manage your grant dollars online through our database.
And it gives us that quick reference information, as well. It's going to be such a cool tool, if we can -- if we are able to implement it. And it's the future. And we hope our goal is to eliminate paper applications.
Recognize that you may have some giant blueprint that's going to be ridiculous to scan but by and large you're going to reply online unless you have an exception, and you know the carbon footprint all that, daphnia once side quite often when she first started this program how many cases of paper were delivered to her house, how many was it, daphnia?
>> 14,000.
>> AL: 14,000 pages. Where it can all be in a database, that's searchable, I mean, this is just really going to move us, you know, into at least the 90s. This is really going to move us forward, and just really going to be a really great tool. So keep your fingers crossed and tell your legislators to come back from recess.
The last item on there is the soils standards, the new soils standards are going through the regulatory process. And that is not our bailiwick, but just to advise you that that is in the process, and it's incorporated into these regulations, and there's going to be future informations and meetings to discuss the new soils standards. So just advising you that there is that feature there.
Yes, sir, Mr. clussman.
>> Don clussman California wheel. I think it's a bad idea. I don't see packaging these together. It's a sure way in my thinking that you're going to hold up your grants process. Because the soils standards we've been working on, in fact I didn't have gray hair when we started. I think to try to make the public digest both of these documents at the same time, you're going to confuse them, and you're going to have a lot of negative comment. And I think, you know, your office of administrative law is going to get bombarded with comments saying well what's this mean in the soils, I think you need to run it in separate meetings and run it into separate -- it can be close to time frames, it can be a week apart I don't care, but I think if you bundle this together you're going to hurt both of them, just my thought.
>> I have a question. Say they're going through the regulatory process, you mean they are currently going through that?
>> AL: Not yet. They haven't been submitted yet.
>> Okay, it says the public resources code says that they will be development in consultation with the U.S. natural resource conservation service geological survey, the Forest Service, B LLM and department of conservation, so I assume they kind of all sign off on it then they go through the regulatory process?
>> AL: Yes, so soil standards that are there that are part of the package are a result of a lengthy process that was put together with the cart the cooperative agency review committee and included all those agencies there were public workshops 30 agencies and -- some of you guys want to chime in on.
>>
>> My question was did the CART sign off on it.
>> Yes, so what we have is the standard was basically completed, but just about three months too late to include in the last grants program. And so the CART was just kind of finishing up their work about the time we were starting to write regulations or putting regulations into the hopper, so it's been -- you know, awhile since the CART finished their work, and these things have been kind of sitting there waiting for a rollout and we wanted to get them into last year's program but when you back the whole system up to when we started the regulatory process there was this weird over lap where the cart hadn't finished the work and we were already writing regs, so this is the window now where we have the opportunity to actually take the work that was done by the CART, and at the end of the day, we had -- correct me if I'm wrong, some of you that were there -- we had, you know, this product that we created that had the standard, and the guidelines, it was the result of I think at the end of the day there were about -- agencies were sitting around were sitting there what the end of the day
>> --
>> Stuck to the bitter end if you will and had all those comments so now, to use those we couldn't just pop them in the middle of a grant sil cycle and say when you apply for the grant you're in the old soil standard and now in the middle of the program we're going to slip in the new soil standard. So we were waiting for this process, this standard, so now in order for them to go through that public review process, They go through the public review process just like the regulations do, and that's how we get that into regulation.
>> Karen -- -- if I may.
>> Get the microphone.
>> There's nothing that -- and Don, to address your point as well -- if there's -- like I say working back and forth -- if there is some concern, certainly we can separate the process. The key is going to be if in fact we want to spend, you know, however long we want to spend to come back, because if there is some concern about them, then certainly we want to hear that now so that everybody is aware that we would remain through this next grant cycle, because Don can't -- you can do them through two separate processes, but at the end of the day, OAL for the regulations, the grants, the agreements part of it -- -- has to accept the ument do.
So if in fact we want to do it separately to have more time to review, we can do that. What it would mean is we would then make a change in the regulation next year.
