Skip to Main Content
Menu
Contact Us Search
OHV Title

BLM - Ridgecrest Field Office

  I have observed this in the field and can with 100% certainty state it is a waste of money! The way they dig up the ground at these closed routes and place dead bushes across them only call attention to the closed trails! It is much better to mark open trails and provide maps to the public so they can find their way. If a trail is not mapped. I urge the State to quit wasting money on this project that only makes the problem worse! Robert Koch - 3/4/15


  The Ridgecrest field office has shown through exaggeration of cost and creative budgeting a willingness to collect more than delivered. The Department of the interior funds these operations from tax and fees. The Barstow BLM has become a revenue source for the Department of the interior. I am highly opposed to granting any more funds to the Ridgecrest BLM without the GAO or an outside auditor reviewing the current income and expense of this field office. The State OHV funds can be better spent on State OHV park procurement. The state funds should not be spent on Federal projects! Robert Koch - 3/4/15


  This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. Charles Varner - 3/5/15


  Hello, I am a Kern county landowner and part time resident of Tehachapi. I recreate on public land in Kern county quite often. In the above grant request in states " utilization of partnerships" referring to "tehachapi orv watch" as a partner and reporting illegal trespass on the PCT. At least one of these reports was investigated by Kern county and proved to be false. I am aware of more that were not investigated because of lack of evidence. I say this just to shed a little light on the credibility of this group. Also stated in this grant request is that motorized use is prohibited on the PCT. I belong to a group of 100 landowners in the "project work region" named "Kern Recreational Landowners Association" and not one of our group was notified as a potential partner in this grant request. At long sections of the temporary location of the PCT, where our group owns land, the PCT shares a section of motorized trail route # 5. Obviously, this is a conflict. The future approved action for moving the PCT to its PERMANENT location should also show this grant request to be a complete waste of public funds as the permanent location is miles away from this area. Richard Arreola - 3/9/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Philip Richmond - 3/9/15


  I find three major reasonds to object to OHV grant funds being wasted on this location : 1 I know the parcel of land in question is only a temporary location for the P. C. T. . 2 The main backer of the grant , Tehachapi ORV has a history of fabrication and exaggeration regarding OHV use in the area . 3 The grant asks for items that should not be included in a restoration grant : Funding for law enforcement , the use of a bias partner for monitoring the area. Ross Termin - 3/9/15


  I have ridden my motorcycle on our family land since 1969 (age 8). There are those that do not deserve consideration. The partnership of Tehachapi ORV Watch is one of those.... FURTHERMORE: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. Matthew Chitiea - 3/9/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. Chris P. - 3/10/15


  I own property in the Antelope valley/Tejon ranch and the PCT runs thru my land which shared with a Norththorpe Plant access road. As well as our motorcycles share this same road. We enjoy entertaining the PCT hikers by the 100 thru our campsite each year. Feeding and Hydrating all who venture in. I'm at the appalled at the request for funds from my and others riders green sticker money for PCT proposes to fund a green belt area that cant even be seen from the current temporary location of the PCT trail. Yes the current location of the PCT thru this area is only temporary and will be moved within the next 5 yrs. Why waste money on this in endeavor that wont mean a thing in time. And use OHV money that could be put to good use else where on permanent structures. Like clean bathrooms and showers at current OHV area's. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. Steve Hunter - 3/10/15


  I object this grant request, it makes no sense to me. The reason for this grant would be restoring this area because the PCT passes thru it . Problem is, this is only temporary. PCT will be rerouted thru Tejon Ranch! Why spend the resources on a temporary location? Madleine Quirin - 3/11/15


  I have spent a lot of my life enjoying the outdoors and a lot of this time has been spent enjoying riding my motorcycle in the desert. That being said I find it some what ridiculous that I as a tax payer can buy a motorcycle pay TAX for the state of calif buy green stickers . And then be told I can't ride here or there because of this or that . A perfect example is jawbone I've been riding there for 40 years and now all you see is $$$$ thousands of dollars if not 100's of thousands on signs and fences barricade etc etc yet bulldozers carved up the area beyond recognition to put in the windmills. The same thing has happened in the area proposed for this grant. Why is it ok to carve a mountain down to make access for a concrete producer or carve up the entire landscape and change the Eco system to install windmills that apparently have disrupted the birds in the area?. Yet it's not ok for local land owners and there friends to enjoy the desert. Greg Grosslight - 3/11/15


  I would like to address this grant request here for the Pacific Crest trail. I should note that I'm a close civilian neighbor to the said BLM parcel in question for this grant as my property is just up the canyon. My feelings for this grant are first and foremost a complete waste of OHV funds that could be used for more important uses. This request is misleading as it does not state or paint the facts clearly. My family uses these trails for hiking, hunting, family recreation to access our property in the area for many years and would like to remain so for many generations to come as well. The request does not mention something very important that the PCT trail will be relocated at some time to the Tejon ranch so why on earth would you spend money on new signage that USFS did not do properly in the first place, and destroying trails that have been existing for decades when this trail will be relocated! Also it appears there is a redundant request for law enforcement which is already requested in another grant for same area. Also of note is that the organization named as a "partner" is a disturbing bias for a "partnership" for this grant as they seem to waste so many law enforcement hours and resources on repeated calls that have been well documented as fruitless in general in the area, when there are so many more important issues in our area that require much needed law enforcement attention than their agenda. I personally vehemently do not condone any OHV use on the PCT whatsoever and see a vast decline of evidence of use compared to years past. With all due respect this grant should be denied for reasons stated above and a few others not mentioned in this letter as a complete waste of OHV funds for so many reasons. These funds should not be used for such a ill advised project, when the funds can be used for so many other useful items, especially with the facts not being clearly stated to the public. As a neighbor property owner in close proximity to said grant I ask you once again to deny this request to for logical reasons. Thank you The Douglas K Pearce Rev Trust - 3/11/15


