Little information to read up on

[nowires]

http://www.rco.wa.gov/about/rule_making.shtml

 

[ain'tstuckjustresting]

I didn't have time to read the whole thing yet but from what I read of the proposed changes to the NOVA grant criteria it seemed like a good thing. What's the catch?

 

[nowires]

I didn't have time to read the whole thing yet but from what I read of the proposed changes to the NOVA grant criteria it seemed like a good thing. What's the catch?

I am waiting for the punch line. I haven't seen where we are going to get screwed yet. But waiting for it! I just want to know what the enviros are sneaking in the back door while we are looking at the shinny thing in front of us.

 

[Tod]

The RCO is proposing three changes to the NOVA grant evaluation process.


1. Revise the Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship, and Planning criteria. This removes the stand-alone sustainability questions from the planning question and adds it to all project types. This seems reasonable on the surface.


2. Add a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Priorities Question. This would add evaluation questions that would bias the outcome in favor of projects that benefit people of color, women, people over 46 years old and urban communities. I don’t think that adding this biasing benefits the OHV community (the people actually contributing to this fund) and may detract from the best use of our limited resources.


3. Establish a transparent evaluation pathway for Combination Projects. This clarifies the scoring methodology for combined acquisition and development project grants. It should be OK.



I will be contacting Jim P, Rick B and Mike B, the motorized representatives on the NOVA advisory committee for their thoughts on these changes.