Making sure that there is adequate time to, if we want to go back and do public workshops, that's just a concern about whether or not that's a timing issue. But certainly, we want to make sure, you know, as Joe said it was a long drawn out process my understanding everybody was good with it by the time they signed off. If that is in fact not the -- you know, the viewpoint, that the public and those participating agencies have, then we'll take a look at that.
So certainly we want to hear about it now, so that we don't walk down a path toward some sort of eruption, so perhaps, Karen, I keep watching you look over at Cathy, Cathy if you've got or Forest Service has some concerns certainly let's talk about it. I know Forest Service is looking at doing its own soym standards, might get BLM commenting on it there's the reason to have the suggestion because we've been trying to mo those forward, if it's in fact not the right time, then we can say let's not move them forward at this time.
>> I'm going to rewind you there.
>> Okay.
>> If you --
>> Pass the mic over.
>> Did you say that the two have to be full path before the regulation can go into effect?
>> You have to have -- you can't -- you cannot have a regulation package go through, and then take soils standards and then just automatically say everybody has to comply with them, because that in fact would be underground regs. The OAL process has to incorporate everything we're asking the applicants to comply with. That would include the soils standards.
So we had had the discussion back in 2006 about how do we best do this, given the new regulations that were coming through for '07, and in those discussions at that time, we had said at the commission meeting I had said that when we put forward a new regulation package at that time, we would insert the soils standards.
So again, if that's problematic, then let's talk about that, and figure that out. Because I don't want to cause chaos, I recognize it's a -- you know, it's a thick document, want to make sure everybody has an adequate time to look at it. And but also recognizing that as we look at those agencies involved, if in fact there's problems with them, then let's try and address that.
I don't think we want it to go on and on and on, we do recognize that we're working on 1991 soil standards.
>> Well, I guess I have another question because something has changed along the stream, here. When we were told when we did help with these standards and guidelines, that they were just that, standards and guidelines, they're not regulations.
And I remember very distinctly, Mr. Leblanke saying they did not have to go through the process that you're talking about. Now, I guess we've got another opinion, and that has changed, because they're not a regulation. They're a standard and a guideline.
>> And they are a standard by which if an applicant wants to participate in the state grant and cooperative agreement program, they have to comply, just like they do with their HEP, they have to comply with the soils standards. Those soils standards are a program that each applicant who submits to receive money from the state of California, agrees that they have a program. There is a standard, guidelines, as it's indicated in here are tools and techniques the applicants can use.
But there is a standard by which the applicants do have to comply if they want to receive funding.
>> I agree with Cathy, guidelines do have to -- they do have force of regulation, but I also agree with Don that-- I mean, what is the timeline we're looking at, for looking at -- is it looking at two -- package of soil standards and the grant regs?
>> Maybe Cathy first then we can --
>> Well, I don't think that what Daphne said is that the guidelines are regulatory, because they're not. What's regulatory is the standard. But the only question the Forest Service has is not that there's anything -- I mean, I don't disagree with them going to -- the standards going forward now with the reg package I guess that's not an issue, I guess the only question would be for us, and I'd like to talk with our partners at BLM, is it's been a long time since we looked at these and I'd have to go back to my calendar but I think it was about 2006, and so the question I had would be are these indeed the -- is this indeed the package that we finalized and signed off on, and has it not been modified since then. And if it's been modified, then where are the modifications so that we can review and comment on those.
>> Let me comment. So that's a good question.
Because it was 2006, and that's what I think Daphne was referring to, is those were coming to culmination in 2006. We actually ran -- actually ran the -- looked at some old deadlines sh it's like how did this happen.
So it was about a three month overlap from when we completed the package all the agencies finally said we all sign off on this, and it was about three months too late to get into the regulatory process for 2007.
>> Where you had the (inaudible) regs in appropriate package --
>> Right now we're 2008 that's how we missed that year. So when we were trying to get the package together, to include here, we had the debate about should we change this word or that word, or the other word. And correct me if I'm wrong, but what we kept -- what I kept saying, what Daphne kept saying was no, if we change anything in these, there will be -- you know, we will hear from the Clark, because we did not come to this agreement easily, as you recall. It was a very lengthy series of meetings with very spirited debate.
