Background info on WTA, IAC & NOVA funds

[bbbom]

This is the text from an email I received from NMA VOLUNTEER Land Use/Legal Director:

==================================================

The NMA received two calls from two different newspapers regarding the NMA's position on the IAC's NOVA fuel use study.

I have attempted to return both of their calls without success today. I did fax them each two documents. The text of those documents is included in this email.

This is our chance to show the world the truth about the WTA. The WTA is a well-funded Special Interest Organizaton which has totally disregarded the desires of 5 of the 6 NOVA Advisory Committee members!

Our primary talking ponts need to be - (keep these handy so you can use them if talking to someone or writing a letter) ----

"NMA is a 100% volunteer organization with no paid staff."

"A Fuel Use Study was not needed. The Legislature has refused to fully fund even the original 1% since 1990 when they capped the fund at 18/23 of 1%. Do you think the Legislature will raise NOVA funding now if the study shows NOVA is owed more money?"

"This Study did accomplish the waste of NOVA funds which the well-funded WTA Special Interest Group wanted. Money was spent on studies instead of providing something on the ground for the users."

"WTA is an EXTREME Special Interest Group AGAINST the SHARING of public lands!"

"NOVA funds are from forfeited vehicle gas tax refunds and cannot legally be used for non-motorized purposes."

"At first glance the current Fuel User Study appears to be fatally flawed. NMA will fund a court challenge if necessary to protect these SHARED USE funds from becoming the UNSHARED property of Special Interest Groups like the WTA."

"UNSHARED Special Interest Group money from State and Federal sources is HUNDREDS of times the amount currently refunded for SHARED use through NOVA." - Refer to the specifics stated in the 2001 NMA Position Paper (included as exhibit "B" in the 1/17/2003 email)

"The WTA is the only organization on NOVA taking funds for NON-SHARED use. Hiking Only! Everyone else SHARES!"

"Every project ever funded by NOVA is open to SHARING by all users EXCEPT the hiking only project money the WTA has stolen from NOVA for their Special Interest Group."

"WTA has proven what a well-funded, elitist Special Interest Group, with professional staff, can do to override the desires of 5 out of the 6 NOVA Advisory Committee members."

Nonhighway & Off-Road Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA) User Representatives Agreement on Fuel Use Study & Recommendations to the IAC Committee

July 14, 2000

The user representatives with a STATUS of APPROVED shown by their name have agreed to make the following recommendations to the IAC Committee and further state they will support a new fuel use study by the IAC under the conditions agreed to herein.

ATV: Dale Knowlton STATUS = APPROVED

Equestrian; Lori Lennox STATUS = APPROVED

Four Wheel Drive: Carol Jensen (alternate) STATUS =APPROVED

Hiker: Ken Konigsmark -WTA STATUS=Has never worked with the others as of 1/17/2003

Mt. Bicyclist: Kevin Collier STATUS=APPROVED

ORV/Motorcycle; Rick Dahl STATUS=APPROVED

NOTE – Separate copies of the following document were circulated to all six (6) of the NOVA user representatives for their approval. Separately signed copies of this document are on file and can be produced to show that each representative with a status of "approved" following their name has signed this agreement.

General Conditions of this Agreement;

The final methodology for the study must be disclosed to the NOVA user representatives for comments and suggestions. Majority vote approval of the final study methodology is to be obtained by the IAC Staff from the NOVA user representatives before the IAC Committee approves funding for the actual study.

The IAC Staff will hold fuel use study definition/review meetings with the NOVA Committee user representatives. These meetings will be limited to the NOVA user representatives and one other member from each user organization with a seat on the NOVA Committee. Current NOVA user representative members who do not participate in at least two thirds of these meetings will be replaced by a user representative from a different organization with the same user type by the IAC Staff.

Funding for a new study is not to be obtained from existing NOVA funds as this would cannibalize existing funding for NOVA projects.

The IAC Staff recommendations to the legislature will be concurrent with the recommendation(s) approved by majority vote of the NOVA user representatives.

The IAC Staff will not seat additional user group representatives on the NOVA committee unless approved by a majority vote of the existing NOVA user representatives.

The IAC Staff will not reallocate NOVA funding on their own without majority vote approval by the NOVA user representatives.

The IAC Staff is not to implement potential changes to NOVA funding allocation until after the Legislature acts as a result of the information presented by this study.