  Seems a lot like hitting a snail with a hammer, splatters over everything. Why spend a ton of money, signage, barriers and what seems to be the biggest expense, law enforcement if some education and signs erected in appropriate sections accomplishes the same long term goal, minimizing the damage caused by OHV and their operators. I'd like to see the restoration done and lots of educational signs. When the BLM closes an area to activities that have been enjoyed by the general public for a long time it breeds distrust and anger towards the agency frequently demonstrated by additional destruction of areas newly designated as. restricted as well as signs and barriers by the public. Why not try an educational program by starting the restoration process with signs explaining what and why this is being done giving the general public an opportunity to demonstrate that they're interested in maintaining the environment for all to enjoy and a method for the public to comment as the restoration progresses. Make sure the public understands that if this restoration plan does not show results after a 12-18 month time frame that a more aggressive plan such as originally proposed would be incorporated. Steve Morgan - 3/13/15


  The maps of the project area that was given out by the United States Government at the public meetings are fraudulent. A quick look at the maps on google Earth will show the glaring omissions of roads on the Government supplied maps. This grant request should be denied because grant request documents should represent the truth. John Lovett - 3/14/15


  I am a landowner in the Kern County area affected by this grant request and have concerns regarding the intent and language in the grant proposal. There are really only two groups that have opinions on this issue. The ORV watch which desires a 100% ban on all (including legal) off-road recreation in the area, And, the Kern Recreational Land Owners who wish to use their own property legally for recreation and support efforts to prohibit "illegal" off-road use and respect for the PCT. The Pacific Crest Trail administrator has admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were proven false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. Please deny this grant request and have the requesting agency re-evaluate the verbiage and include only factually correct information in the grant funding request. If to include partnerships with groups with biased opinions, then be sure to include groups with opposing or dissenting views. Thanks for your consideration, Robert Binder and family, landowners - 3/15/15


  As a land owner in the PCT area of interest. I am an avid hiker and motorcycle rider, and I have purchased land in this area for recreation. I would like to point out that section of PCT that runs thru the "Bean Canyon" area is only a temporary location for the trail and is set to be moved to the Tejon Ranch property. I believe the use of my green sticker fund in this matter is a miss use and is being used in a manor that it was never intended for. The green sticker fund is supposed to help me and my love for OHV use, not to punish me for paying into it. I would like to point out the main group that is pushing for this grant is the Kern OHV watch. This group is clearly a radicalist group, and there discrimination for anyone that does not follow there beliefs is very well known. They have shown there constant false allegations towards OHV use such as the Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. This was well documented and investigated by the OHMVR and has been proven false. These people cannot be trusted in wasting the tax payers money. The statement in the grant "The PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. Government grants have no place for false information and this should be removed from the grant for legal reasons. I hope that this grant can be seen for what it is and is not. The PCT is about the hikers that use it, not about a group of people who are trying to take what little bit recreation the public still has and destroy it. Erik Jones - 3/16/15


  NOTICE OF ATTACK ON PROTECTED CLASS: ANTI-SYMETIC STATEMENTS EVIDENCING RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION Kern ORV Watch has a website: www.orvwatchkerncounty.com The following comment is cut and pasted from their "Hall of Shame." Why is the BLM "Partnering" with a group that would attack a certain race and mock their religion? Kern ORV Watch should play no role in any government project. THE GRANT REQUEST WAS MADE HASTILY WITHOUT THOUGHT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SHOULD BE DENIED. Statement found Kern ORV Website: "March 1, 2014 What are two nice Jewish boys doing in a place like this? According to rural Tehachapi residents, Yosef Moshe and Amihud Haran, both inland empire businessmen, were allegedly joyriding their dirt bikes on signed private property and on ranch land in a private community. The entrance to the community is well-signed with No Trespassing signs. These two also reportedly trespassed through a Wind Farm where fencing had been cut. If this is true,shame on you klumnik khazers. You wouldn't want dirt bikers trespassing in your Shtetl, would you? Your Bubby will not be proud of your behavior. Incident Report submitted to Kern County Sheriff's Department." Mark MacFarlane - 3/17/15


  NOTICE OF ATTACK ON PROTECTED CLASS: AGE Kern ORV Watch falsely reported riders on the PCT, took pictures of them on private land and mocked them and their age on the website's Hall of Shame. Please go to www.orvwatchkerncounty.com/hallofshame.html Kern ORV watch declares these law abiding citizens "GEEZERS GONE WILD." A full investigation was triggered and these poor gentleman were forced to defend themselves against this discriminatory act. Kern ORV Watch should never be a partner of any public agency. Please deny the grant request. MARCH 24, 2012 WITNESSES OBSERVED THESE TWO RIDERS ON THE PCT AND TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THEY RODE WITHIN A FEW FEET OF A 'NO TRESPASSING' SIGN, THEN TRIED TO FLEE FROM PROPERTY OWNER. THE RANCHER CAUGHT THESE BAD APPLES ON FILM. "GEEZERS GONE WILD ON THE PCT" SHAME ON YOU!  Mark MacFarlane - 3/17/15