>> --
>> Nice way to put it.
>> There you go we got to a product we could always agree on, and we didn't want to change anything in that. So we essentially -- and then you guys have all touched on it, the standard and the guidelines, and how those work with the regulations, you're all kind of correct. -- does have works, so the standard is the standard you must meet the standard.
The guidelines, This is worked out with all the other agencies so that we would have -- they would have the flexibility, to use their own ways of achieving the standard. So we have the guidelines and what we essentially say correct me team if I get this wrong in our regulations is you will meet the standard, and here's the guidelines of how to get there.
And if you don't use these guidelines to get there, you've impot to use something that's comparable, that still gets you to the standard.
And so I've heard that the Forest Service is working on their own soils program, and so you would look at that program, and as you fill -- as they filled out their application, there's like three parts that you fill out about your program about how you meet your -- how you do your various things, and they could say we use our processes, and they could describe their processes or show us their manual or refer to the manual sections that are published in publicly available for review, so you can see what process they're using to get to the point that they're meeting the standard. So that's how those two things work together.
Now, if you're a county that may not have this whole, you know, environmental group that's helping you write standards, or guidelines, or how to get there, then you just use our guidelines. And they're very clear, and they're very -- we hope, user friendly. That as you do your trail maintenance or whatever ground disturbing activities you're doing, there's plenty of direction in there in the guidelines that can help you achieve standards.
Have I missed that somehow? Any other questions? I know that didn't answer any.
>> I would like to review the time frames, I'm sure you were going to do that. And that was Cathy's question as well.
>> Yeah we didn't get to that I don't know if you want to talk about that.
>> Sure.
>> I don't need that.
>> So we are submitting to OAL in the middle of August, which then kicks in a 45 day public comment period, and we're required to have a public meeting, but depending upon that outcome, kind of changes then the back end of how long that takes. So we're anticipating that the whole OAL process is going to be done in late December or very early January.
>> What's the middle of August, Allan, what's that mean?
>> Submitted to --
>> The 12th, I believe is the target date.
>> 12th? Okay.
>> The question was, what is the middle of August and you're saying the middle of August to you is August 12th. Which is --
>> The target date we have is the 12th, yes.
>> Okay, which is basically two and a half, almost three weeks.
>> Yes. Okay?

>> AL: So at this point, just opened up to any questions that you have about the regulations. I do have some that were e-mailed in we can talk about those if we're running out of things.
>> Bruce from California endurea riders association.
On the eligible applicants by project types you have you state agencies, -- (inaudible) restoration.
I'm wondering if there's any law or regulation within the state that limits or doesn't limit one state agency from acquiring funding from another state agency, and -- along the same lines, why would the state agency be limited to just the restoration?
>> AL: Because that's what the law calls for in 742. And 1590 small C eligible grant and cooperative of applicants, and number two state agencies are eligible but only under paragraph 2 of the subdivision, and paragraph 2 is restoration.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> AL: You're welcome.

>> Kevin irodi san Matto sheriff's department. I was trying to get a record, I was talking to Dan the law enforcement certification form
>> Yes.
>> It does not list any type of page limitation on what we can write oynt, but he said the OAL will actually fill in amount of words in question, I want to make sure that's long enough, because now we're going to have multiple projects on number -- we'll have a chance to do multiple projects, you're saying one grant for the entire county where initially we had multiple projects now we have all these projects, where San Joaquin has one project for the one riding area, where we would have you know 12 to 14 different projects, trying to cram into maybe 500 words. I want to make sure we have it long enough.
>> AL: Good point, thank you
>> To explain each one of our projects in enough detail that it would explain the funding they have
>> AL: Good point we'll make sure there's enough room.
>> Another one was people were looking -- they were talking about illegal ride willing areas, intrutions, into wilderness yas it seems we overlooked the users or the O HVs their right to have law enforcement present out there to protect them from criminal activity. And we see a lot of -- an increase in users from our county, different times they'll have legal riding areas and what we're seeing in that is also an increase of the criminal predators coming out there and stealing, you know, $12,000 motorcycles. That seems to be overlooked here, where -- we're looking for their protection in that scenario.