Funds derived from off road use of fuel are the sole property of those motorized users just like Off Road Vehicle (ORV) sticker money for the purposes of this agreement. Voting on appropriation of these ORV funds will be limited to motorized NOVA user member representatives by the IAC Staff.

Study Methodology;

Study methodology must recognize off road use of fuel as a separate category from the Non-Highway Roads (NHR) use of fuel.

NHR gas tax use is going to have to be studied to determine the type of facility utilized and mode of utilization upon arrival at their NHR destination.

Surveying personnel utilized in this study must be trained to clearly understand the definition of a NHR and the types of facilities accessed by use of NHR.

There are three basic categories of NHR fuel usage for NOVA purposes;

1) - Fuel usage on nonhighway roads and trails attributable to recreation on trails and areas open to motorized use.

2) - Fuel usage on nonhighway roads attributable to recreation on trails closed to motorized use.

3) - Fuel usage on nonhighway roads not related to trail activities.

The study will list the original trailhead at the surveyed user’s NHR destination as the type of facility utilized.

Seasonality of use must be addressed and be properly taken into consideration by the study methodology proposed.

On the ground sampling is not to occur at any one point for more than one consecutive day in order to prevent intentional skewing of the results by someone who discovers the location.

Sampling locations, dates and times are to be kept secret from all users to prevent intentional skewing of results.

Sampling data must include type of vehicle used and gas mileage categories by type of vehicle or vehicle combination.

The survey data must take into account all of the non-motorized use that occurs on multiple use trails and facilities that are open to motorized users.

This study shall focus on the amount of fuel utilized for NHR recreation, not on the number of users in a particular user group.

We feel that acceptable survey methods include and should utilize; mailing surveys to proportionate random segments of the population in every county of the state; on the ground surveys of users at NHR usage entry points; and on the ground surveys at proportionately representative samples of facilities while properly taking into account the seasonality of that particular use.

Funds derived from Non-Trail facility NHR use, e.g. recreational driving on NHR roads without use of a NOVA funded facility, will be factored into NOVA funding allocation recommendations ONLY IF the legislature approves additional funding for NOVA as a result of this study.

All methods of sampling are to clearly inform the person being surveyed of the legal definition of a Non-Highway Road (NHR) and off road vehicle fuel use.

Miscellaneous NOVA User Representative Agreements;

The above signed and the organization(s) they directly represent agree to support NOVA projects approved by majority vote of the NOVA Committee user representatives and not attempt to subvert the majority vote process through legislative or other legal action.

The definition of NOVA Committee user representative does not include Agency representatives on the NOVA Committee.

The above signed agree that the use of NOVA funding for use on projects approved by majority vote of the NOVA Committee user representatives will not be challenged through the legal or legislative systems. Organizations that actively seek to overturn these majority vote decisions are to be removed from the NOVA Committee by the IAC Staff without recourse through the IAC.

The above signed agree to work to expand opportunities for all NOVA user groups. Not just their own.

The above signed agree to support efforts to obtain additional funding for all NOVA users if justified by this new study.

 

[bbbom]

Nonhighway & Off Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) program
Northwest Motorcycle Association (NMA)
2001 Legislative Position Paper

On behalf of our motorized users and every other NOVA user group except one, I ask you to assist in preventing the legislature from any further efforts to move forward with a new NOVA fuel use study or other redistribution of NOVA funds.

HISTORY - Nonhighway and Off Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) funds
In the early 70's, despite a growing need for trails and facilities, there were virtually no state or federal funds available to land managers, counties or cities to provide for or maintain trails and recreation facilities for the rapidly growing and popular sport of off-road motorcycling. The motorized users decided to seek help in the legislature to provide for new funding. In 1971, this resulted in the passage of the Washington ATV Act. The 1972-73 ATV fuel use study estimated 4.6% of the state fuel tax to be produced by ATVs and other eligible vehicles by their use on trails and non-highway roads. An amount of 1% of the state fuel tax was then written into the RCWs as representative of only the off-road and trail use by motorcycles and 4x4's and this amount is made available each year to the Inter-Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) – NOVA program. It is important to note the motorized users gave up their State Constitutional right to an individual refund of their nonhighway & off-road gas tax moneys in exchange for this legislation.

The goal and purpose in the original NOVA program, as stated in IAC’s own 1973 policy guidelines for ATV funds:

Goal

The goal of the IAC in its administration and distribution of ATV Funds is to increase the availability of trails and areas for all-terrain vehicles by operating a program to provide funding assistance to local and state agencies for the planning, acquisition, development and management of land and facilities for ATV use.