  This trail is the TEMPORARY PCT. It is not the designated route or part of the "original vision for the PCT." The Temporary PCT through this BLM parcel is a means to go from point A to point B. It is the driest, toughest part of the trail. Do not obliterate the year round multi-trails so, hikers can get from Point A to Point B temporarily until the the PCT is moved to its permanent location on Tejon Ranch. Here is an article from the PCTA's website: In 2008, Tejon Ranch Company unveiled a landmark conservation and land use agreement that provides the framework for conserving up to 90% of Tejon Ranch’s landholding. The conserved region amounts to 240,000 acres. This is great news for the PCT. Future location of the PCT on Tejon Ranch A significant part of the plan includes a layered set of easements that will allow the PCT to be relocated from the floor of the Mojave Desert to the crest of the Tehachapi Mountains. This is in keeping with the original vision for the PCT. The relocation will follow the preferred route agreed upon by the U.S. Forest Service, the Pacific Crest Trail Association and the Tejon Ranch Company. The easement will permanently protect 37 miles of trail and 10,000 acres of trail corridor. The conservation easement, valued by the U.S. Forest Service at an estimated $12 million, is being donated by the Tejon Ranch Company. The land will continue to be owned by the Company and additional protection will be provided by the Tejon Ranch Conservancy. We are working hard to assure that the easements will assure an excellent trail experience for generations to come. This is the largest relocation project since the trail’s official completion in 1993. It will fill the largest gap where the PCT does not follow the originally designated trail route or the crest of a mountain range. The Tejon Ranch Company, an alliance of federal and state agencies and private conservation groups including the Tejon Ranch Conservancy and the PCTA are working on the project. It is a priority that we protect and facilitate management of important biological and cultural resources along the corridor. This exemplary new section of trail will protect habitat for the endangered California Condor and a variety of other threatened, endangered and sensitive plant and animal species and habitat associations. Speaking to the press at Tejon Ranch in 2008, then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger praised Tejon Ranch, the PCTA and environmental groups for coming together on agreement that will be beneficial to both California’s economy and environment: “…when forward-thinking people, like the people that are standing here with me today, are willing to sit down and make something positive happen, those old battle lines can be terminated. In other words, there is a better way – and that better way is in full display right here today at this stunning California landscape.” We thank the Tejon Ranch Company for agreeing to donate this easement. There are still several steps to be taken. It will be many more years before we are able to break ground on the first steps of the new trail. The project will include off-trail campsites and access to critical water sources. Once the easements and plans are in place, we will enter an exciting era of building this new section of the PCT through volunteer and youth crew projects. Thanks for joining us for this exciting, but slow and necessary process. The PCT on Tejon Ranch will be fantastic. We will update this page as information becomes available.  Mark MacFarlane, Esq. - 3/17/15


  The Grant Request is Overbroad. If you physically go to the site, the lower main-artery trail and many others are not visible from the the Temporary PCT. Allowing the lower trails keep riders off the Temporary PCT. If those lower trails are destroyed, riders will be funneled onto the Temporary PCT as there are no other routes to get through the mountains. It is believed this is a form of entrapment. Without alternative routes, more riders will be on the Temporary PCT, only fueling the anti-access groups. This is a poorly thought out request and the consequences are numerous. Please deny the grant request as it will destroy historical multi-use trails even though, they are not in the view shed of the Temporary PCT. Please deny the grant request. Mark MacFarlane - 3/17/15


  NOTICE OF PRIOR WASTE OF RESOURCES: Wee Vill Market Sign. The OHV Funds paid for a sign to be installed on the private property at Wee Vill Market. The owner was disgusted with the fact an entire pallet of concrete was delivered. The oversized crew installed the sign using 4 bags of concrete. 52 bags of concrete were left on the private property. When the owner enquired as to when they were going to pick-up the 52 bags of concrete, he was told to just keep the overage. Now the owner is disgusted with this grant request as it is overbearing, obliterating trails not even visible from the PCT. He has exercised his right in the agreement to have the PCT sign removed from his property. What a waste of OHV Funds! This group has proven they are not deserving of more OHV Funds. Please deny the Grant Request. Mark MacFarlane - 3/17/15


  NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION: Kern ORV Watch is dangerous to the public. YOU MUST REVIEW KERN SHERIFF REPORT FOR CASE NUMBER:SR13-10895 DETAILING KERN SHERIFF'S FINDINGS. Kern ORV Watch is an anti-access group. The group is armed and dangerous. Partnering with Tehachapi ORV Watch and empowering them to assist in monitoring and reporting vehicle trespass on the PCT directly creates a “dangerous condition.” Steve Hunter, Larry Ambrose and Rick Arreola, riding licensed and plated motorcycles riding legally on 170th were run off the road by and SUV driven by Brandie Dunn, a Kern ORV Watch member. Words were exchanged confirming the driver was Mrs. Dunn, a Kern ORV Watch member. Kern ORV Watch brandishes firearms as a tactic of enforcement. Please see their own statement to the news, proud of brandishing a firearm. To save you time, the Kern ORV Watch Member states at 2 minutes 20 seconds that “he saw the gun and changed his attitude.” Please see the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQB4gMc2tz8. Kern ORV Watch brandished a firearm at current police officers recreating off duty. Those officers do not want to defend themselves against Kern ORV Watch’s allegations and wish to remain anonymous. However, they will testify at trial if Kern ORV Watch injures someone in the future. Kern ORV Watch installs what the Kern County Sherriff refers to as “booby-traps” for motorcycles. These booby traps were installed less than a mile from the proposed BLM project. Kern County Sheriffs requested criminal charges against a member of Kern ORV Watch for False Report of a Crime and False Imprisonment. Kern ORV Watch called the Kern County Sheriff 77 times for service regarding trespassing. None of the cases were found to be trespassing by the Kern County Sheriffs. The Kern County Sheriffs state the Kern ORV Watch member made “numerous statements… in which she contradicted herself.” The list of violent acts by Kern ORV Watch is not limited to the above and the false reporting is rampant. A brief history of FALSE reporting is available in the police report. This notice shall constitute actual notice to an appropriate public officer of the dangerous condition created by partnering with Kern ORV Watch. (See Mathews v. State ex rel Dep’t of Transp. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 116, 122) Mark MacFarlane, Esq. - 3/17/15