Then one of the things I mpxed to Dan was back on the topic of illegal riding areas, like San Joaquin has an illegal riding area.
We have that in addition to the legal riding area, it's hard to keep --
>> DAN: You're right I have one illegal riding area which is 1400 square miles. I have about a 10 mile legal riding area in my entire county.
>> John -- -- I was going to say yes, I have one illegal riding area which is 1400 square miles because I have one single legal riding area in my entire county which is about 10 or 15 square miles, and that's car Carnegie state park so it is one illegal riding area.
>> A quick response to that, we have 20,000 square miles. Sorry about that. With illegal riding areas throughout. The problem is that we have all the legal riding areas, but you have that small percentage that decides that that area is not big enough and they want to go somewhere else.
And they make new trails.
Just want to make sure that was a consideration that we also have, you know, the legal plus the same amount of illegal areas the same as everybody else that doesn't have legal opportunities or limited legal opportunities.
>> AL: Okay. Other questions?
>> -- Ron -- saly in a county sheriff. A follow-up on Shannon's questions and Kevin's first comment, I don't know that it's in stone, that you want to give just one grant to San Bernardino county. With that comes some concerns. Our department can work through those concerns because it could have pros and cons. Either way you go with it.
If you decide that you want to go with the status quo, with dealing with multiple approaches, we can deal with that. Because that's what we have been doing.
However, if we decide -- if you decide that we are to write one grant for all of our county areas, we're going to have some jurisdictional problems in that we have -- the majority of our stations are contract cities, and some of those contract cities also handle county areas. Such as needles, and the Colorado River station, ukifah, forest falls, chino hills, and chino hills county area, and a couple more.
Hopefully, that might be able to force our department to form a division for OHV itself instead of having each station run their OHV program. But that will be an issue that our department is going to have to address if state parks decides that we are to get one grant.
Like I said, no problem, only solutions, and we will be able to deal with it no matter how, but I would just want you to consider that concern.
>> AL: Absolutely.
>> Before you make a decision.
>> AL: Absolutely. And it's not in stone, that's why we're here to hear from you. So not in stone.
>> Keep in mind also that this is not different than what we did last year. Last year, we only turned in one application, and make a list through projects, and that's in a way what's happening this year, you still turn in one application, as you're justifying your needs you might use-- you know describe what's going on in one part of your county, and describe what's going on in another part of your county so you're describing your various substations work loads in other words as you describe your need it's just like you would have done last year when you described your two projects, so the one applicant thing really gets more to the caps than anything else. The applicants have caps, you need to look at your county as a whole. And recognizing that yeah there is a lot of overlap, and that happens in every jurisdiction between Forest Service and service departments, and county jurisdictions, and so we're always going to have that mix going on, and it gets particularly interesting with our contract cities, so they're really -- the contracts with the sheriff's department.
So realizing all of that. But we tried to create this year, essentially the same system, as far as one application per -- applicant per county in each case like we had last year.
That's the similarity of how you might put it in your mind compared to what we had.
>> John links -- county. More point clarification I thought I heard earlier, this may help San Bernardino out, but if it's a contract city that contract city could apply for a grant itself, is that correct? If so, that may help you solve that solution as to one grant.
>> George barnes, Sierra club, California, I have a semi-question on the criteria, as I read them, it appears that an applicant with a small project for lots of money could have the identical score with an applicant for a large project for a small amount of money. I notice that last year you had a cost effectiveness criterion for education project, and I would think that that should be a criterion for every project type.
>> AL: Thank you. Anyone else?
>> That's a good point, I hadn't -- 0 -- mull that.
One place it would come in, is we did address it tan shengsly and it really only comes in place currently I think in tie breaker situations where we said if it's a tie breaker then go to the smaller project first. Smaller dollar mament but I don't know if that gets to what you're saying about you know paying for the planning -- -- that's essentially what we need to get to, make sure I understand what you're saying, is the efficiency of the dollars being spent.