Purpose

The purpose of these guidelines is three-fold. They will (1) define the manner through which the All-terrain Vehicle Funds shall be distributed, and the use for which they are specified: (2) prescribe methods and standards by which eligible offices of government may apply for funds to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation; and (3) prescribe rules under which they may obtain moneys to defray expense for planning, acquiring, developing and managing recreational areas and trails for all-terrain vehicles.

This is a fund to provide grants for off-road motorized recreation.

CURRENT SITUATION - Nonhighway and Off Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) funds

It is no secret that the Washington Trails Association (WTA), representing non-motorized hiking interests, is beating the drums loudly in a demand for a large share of the current NOVA 1% to be allocated to non-motorized projects. Their request for a new fuel use study is being made once again in an attempt to divert NOVA funds away from their rightful use. With the exception of the WTA and the hiking community, there is absolutely no support from the rest of the trail users to pursue a new fuel use study using existing NOVA funds. Another key issue is whether the legislature would abide by the results of a new study. The currently utilized 1972-1973 study shows 4.6% of the fuel tax should be refunded to IAC. The legislature provided only 1% in the 70's as representative of the refundable amount due solely to offroad motorcycle and 4x4 fuel use. The 1% fuel tax refund to NOVA was capped at the 1990 level when the Legislature sought ways to fund other programs. This effectively limits the current funding to 18/23 of 1% at this time.

Clearly some portion of the unfunded 3.6% portion of the fuel tax identified in the original fuel use study must be attributed to other users such as equestrians, hikers and mountain bikers traveling in vehicles on non-highway roads (NHR) to trailheads. The WTA is currently waging a propaganda war in an attempt to steal the motorized user’s 1% and is making no attempt to increase funding for hiking trails by claiming this additional unfunded 3.6%.

As to WTA's arguments that motorized users receive an unfair share of the current NOVA funds, I remind WTA and point out to the legislature that the NOVA fund was created with the sole intention of providing a funding source for ORV trail recreation and facility resources because there was no other source! State and Federal Agency recreation funds were all being earmarked and used for non-motorized trail recreation resources. And the lion's share of those funds still are today.

If WTA is so concerned about correcting "unfair" funding resource allocations, NMA is waiting to hear their protest of the amount of funding going to non-motorized trail recreation in this state through other programs such as the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) and the National Recreation Trails Program (NRTP).

The WWRP figures presented below are from a 3/31/99 Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition (WWRC) newsletter mailing and the 1990-1997 WWRP report by IAC. The NRTP figures are from the 1999 project review and ranking session on August 4th.

1. IAC - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP)

As of March 31, 1999, since 1990 over $270 million has been appropriated to WWRP by the Legislature to provide recreation opportunities* and to "protect" fish and wildlife habitat.
* Keep in mind that these are non-motorized recreation opportunities. Motorized recreation is strictly prohibited on WWRP acquired properties. 100% of the funds go to purchase lands and trail facilities that can only be used for non-motorized recreation.
495 parcels of land have been "protected forever" and closed to any possible motorized trail recreation.
More than 150,000 acres of land have been purchased for the "benefit" of people and wildlife .... and closed to any possible motorized trail recreation.
According to the 1997 IAC WWRP report, the many new recreational facilities provided by the WWRP grant funds include neighborhood parks, ball fields, greenways, and hundreds of miles of trails for walking and hiking ... none of which addresses the needs of the thousands of motorized users in this state.
And that is not just the 41,000 ORV licensed motorcycles and ATV's that WTA repeatedly but inaccurately claims represents the number of motorized trail users in this state. It is instead the 704,000 Washington off-road enthusiasts (nearly 3/4 MILLION) as determined by the 1995 National Survey of Recreation & the Environment and a report referenced in the recent front page Seattle PI trail article by Robert McClure on September 7, 1999. This number represents nearly 50% of the estimated number of hikers in this state!

2. IAC - National Recreation Trails Program (NRTP)

The Symms Bill and NRTP program guidelines require a minimum of 30% to go to non-motorized projects, a minimum of 30% to motorized projects and up to 40% for Innovative/Compatible Use Projects (I won't try to define this here).
The amount of the national pot of NRTP money that went to Washington State for 1999 was $1.136 million which was allocated to 29 different projects.
Only 23% ($259.7K) went to motorized projects (not enough were submitted to meet minimum requirements) 66% ($747.7K) went to non-motorized projects The balance went to compatible use projects
When WTA stands up, protests and takes actions to remedy these grossly unfair funding allocations, then maybe the motorized community will be more receptive to supporting a new fuel use study.