  One group, Kern ORV Watch, *says* dirt bikes are a problem. That group only has 2 members that I am aware of physically in the area. Brandy Dunn, proved to the Kern County Sheriffs she lies and distorts information to attack dirt bike riders. That leaves only Diana Palmer, a resident of Oak Creek Canyon. Not our area but close! Why doesn't Diana Palmer focus on getting the PCT through Oak Creek Canyon if she really cared about the trail and the hikers. Ironically, Oak Creek Canyon is causing the Temporary PCT to remain in this hot desert temporary location because Oak Creek Canyon does not want to share with the PCT and hikers. The truth is Kern ORV Watch is an anti-access group. OHV Funds should not financially support anti-access. The Kern Recreational Land Owners Group has over 100 different landowners that enjoy multi-use trails. The PCT hikers temporarily use our section for a 2 month period just to get through the hot Mojave Desert on to better hiking experiences. Hikers call our area the "Tiki Bar in Hell." Why is so much time and energy spent to appease one group of anti-access extremists? The amount of wasted money by the Kern County Sheriffs to review complaints is staggering. They had a huge sting set-up and I understand only a few tickets were given out, including one where a young teen was lost and found the main highway to return to camp. Not exactly criminals! Does Kern ORV Watch hike the trail and encounter riders? I have never heard that! I see they set up game cameras to take photos. Instances are so rare you need a game camera? Stop trying to solve a problem that does not exist. This is a waste of OHV Funds. Please deny the Grant Request. Mark MacFarlane - 3/17/15


  The projects purpose is to "dissuade and prevent OHVs from willfully illegal or accident entry onto the PCT." What evidence is there that OHVs entered onto the Temporary PCT? The Kern County Sheriffs did a study finding exactly the opposite. A STUDY NEEDS TO BE DONE INDEPENDENTLY TO PROVE THERE IS A PROBLEM. DO NOT SPEND OHV FUNDS ON A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST. ***An audit of Kern County Sheriff’s Office records was performed for any Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) related call for service between October 2013 and May 2014. None were received.*** KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S STUDY AVAILABLE AT http://stewardsofthesequoia.org/pdf/PCT-Report-KernCountySherrif.pdf During the month of May 2014, The Sheriff’s Office Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Team deployed to address allegations of widespread illegal OHV use made by ORV Watch Kern County in a letter written to the Kern County Parks Department in April 2014. The letter stated, “During the last 16 months, the Pacific Crest Trail and BLM parcels in Kern County have suffered more damage from illegal OHV use than we have witnessed in the past 6 years. Rural residents have been burdened with increased trespass onto private property. Lllegal [sic] camping at the base of the Tehachapi Mountains in Rosamond and on the Aqueduct has increased, and these have become popular staging areas where dirt bikers meet to ride illegally and unimpeded onto the PCT, and private lands.” (See attached letter for further details.) The OHV Team investigated and addressed each of the complaints in the letter. An audit of Kern County Sheriff’s Office records was performed for any Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) related call for service between October 2013 and May 2014. None were received. Additionally, a search was done for calls for service in the Rosamond, Tehachapi (including Oak Creek Canyon), and Mojave areas involving OHVs, for the same time frame. The analysis of the calls for service for OHV complaints in the area at issue indicates only five (5) calls for service have been placed since October 1, 2013. Based upon the information provided by the callers, and the disposition entered by the deputies who responded, four (4) of those five (5) calls for service were determined to be non-criminal in nature (Riders were on open private lands which were not owned or managed by the reporting party.). Deputies from the OHV Team conducted directed patrols in this region on well over 100 miles of trails, on and around the PCT. During these patrols, over 40 hikers were contacted and interviewed about OHV use on the PCT. All of the hikers contacted were serious enthusiasts, and said they began hiking at the US/Mexico border and planned to continue to the US/Canada border. Of the 40 plus hikers contacted, only one said they had seen a motorcycle on the PCT, and that was over 100 miles south of Kern County. Some of the hikers said they could hear or see motorcycles on other trails after entering Kern County, but none of them said they had seen any evidence that motorcycles had been on the PCT. When they learned we were patrolling the PCT for motorcycles, several hikers commented, “It doesn’t seem to Memorandum Page 2 10/03/14 me to be a problem.” Another hiker said he previously heard a woman stating that there have been a lot of problems (motorcyclists riding on the PCT) in the Tehachapi area. The hiker then said, “It’s probably fabricated or something.