The one place we did try to address that to some degree is in giving people credit for higher match amounts, once again I don't think that gets where you're going, but it is some attempt that we did. So if you have a really large project, say you're going in for a Mr. Dollar project, you could have 200,000 items, you could have 25 percent match on -- -- or if you come in with a lot smaller match -- that's still not getting where you're going, you're saying, are we destroying 100,000 bucks or destroying 1 acre with 100,000 bucks.
>> AL: We have a question, a question that was e-mailed in, and it's a darn good one (restoring) If you discuss -- could you discuss ground disturbing ac tifflets, so we happen to have our environmental consultant here tonight, Paula. Hi, Paula. The question is, could you discuss ground scushing activities, does routine work, such as installation and maintenance of signs,
>> She can't hear you.
>> AL: Would that be ground disturbing.
>> Routine maintenance?
>> AL: Installation and maintenance of signs.
>> Technically -- >> Hang on.
>> I think the protocol -- >> Wait a minute.
>> -- (inaudible) what we're talking about.
>> AL: Start over.
>> Paula Hartman, TLA. What was the nature of the project?
>> The question doesn't ask that it refers to installation of signs would that be ground disturbing.
>> One thing that might clarify that a little bit I'll just stand next to the speaker so you can hear me up here. One thing that might clarify the question a little bit is because I know a lot of people when you're looking at the soils standards -- >> thagets that's why I was asking are we talking about trails, are we talking about --
>> So when we're talking in the regulations about ground disturbing activities, we're talking about as they relate to, you know, if you're doing groung disturbing activities you're going to need to do the soils program, where the question about putting in signs is not so much about ground disturbing activities, as CEQA compliance that needs to come into play. I'll turn it pack over to you Paula.
>> I think that's what I was trying to get at was the question was a little unclear. If the question is anytime you put in a sign, is that necessarily ground disturbing your soil, then the answer would be no.
>> AL: Okay, thank you. Another question is applicants must provide matching funds or the equivalent of value of services. How is this documented. So the way it's going to be documented is the same way that it would for allowable expense. You're going to have to provide receipts, records, and it's memorialized on our payment request form, we've actually modified that to indicate that you're documenting your matching funds. So it's the same as an eligible cost. That's how you have to document it.
With support invoices, et cetera.
Let's see. How are public meetings considered regarding the public review process. The public review process at a minimum asks the applicant to post on their website a link to our website where everyone can view all the applications. They must also e-mail their list of interested parties and if they publish a newsletter or some sort of journal they put out, that they must put in there the information to go to our website, and do the public review there, which also has the instructions of how they submit their comments.
So a public meeting is not required. However, in our criteria, if you do a public meeting, you get points.
>> Let's see, this was already answered.

>> AL: When equipment is purchased, who retains title. The title passes to the grantee. They have title to the equipment.
And the question goes on to say who is responsible for ongoing maintenance and repair. It would be the grantee that's received the property and has title.
Underground operations is dust abatement a deliverable within this category. That would be an eligible cost, in ground operations category.
The others we've covered.
Okay, what else do we have? This is your chance.
Speak now. Actually, you can speak to us later, too.
>> Kevin -- sheriff's again. This is actually nonlaw enforcement related one of our concerns we've been going to some of the AMA -- meetings to form a relationship with some of the operators, and talking to them about now their non profit clubs could apply to the grounts but when you show them some of the procedures to go through it's very discouraging to them. I'm just wondering if there's any assistance available to help them go through their grants and try to properly write the grants and complete the dprants, and then actually fulfill the grants.
The benefit being in the long run they can accomplish more because they have less bureaucratic tape to go through when they do a trail maintenance project, a lot of them will volunteer if they have money to buy equipment, tractors, shovels all that stuff, go out there in plant they'll spend time volunteering. Traditionally the Forest Service reaches out and tries to get volunteers, but from talking to them they tend to want the independentness to go out and do the project themselves, with as little direction as possible, but it seems to be the paperwork that holds them up.