Another reason to question the need for a new fuel use study is a July 1999 report on off-road recreation fuel use by the Federal Highway Administration providing a detailed estimate of ORV fuel use for each state. In this report, the estimated annual fuel use for just motorcycles and ATVs (real ATV's not the current Washington RCW definition which now includes cars) shows the combined annual fuel use to be nearly 6.5 million gallons a year. At $0.18/gal (1990 fuel tax rate), that is $1,170,000 a year. This clearly verifies that current WA State funding for motorized off road use is not excessive. Annual off-road fuel use for light trucks is over 40 million gallons a year. Assuming very, very conservatively that a reasonable estimate for just 4x4 off-road recreation is at least the same as for motorcycles and ATVs, the annual fuel tax refund available to NOVA would be $2,340,000 every year. With two-year IAC funding cycles, that would be $4.68 million for NOVA every two years. This current 1999 study therefore validates the current funding going to NOVA motorized programs.

Since its inception in 1985, the Washington Trails Association (WTA) has worked to restrict or eliminate motorized and non-hiking users from trail after trail in this state. This organization is and has been an anathema to virtually every other non-hiking user group. One of WTA's actions was to publish an agenda that targeted six remaining USFS Roadless Areas that allowed off-road motorcycle use. The goal? Eliminate motorized trail use. WTA bears virtually sole responsibility for the many frivolous appeals and litigation that have endlessly delayed many legitimate motorized trail projects in the last 10 years.

That WTA would like to either eliminate the NOVA fund entirely or steal a portion of the motorized funding for hiking use is also no secret to the other user groups. WTA has for years repeatedly claimed the original 1972-73 fuel use study is out of date and needs to be updated, and that the NOVA funding allocations, which primarily go to motorized users, are somehow "not fair." This again raises the question of why WTA hasn’t sought to restore a portion or all of the unrefunded 3.6% of the fuel tax that was identified in the original study. NMA and others have offered to assist WTA in this many times in the last 15 years, but have been rebuffed. WTA's goal is not just to get any new funding - it was and is to get or gut the funding from the 1% fuel tax currently going to the NOVA program.

For the record, NMA and all the other NOVA user groups except WTA joined together at the start of the 1998 and 1999 state legislative sessions in an attempt to move legislation through to eliminate the current 1990 rate cap on the 1% funding that goes to IAC. And for the record, while NMA and all the other users are still willing to abide by the current fuel use study, in the 1999 legislative session a compromise agreement was reached by all to jointly support WTA and Craig Engleking's effort for a new fuel use study. This agreement to work with WTA and support a new fuel use study held only if the legislature restored the full 1% fuel tax refund to IAC and funding for a new study did not come from existing NOVA funds.

Unfortunately, the 1999 Legislature allowed our jointly proposed legislation to die. Neither House would let it out of committee. While NMA and the other users were prepared to take up this effort again in the year 2000 legislative session, WTA, unhappy with results and unwilling to wait and work with the rest of the users, decided to take matters into its own hands.

In spite of the opposition of every other user group on the NOVA committee, WTA has unilaterally approached and lobbied the legislature and the IAC to develop a study plan, and to fund and move forward with a new study,... all without support from any of the other NOVA user groups or any new funding from the legislature.

If the Legislature is unwilling to restore the legally mandated full 1% fuel tax refund, why is a new fuel use study being considered when the Legislature did not abide by the results of the current one? If a new fuel use study shows more total fuel tax money should be going to NOVA (regardless of any new changes in the % to motorized and non-motorized users) what assurances are there that the Legislature will abide by the new study results? We have none! And with the passage of I-695, it certainly won't happen in the near future.

A new fuel use study now would circumvent the wishes of the users (with the exception of course of WTA) who clearly are willing to work under the status quo.

The question is NOT what type of study to do. The question is WHY do a study initiated by a request from the ONE NOVA representative and organization that wants to destroy NOVA's original intent and has been working toward that goal since its beginning nearly 15 years ago?

On behalf of our motorized users and every other user group except one, I ask you to assist in preventing the legislature from further efforts to move forward with a new fuel use study unless requested to do so by a majority of the NOVA Committee User Representatives.