It doesn’t make sense.” We also spoke to a local resident, “Daniel”, who was restocking a water cache along the PCT, above Oak Creek Canyon, and visiting with several hikers who were resting there. Daniel stated he would rather not have motorcycles on any trails in the area; however, while discussing the issue of motorcycles on the PCT, Daniel stated, “Well it’s certainly been better in the last few years. You know, ten years ago it was horrible.” During our patrols of the PCT itself, we found numerous roads and OHV trails which run nearby and/or intersect with the PCT. This occurred only intermittently, however, in a section of the trail which spanned approximately 12 miles (from the Aqueduct Rd/170th St. West heading north). No motorcycles were encountered on, of anywhere near, the PCT during these patrols. We did find evidence that motorcycles had been on the PCT in a limited area though; approximately one mile in length in an area burned by the White Fire of 2007. In this area, old motorcycle tracks could be seen coming from the hillside in several places and turning onto the PCT. In each case the tracks could be seen abruptly leaving the PCT after passing a trail marker which indicated the trail was in fact the PCT. The PCT was fairly well signed, but several trail intersections were discovered where no sign was posted and it was difficult to determine which trail was the PCT. We did not discover any vandalized PCT signs, or any which were lying on the ground (as can be seen in other areas where they have been knocked down or pulled out of the ground). On the other trails in the area, we noticed there were almost no fences or signs forbidding trespass. In fact, only two visible signs forbidding trespass were encountered; one just off the PCT near a water cache east of Oak Creek Canyon, and another on a gate for the roadway leading to a cement quarry. The only fence encountered belonged to the Tejon Ranch, and was at the extreme western boundary of the area in question. Other than these, there was no delineation between one piece of private property and another, or between private and public lands. Based upon prior patrols in this area, no evidence of damage of any kind was discovered, from legal or illegal OHV use. To the contrary, a number of trails and roads in the area appear to have significant vegetative growth on them from lack of use. Deputies contacted 18 motorcyclists (in six groups) during these patrols. All of these contacts occurred on trails which were more than a mile from the PCT, and each rider had valid registration and necessary equipment (spark arrestors/silencers). Of those contacted, 12 of the riders were either owners of property in the immediate area, or guests of those property owners. Each group said they were aware of the prohibition of riding on the PCT, and they were familiar with its location. While speaking to these riders about motorcycles on the PCT one of them shared an observation he made. He pointed out that almost all the trees in the burn area were killed by the fire. Since the trees are Memorandum Page 3 10/03/14 now dead, many of them have fallen down, often blocking both the PCT and motorcycle trails. The trees are cleared from the PCT, but not from the motorcycle trails. The rider suggested that other motorcyclists who are searching for “go-arounds” in these areas are possibly ending up on the PCT if it is nearby. The statement, “…at the base of the Tehachapi Mountains in Rosamond and on the Aqueduct” where ORV Watch alleges people are illegally camping, and “dirt bikers meet to ride illegally and unimpeded onto the PCT, and private lands” is unfounded. It is legal to ride, hike, drive, camp, hang glide, etc. on private property which is unfenced or un-posted. Additionally, many of the people who ride in this area own the land they are camping and riding on, and do so for the very purpose of having the opportunity to recreate outdoors. These areas have been popular legal staging areas for OHV enthusiasts for decades, and it is legal to ride dirt bikes and ATVs in this area. (See Attachment #2) The State Motorized Trail System (the motorcycle equivalent of the PCT) was created by the California Recreational Trails Act of 1974, and utilizes the same portion of the Aqueduct road in its route that the PCT does. Furthermore, the Aqueduct road is neither a highway nor a county road; therefore it is legal to operate any motorized vehicle on this roadway. No evidence has been presented or found, whatsoever, to indicate the people riding in this area have any intent to ride on the Pacific Crest Trail. It is my recommendation that the Sheriff’s Office continue collaborating with the USFS to better sign this section of the PCT. I believe improving the lines of communication, possibly through community meetings with the “Citizen Stakeholder” groups such as ORV Watch Kern County and Kern Recreational Land Owners Association, will enable the Sheriff’s Office to address concerns and issues in a timelier manner. Better communication will enable us to address specific problems when they arise, and will enable us to keep the issues identifiable, rather than broad and vague. There is not sufficient evidence of illegal activity in this area to justify large expenditures of resources; however, I do believe on the ground patrols of this section of PCT several times a year would be worthwhile. Respectfully Submitted, Senior Deputy Steve Williams. Mark MacFarlane, Esq. - 3/17/15


  The Temporary PCT in this area illegally crosses approximately 30 private landowners' property. There is no legal easement or other authority for crossing private property. The Temporary PCT just did it illegally with no authority. I am currently in negotiations to create a legal easement. But, the Temporary PCT is currently a GUEST in this area of Private Land. If the multi-use trails are obliterated by this grant, the local landowners will eject the Temporary PCT from the private parcels. Do what is best for the HIKERS. DENY the grant request. Otherwise, No Trespassing signs will be installed on private property and innocent hikers will be getting misdemeanors for trespassing. Mark MacFarlane, Esq. - 3/17/15


  In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. This grant request should be denied because of false and misleading statements presented to the public. Charles Varner - 3/20/15


  At the monthly meeting of Friends of Jawbone, held at Jawbone Canyon on 2/18/15 a U.S. Forestry official presented this grant request to the members in attendance. This U.S. Forestry official distributed two maps to the group in support of the grant request. These maps were titled Region 2 Project Area and Region 3 Project Area. On this map is a green dashed line that according to the legend are called “Project Regions” and “Project Work Regions”. My private property is located within this newly designated “Project Region”. I have great concern that my private property is now inside the project region of the Pacific Crest Trail. There are numerous questions that arise from the Federal Government including my private property inside this project region of the PCT. No one from the BLM or U.S. Forestry has contacted me regarding my private property and the inclusion inside the project region. The impact of being within a designated “Project Region” has not been determined or explained to private property owners in this area. This project region designation has the potential of impacting the property value of my private property and the private property of many others. This grant request should be denied because the BLM has failed to contact the private property owners within the designated project region boundary. Jim Grier - 3/20/15


  This is a temporary location for the PCT. The PCT crosses over and is on historic off road trails in this area. It is irresponsible to use State Parks OHV funds for this grant. Dave Gordan - 3/20/15