>> AL: Absolutely and we're being much more proactive than we used to be in the past about getting out and meeting with folks, my staff would be glad to get away from their boss and go out into the field and meet with folks and give them guidance, do side visits, monitor how they're doing, make suggestions, absolutely. Absolutely, big thing that I've stressed in the last year or so is getting out on the ground. And assisting folks.
So knowing that there's going to be some new folks coming in that haven't before, that's an absolute necessity, and we're going to do that.
>> As we talked about equipment purchase and management of equipment here a little bit, is there any other significant limitations on the purchase of equipment other than the ones under equipment management or (inaudible) 1442?
>> AL: Do you have a specific question?
>> Just basic general -- you know, we're now we need to purchase equipment to do trail maintenance, tractors, whatnot.
>> AL: Sure.
>> Limitations, the type of costs that -- you know, our limits as far as writing our grants for those projects?
>> AL: Well, something that OLGA is going to start tracking for us is the history of what you've purchased in the past, so just really one of the limitations would be if you came in for a tractor the year before, and the year before that, and you're asking for another one, you're going to get a visit. But if you legitimately need the equipment, it shouldn't be any problem.
>> Napa county sheriff's. Do you have a plan B if OLGA doesn't get online?
>> AL: Yes, we do. And in fact, that's an internal joke here. That Barbara is in charge of plan B. And -- we have OLGA and Barbara, yes, ma'am we have. Yes, we absolutely do, we're preparing for that. In the hopes that it will never come to fruition.
>> -- process?
>> AL: No. It would probably just be a paper process.
>> Karen champa, just so I understand, what's your deadlines for -- I guess you call it informal comment before it goes to OAL?
>> AL: We don't have an established deadline go ahead and submit stuff, the sooner would be better for us.
>> We don't want to wait until the last minute >> AL: That would be Karen tomorrow. We didn't establish a deadline, call us, e-mail us, but the more lead time the better for us.
>> This is (Debbie green. Keeping in mind that as bureaucracy go bureaucracy does, our paperwork has to do go to the director of state parks to the -- -- resource agencies none of those processes are fast particularly right now given the situation, and I will say, you know, this is really serious what we're up against right now. And as such, the sooner, yes, the sooner you could do it, I certainly would like to see them by Monday. Would certainly be something I would love to see. You guys could spend your weekend working on them but I recognize it's a quick turn around time. And again, there's nothing that says -- yes in an ideal world we want the meeting we want to input because once you go into that OAL process it's so structured in terms of give and take in trying to get more information and trying to address it we can't address it right away, we have to go into the 45 day, then going into the 15 day but clearly in a sense of are we getting on the mark are there fatal flaws people are saying oh my goodness I realize law enforcement is out there, one thing I would say about the law enforcement is to keep in mind I recognize all of you are concerned about your counties, we have to be concerned about the state. How to address that statewide that's our challenge. But the sooner you can get them in the better because we certainly have to get them to the director and the secretary and that's no easy fix, so Monday would be great. If at all possible. )
>> AL: So we have 15 minutes left here, something that we haven't talked about yet is restoration. And the restoration category changed somewhat in SB 742, in that now scientific studies are now in the restorationcategory.
There's also restoration planning which is also new.
And the way the law was written indicates that there will be restoration agreements for projects that provide ecological restoration or repair to habitat.
So we haven't had that repair wasn't in there last time, so saying ecological restoration or repair, that means that's something different than ecological restoration.
So if you've had a chance prior to come here tonight to look through the restoration category, there is some new stuff in there, and does anyone have any questions on that?
I don't have much time left. Yes. Karen.
>> Yes, actually that one I did have a big question on.
>> AL: Oh, good.
>> KAREN: What's the distinction between ecological restoration, which includes -- if I'm -- if I'm understanding this definition -- ongoing OHV needs and restoration, which by definition takes place in an area close to OHV use?
>> AL:
>> We had to try to define ecological restoration because in 742, when they wrote 742, it actually says that the authority to spend money out of the 25 percent of the grants program for restoration is limited to -- I mean the purposes for that money is ecological restoration and repair, so you're looking at the statute, you've got in -- 50 moynt 90.11, the stand alone definition of restoration, so we carried that over and that's in there.
