Western Shasta Resource Conservation District
G10-07-04-R01 $165,655 Restoration Contact: Mary Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
Western Shasta County Resource Conservation District – Restoration
This reads like a planning grant. Opening paragraph says “ proposing to develop a plan”, “full project designs”, “environmental analysis” , “ultimately completing a comprehensive plan”, etc.
Recommend re-naming as planning grant application. I support project, but believe project may be evaluated more accurately as planning grant as the stated goals are plans, not ground operations.
There is mention of GIS location and tracking of potential restoration projects. Recommend applicant provide Data Dictionary of variables to be documented during inventory. Assessment of potential for use as sustainable route should be part of inventory data collected.
Request to purchase ATV is included in application. How will use of this equipment enhance OHV opportunities outside area subject to BLM-WSCRCD?
G10-07-04-S01 $57,972 Western Shasta RCD Education & Safety Grant Application Contact same as above.
Recommend that Applicant submit detailed implementation/operation plan including:
- Outline of curriculum
- Sources of information
- Process of selecting training cadre
- Method of evaluating skill and knowledge level of training cadre
- Identify system of “training the trainers”
- Funding sources to provide staffing, transportation and maintenance of mobile classroom on sustained basis
- Range of opportunities outside Shasta County
- How all age ranges will be addressed – Messages to parents and young adults
Purchase of Dirt Bike( $2500) and ATV ($4500) are noted as line items on page 4. Recommend applicant detail other potential or anticipated uses of this specialized equipment. A separate Grant Application from WSCRCD requests $6000 for ATV purchase. Typically two riders are necessary for safety. If this is part of intent, recommend clarification.
Recommend including 4X4 vehicles into curriculum as many parents own and operate such vehicles. We all know youth can influence adult behavior. [Submitted by Recreation Outdoors Coalition, Sylvia Milligan, Chair - 3/31/11]
Please consider funding this request. The Western Shasta Resource Conservation District, (WSRCD) has a long history of working with the Redding BLM on projects in the Shasta Chappie OHV area.
This particular grant request will fund the aquisition of an educational trailer that can be used as an outreach to the local schools, at public events, and at the OHV staging areas, to educate the community regarding safety gear, OHV safety, "stay on the trail" rules, and other rules of OHV riding.
The second part of this request will assist in fixing unauthorized routes and restoration of these areas. The recent forest fires that swept through the area, and the dozer lines cut in to help stop the fires, opened up many areas to unauthorized riding and hill climbing. Although some of these may eventually tie into the official trail system, many are in such areas as to cause erosion issues, or are dead-end logging roads that should be restored to their natural state. The Redding BLM office is working with the WSRCD to address these issues, and this grant would help tremendously in making the Chappie OHV park a model for other OHV areas in California.
Thank you for your consideration. [Russ Smith - 3/20/11]
The following are my comments for the OHV Grant request.
If this restoration project is a priority, why didn’t the Redding field office of the BLM include it in their OHV Grant request?
Under the Project Cost Estimate, Equipment Purchases, there is an entry for an ATV, but no description of the vehicle.
There is no mention of the function that the BLM Interlakes Stewardship will have under Contracts or who/what the BLM Interlakes Stewardship is. For $97,000, this should be described.
Under the Project Cost Estimate, Other-Transportation, there is an entry for 16,000.00 miles at $0.60 per mile. How can you travel 16,000 miles in the Chappie-Shasta OHV Area when there are only 250 miles of routes in the area? Is the $0.60 per mile a standard mileage expense figure?
Under INDIRECT EXPENSES, Indirect Costs, amounts of $21,607.00 and $4321.00 are entered. This seems very high when only 6 staff positions are involved (one of which is an accountant that should be considered as indirect overhead) and other minor expenses have already been included in the proposal.
With the above concerns, this is not an efficient use of OHV funds.
Thank you for considering my comments. [Bruce Brazil - 3/17/11]