  The author of this grant states "the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited". That is not a true statement. State Motorized trail Route 5 and the PCT share the same path. Also there has been discussion about making this temporary area of the PCT a dual use area with off road vehicles. I appears this grant does not have all the information needed to put forth a solid request. For this reason this grant should be denied. Elizabeth Low - 3/22/15


  This section of the PCT identified in this grant is only temporary. The rerouting of this section will be through the Tejon Ranch. OHMVR Commission President has suggested this area be duel use with off road vehicles because of the temporary nature of the PCT in this area. I request this grant be denied as the grant does not provide a clear picture that this area of the PCT will be relocated. Danny Low - 3/22/15


  This grant for the PCT as described by all is ill conceived. PCT has intruded in an area that has the private land, BLM and now expects everyone to bow to PCT Rules. Wait a minute, why? Spending restoration money on something like a roof that does not have a foundation or walls to build the roof on , will fail. This grant as written should be withdrawn and BLM designate dual use on that portion over BLM land. Private property BLM has no jurisdiction and for that matter nor does the PCT. PCT is the trespasser, and we all have to remember , this is temporary. So withdraw the Grant, and temporarily designated the PCT as dual use by motorized and non motorized alike, Why not, it is done all over the place in this area. This will give time for PCT go get that trail out of private property and Federal Lands. The PCT users do not have a conflict with motorized. Just less than a hand full of tenants of land and out of area residents are creating all this conflict, when you talk to PCT hikers they do not have a problem with OHV . Designated this trail Joint use and catch your breath and do not waist restoration money that is needed in designated trail areas that have trails no longer in system. Ed Waldheim - 3/22/15


  The Key to restoration is to have Polygon describing areas to be covered year by year and by whom. This grant describes Jawbone-Butterbredt Areas and it needs to be clear what polygon it covers so as not to conflict with assigned restoration and polygon to Friends of Jawbone. It is very important that grantee has a clear description of areas they work in so as to make it clear to the OHMVR division that there is no duplication of work or areas. Ed Waldheim - 3/22/15


  At the monthly meeting of Friends of Jawbone, held at Jawbone Canyon on 2/18/15 a U.S. Forestry official presented this grant request to the members in attendance. This U.S. Forestry official distributed two maps to the group in support of the grant request. These maps were titled Region 2 Project Area and Region 3 Project Area. On this map is a green dashed line that according to the legend are called “Project Regions” and “Project Work Regions”. My private property is located within this newly designated “Project Region”. I have great concern that my private property is now inside the project region of the Pacific Crest Trail. There are numerous questions that arise from the Federal Government including my private property inside this project region of the PCT. This is especially disturbing with the knowledge the U.S. Forestry Service is planning a mile wide corridor around the PCT to eliminate off road travel and create a “wilderness” area. This green dash line is also one mile wide. No one from the BLM or U.S. Forestry has contacted me regarding my private property and the inclusion inside the project region. The impact of being within a designated “Project Region” has not been determined or explained to private property owners in this area. This project region designation has the potential of impacting the property value of my private property and the private property of many others. Any explanation now by the BLM would be highly suspect to the original motives of the inclusion of my property in the Project Region. This grant request should be denied because the BLM has failed to contact the private property owners within the designated project region boundary. William M. Thomas, Jr. DVM - 3/25/15


  I am highly opposed to this Grant Request.! I have been using this area for recreation since 1965 and it would be doing an injustice to allow this "Grant" to be approved. First I agree that the ORV is trying to tap into the "Green sticker" funds to close us out Trails that my family and I have been personally using for nearly 50 years. All the enthusiast that I know which use this area have always acted in a very responsible manner in the way they use this area/land. We all try and police ourselves and have a huge appreciation for nature. To many inaccuracies in this "Grant request " I am sure that some enthusiast not familiar with the area may get lost and turned around, that's understandable! But I do not believe any enthusiast would intentionally try to harm or disrespect any other's personal property or the BLM Land. I honestly believe the the windmill company's project in just a few years has done quite a substantial amount of damage/environmental impact, in comparison to the 60 years of off-road use. Thank, sincerely Danny LaPorte - 3/26/15


  At the monthly meeting of Friends of Jawbone, held at Jawbone Canyon on 2/18/15 a U.S. Forestry official presented this grant request to the members in attendance. This U.S. Forestry official distributed two maps to the group in support of the grant request. These maps were titled Region 2 Project Area and Region 3 Project Area. On this map is a green dashed line that according to the legend are called “Project Regions” and “Project Work Regions”. My private property is located within this newly designated “Project Region”. I have great concern that my private property is now inside the project region of the Pacific Crest Trail. There are numerous questions that arise from the Federal Government including my private property inside this project region of the PCT. This is especially disturbing with the knowledge the U.S. Forestry Service is planning a mile wide corridor around the PCT to eliminate off road travel and create a “wilderness” area in Sequoia national forest. This green dash line is also one mile wide. No one from the BLM or U.S. Forestry has contacted me regarding my private property and the inclusion inside the project region. The impact of being within a designated “Project Region” has not been determined or explained to private property owners in this area. This project region designation has the potential of impacting the property value of my private property and the private property of many others. It is further troubling to find in the “Detailed Proposed Action in Support the Need to Change Items in the Notice of Intent for Forest Plan Revision for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests” dated August 2014 under “Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Corridor” “Strategies” #11. “Construction of new wind towers is prohibited within the PCY Corridor” and #13. New buildings and structures associated with special uses that would be visible from the PCT are prohibited within the trail corridor”. Any explanation now by the BLM would be highly suspect to the original motives of the inclusion of my property in the Project Region. This grant request should be denied because the BLM has failed to contact the private property owners within the designated project region boundary. Tim Redmond - 3/27/15