And then in the spending authority, so that's now a different thing it's like restoration over here it's defined it's in its little package. Now in spending authority for the restoration portion of the grants program, the law currently has a broader definition than just restoration.
This has ecological restoration and repair.
And then it gives four or five, I think -- six, it gives six examples, and so as wee were writing the statutes-- or the regulations, we were basing it on those examples that were given, and trying to tease out what they meant by ecological restoration through these examples that were given, and that's why the ecological restoration definition is broader than just the stand alone restoration definition.
Because the statute does not define ecological restoration, nor does it define repair. I might add.
>> Okay, but I guess the bottom line is will you be spending restoration money in areas where there will be on -- where the ongoing OHV is?
>> There's limitations on what you can do with restoration that are clearly spelled out again in that section that says -- in that same kind of section that describes ecological restoration pot it clearly estimates stipulates that we cannot use that money for maintenance or development of trails.
So it kind of leaves open or undefined the question of if you have -- just picture a canyon with a trail runniing along one side of the canyon. If you have in the past shs perhaps, had people going off of that trail and dropping down into the bottom of the canyon into the riparian zone illegally, and then popping back up onto the trail, now you've got a big restoration need down there where they have no business being. So as we understand or try to tease out what is described in the statute, we would be able to entertain a request for a project to go down and restore that creek bed.
It's right next to a riding opportunity, so we can't restore the trail, that's a trail maintenance project. But we can certainly restore this damaged habitat that's in an area of ongoing OHV opportunity.
So I think that's the distinction that they're trying to make.
I know it's confusing for me, too. We're trying to do our best to sort through all this. It is kind of a mind- bender, and that's why tonight and you've got plenty of time to get back to us and have an ongoing dialogue through this process.
>> Cathy -- -- so Phil I'm not sure how scientific research fits into that, so in terms of funding. And then the other one is the example you gave going down into the bottom of the creek bed and restoring the outside damage, does the funding or the ability to be funded include not just the actual planting of plants or fixing the riparian area, but the nepa to actually do the project?
> PHIL: In the six examples that are given, first address your question about scientific research.
Because when you look at that -- try to tease out that definition of ecological restoration, it's hard to see where scientific research or a straight planning -- which I think is another issue you're getting at planning for a project, how that fits into that definition that we gave.
However, in the statute, it is given as one of the six examples. They specifically spell out that doing scientific research or doing planning for restoration projects are two specific examples that are given as allowable projects under the category of restoration funding.
So since that statute took the definition of the restoration pot and stretched it in a number of ways, so that it is more than just doing the pure definition of restoration, that's back in 5090.11.
>> So this is a new section?
> PHIL: This is the stuff that was passed SB 47.
>> So what about the nepa does that fit in too?
> PHIL: Yes.
>> Okay, good.
>> Don -- -- county exactly right. When you're saying stretch I don't like that analogy. What it did was define what the money could be used for, because this was always the question. How does the Forest Service or BLM go out and do a restoration project, if they've got to do the NEPA first and then add the money for the project, so now they can ask for money for the NEEPA work the planning to do the project and that was part of why -- 242 spelled that out it defined not only what it can do.

And you know, the whole thing about the closed area, or doing restoration near an OHV site, when you're talking a trail, that was a long discussion on SB 742, and it was agreed that your analogy of how a route could go down into a area, was very good and that's what the intent of what that piece of legislation was, was be able to repair that and the restoration account, you know, and get rid of it or still leave the trail where it was or if the trail needs to be moved that's a maintenance issue.
>> Well, if the trail needs to be moved to expand the analogy for example, the analogy, I don't know, to expand it. You know we keep fixing the creek bottom they keep messing it up, we're going to move the trail, then we could restore the footprint of the trail. You can restore the creek bed if you have to you can close and restore the trail, the point is you have the tools to address the environmental damage, and prevent ongoing environmental damage. The heart of the program.
Karen did you have another?