  At the monthly meeting of Friends of Jawbone, held at Jawbone Canyon on 2/18/15 a U.S. Forestry official presented this grant request to the members in attendance. This U.S. Forestry official distributed two maps to the group in support of the grant request. These maps were titled Region 2 Project Area and Region 3 Project Area. On this map is a green dashed line that according to the legend are called “Project Regions” and “Project Work Regions”. Several of my private property parcels are located within this newly designated “Project Region”. One of my parcels 476-052-09 is cut in half by this corridor line. I have great concern that my private property is now inside the project region of the Pacific Crest Trail. There are numerous questions that arise from the Federal Government including my private property inside this project region of the PCT. This is especially disturbing with the knowledge the U.S. Forestry Service is planning a mile wide corridor around the PCT to eliminate off road travel and create a “wilderness” area in Sequoia national forest. This green dash line is also one mile wide. No one from the BLM or U.S. Forestry has contacted me regarding my private property and the inclusion inside the project region. The impact of being within a designated “Project Region” has not been determined or explained to private property owners in this area. This project region designation has the potential of impacting the property value of my private property and the private property of many others. It is further troubling to find in the “Detailed Proposed Action in Support the Need to Change Items in the Notice of Intent for Forest Plan Revision for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests” dated August 2014 under “Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Corridor” “Strategies” #11. “Construction of new wind towers is prohibited within the PCY Corridor” and #13. New buildings and structures associated with special uses that would be visible from the PCT are prohibited within the trail corridor”. Any explanation now by the BLM would be highly suspect to the original motives of the inclusion of my property in the Project Region. This grant request should be denied because the BLM has failed to contact the private property owners within the designated project region boundary. Ron Fry - 3/27/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. This information should not have been hidden from the public. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. David Fleming - 3/27/15


  In the section of this gratin request titled “Reason for the Project-Q3” it is stated, “the project seeks to eliminate motorized use on the Trail”. The scope of this grant far exceeds the elimination of motorized use on the trail. At the Jawbone Canyon Meeting on 2/18/15 a handout was presented by a U.S. Forestry official titled “Pacific Crest Trail Association Appendix A 2014 Tehachapi Restoration Plan. In the text of the handout it is stated “These routes do not include much of the PCT for travel, instead these routes cross the PCT perpendicular”. It is permissible to cross the PCT perpendicularly. This grant is deceptive in the stated reason for the grant. It is obvious this grant wishes to eliminate any off road travel within a one mile corridor of the Pacific Crest Trail even if that travel is legal and or on private property. This grant request should be denied because a Federal Agency has used false and misleading statements in this grant request. Theodore Sims - 3/27/15


  I have several specific comments that are listed below but this request attempts to address an issue that is not supported by feedback from hikers on the PCT. I am not aware of any survey of hikers that indicates any were endangered, hampered, or even bothered by OHV use on or near the PCT. Until this can be established, I think it is irresponsible to use any public funds to address an unfounded issue. 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. Mark Walsh - 3/27/15


  This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. It is irresponsible to use OHV funds for a project that should have be funded and completed by the U.S. Forestry years ago. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. Chuck MacQuiddy - 3/27/15


  In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. This grant request should be denied because of the stated partnership with a group that has lied to law enforcement about OHV use on the Pacific Crest Trail. Shanon Drayton - 3/27/15


  In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. This grant request should be denied because of false and misleading statements presented to the public. Adam Chitiea - 3/27/15


  As a true stakeholder, I am writing to oppose the OHV Fund Grant request from the BLM to destroy historic trails in our area. I own 55 acres of property in the West Antelope Valley and the Pacific Crest Trail crosses my property. I have never had a problem with hikers crossing my property, nor have hikers ever had a problem with my family’s off-road vehicle recreation activity in the area. I am respectful of the Pacific Crest Trail, but I will not tolerate heavy handed BLM action that compromises my rights as a property owner and taxpayer. After meeting by phone with Beth Boyst – U.S. Forestry Manager of the PCT, Carl Symon – BLM Ridgecrest Manager and others for close to three hours recently, I am very concerned that this Funding Grant Request is a reckless and unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars. As I understand it, efforts are being made to relocate this portion of the Pacific Crest Trail anyway, so to take such action on the eve of that potential change defies logic. Additionally, it is my understanding that an Off Road Vehicle Commission Sub Committee was formed in mid-March to explore this situation in greater detail, and to act without allowing that committee the opportunity execute on its responsibility is absolutely ridiculous. The more informed I become, the more I oppose this Grant Request. Respectfully submitted, Michael O. Healy - 3/27/15


  We are pleased to support the Ridgecrest Field Office in their request for law enforcement funding. Ridgecrest BLM is sorely understaffed and more Rangers need to be employed to cover the many miles under its jurisdiction. This grant request is worthy and we sincerely appreciate their hard work and yeoman efforts. ORV WATCH KERN COUNTY - 3/27/15