>> I do but --
>> Yeah I was involved with some of the discussions that we had, and I agree with you 100 percent that we needed that flexibility, because a lot of areas of the forestry generally are open yet when the OHV vehicle leaves the trail it does create an illegal riding activity, and that trail should be closed and it should be used to restoration dollars, and I remember some of the conversations in our meetings and that was everyone's intent.
>> Okay, just so that --
>> AL: I disappeared on you.
>> We need to look at the project area definition, because what it says is meets the physical boundaries within which activities will be performed and deliverables accomplished and I was just looking for I think it was in the restoration category, where it talked about the project area. And it looked like it was describing the project area more broadly. In other words, it was -- wasn't the area being restored, it was the larger project area. That the pro area definition is the limit -- you know, the boundaries of the actual project, then that could be problematic.
Let me -- let me take a minute and find --
>> Yeah it would be easier if I had exact -- >> -- IC -- is -- I'm sorry. The difficulty that we have with this one, and can really use some input, is putting our hands around habitat. Because that's where it truly expanded the -- looking at ecological restoration or repair to improve the habitat. And so in fact perhaps habitat should actually be with a capital H so that we define in this instance what is habitat, because that's what we've been trying to get our hands around, is what -- how do we define in the restoration project the improvement of the habitat. Because that has been -- that has been certainly a challenge for us. And that would go then into that project area situation of you're looking at the full landscape of habitat.
>> Which gets into -- I'm close to this mic, so they can hear me. Which gets into since they said ecological restoration and repair, we were discussing what's the difference between those two, that kind of gets to what Daphne is driving at that if you have tire tracks running down into the creek bottom but they don't cause any particular damage to an environmental system that's moving through there, you know, the reproduction of the red legged frogs or whatever is going on down there, that you may do a repair project to eradicate the tracks so more people don't go down there as opposed to ecological restoration which would be you've got people driving in the bottom of that creek that stirred up the silt and mud may have knocked down the bank so salmonids can't spawn, that takes ab restoration to actually restore an actual system bact to functioning as opposed to just a mechanical fixing of damage.
So that's in our mind as we were working on with the team developing this package how we differentiate a package in those two, both of which in our estimation, and with you for input, would be allowed with restoration money. Just getting rid of the tracks so nobody else goes down there, versus going down and actually restoring stream banks and overhangs and things that actually get that ecosystem back into balance.
>> AL: Any other comments?
>> We're speechless.
>> I talked you to a standstill at the end.
>> AL: Okay, that's it. Keep in mind -- oh, oh, there we go, Karen is back.
>> KAREN: Sorry, I did find the part that I feltalities problematic.
>> AL: Okay.
>> KAREN: In the project specific application requirement page 22. How the proposed project relates to OHV recreation, and will add to enhance and otherwise state OHV opportunity within the project area, if you define the project area as physical boundaries of the project, that's saying that there's going to be OHV opportunity in the re stored area.
>> AL: Which line item was that?
>> KAREN: Look at 999, page 22, line 999 >> Oh, I see the -- I see the confusion as you're reading through that, and this is the classic I want -- we'll have to get back to you on that.
I really won't have time to go literally and study this in greater detail, because I think you're raising a good point that we need to sort through -- I don't have an answer just off of my cuff at this point I'm not going to try to fake you out. But it's -- yeah, let us take some time and look at that. And we'll be in touch.
>> 999.
>> One question for discussion. I was down in Riverside county on searlt, and as I was driving along 10 there's a great deal of damage because of OHV use that's along the terrain there. So I was thinking to myself, this is part of grappling I know with restoration, we moved the restoration caps. Part of me was thinking well, if we try and eradicate that illegal -- the damage is awful. But along those lines, it's a great habitat. So I was thinking okay maybe it's not great habitat but there's some value it's an eyesore to the entire community and we need to fix that. So I was thinking well how do you balance that.
So if the county were to come in for restoration of that land, perhaps they wouldn't score well or even have the opportunity to get any money because another applicant could have a huge restoration project.
I don't know if anybody has any feelings about that.
I know that I'm sort of back and forth and grappling with that.
>> Jim way gand. Jill were yo