  We strongly support Ridgecrest Field Office's attempt to restore dirt bike damaged areas of the PCT, and the PCT in the Tehachapi Mountains, particularly the area collectively known among illegal dirt bike riders as "The Bean". The BLM parcels in the Tehachapi Mountains have not been open to OHV recreation. At an OHMVR Commission meeting years ago, Jim Keeler, formerly with California State BLM division, testified for the record, that BLM parcels in the Tehachapi Mountains are closed. In addition, per WEMO, routes are closed unless signed 'open'. This Tehachapi Mountain area has been abused for decades. The checkerboard BLM parcels are the gateway to the PCT. Riders who misuse these mountains as their personal race training ground, labor under the misapprehension that they have legal access to the area. BLM has not taken a firm enough stand in stopping the dirt bike trespass at the roots. It needs to be made abundantly clear to off-road clubs and groups that enough is enough. If BLM management fails to put a stake through the heart of the cause, the restoration efforts will be wasted, because illegal joyriding will continue. We ask that BLM officials make a firm commitment toward the goal of stopping illegal dirt bike damage before it starts. Then the restoration efforts with be meaningful and lasting. ORV WATCH KERN COUNTY - 3/27/15


  We support the Ridgecrest Field Office's request for restoration grant funds. Sadly, there is significant "off route" damage crisscrossing open trails that are in need of repair, particularly in the Cache Creek area. The Ridgecrest Field Office is short-staffed but hard working, and the funds are necessary. ORV WATCH KERN COUNTY - 3/27/15


  The grant requests funds for improving signage on the Pacific Crest Trail. Many years ago it was determined that this section of the Pacific Crest Trail needed more adequate signage. At that time, Kern Recreational Landowners Association and Friends of Jawbone Canyon both offered the U.S. Forest PCT Trail Manager volunteers to sign this section of the Pacific Crest Trail. Those offers were rejected. Now the BLM in conjunction with U.S. Forestry has requested State OHV funds to pay for the work volunteers offered for free. Neither of these organizations have been contacted to determine if volunteers would be willing to complete these tasks. OHV funds should not be used to fund this grant when this work could have and should have been completed years ago by volunteers. Dan Peterson - 3/27/15


  The map of the project area that was given out by the United States Government at the public meetings is fraudulent. A quick look at the maps on google Earth will show the glaring omissions of roads on the Government supplied maps. This grant request should be denied because grant request documents should represent the truth. The public and OHV community deserve better from our government. Jeffery Petron D.D.S. - 3/27/15


  At the March 2015 OHMVR Commission meeting a sub committee of Commissioner Ted Cabral and ED Patrovsky was formed to investigate OHV use around the PCT in the specific area of the grant request by the BLM. The grant should not be funded until after the sub committee has completed it’s investigation and come to a conclusion. To fund this grant now would be just an irresponsible act of throwing our OHV money away. Dick White - 3/27/15


  In section 3. Reason for Project the following is stated: “The Pacific Crest Trail is a Congressionally Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is Prohibited. The project seeks to eliminate motorized use on the trail.” This statement is incorrect. Motorized vehicle use on the trail is not prohibited on all portions of the PCT. In fact motorized use on the trail is authorized inside the Project Region of this grant request. If the grant request is supported by incorrect statements, the public will not believe the funds will be used in a responsible manner. This grant should not be funded because of false and incorrect information was documented in the grant request. The Government has a duty to report the truth to the public and anything less is irresponsible. Mark Pray - 3/27/15


  1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. D Darlington - 3/27/15


  At the monthly meeting of Friends of Jawbone, held at Jawbone Canyon on 2/18/15 a U.S. Forestry official presented this grant request to the members of the public in attendance. During this presentation, Mr. Carl Symons Field Manager Ridgecrest Field Office stated “it is not the intention of this grant to eliminate public access to this area.” After reading the grant request submitted, it is evident it is the full intention of this grant to completely eliminate public access to this 560 acre parcel of public land that is managed by the BLM by destroying historic off road trails and roads. These trails and roads legally cross the PCT and were in existence prior to the PCT entering the area. Mr. Carl Symon either intentionally or unintentionally mislead the public with his comment regarding the grant. This grant request must be denied because of the misleading statements made by this government official. Rob Harmon - 3/27/15


  In the section of the grant request called, “Reason for Project” it clearly states, “the project seeks to eliminate motorized use on the the trail”. Appendix A: 2014 Tehachapi Mountains Restoration Plan, was distributed to the public at a meeting held at Jawbone Canyon Visitors Center on Feb. 17, 2015 by a U.S. Forestry official to support the grant request. It is stated in Appendix A, “These routes do not include much of the PCT for travel”. If the statement in Appendix A that was presented to the public is correct there is no reason for the project, to eliminate motorized use on the trail. If there is motorized use on the PCT then the statement in Appendix A is incorrect. Either way, the public is being deceived by this grant request. This grant request must be denied and the OHV community not deceived in this way by the Government agency making the request. Scott Nolind - 3/27/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Evan Gardner - 3/28/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Ryan Groves - 3/28/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Carrie Gardner - 3/28/15


  As a tax payer and land owner in the local area affected I oppose using our tax dollars so frivolously. I request my government to use our tax dollars to increase public access for responsible use, and not continue to restrict it. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. In the financial state our country is in, spending money on this project is shameful. Sincerely, Travis Tiner - 3/29/15


  At the March OHMVR Commission meeting a sub committee was created to study the Pacific Crest Trail and OHV use in the specific area of the grant request. It would be irresponsible to fund grant this request prior to any findings of this sub committee. The grant request should be denied. Richard Christensen - 3/29/15


  The area of this grant request is a small parcel of public land that is surrounded by private property. Many of the roads and trails proposed to be closed by this grant travel for miles on private property and are only on this public property for a short duration. These roads and trails have been existence for many years prior to the Pacific Crest Trail being temporarily located in this area. It is short sided and a waste of OHV funds to close a through road or trail because an extremely short section is on public property and may possible cross the temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Richard Taylor - 3/29/15


  The stated reason for the grant is “to eliminate motorized use on the Trail”. The actions of the grant are to close trails that only cross the Pacific Crest Trail. Closing trails that cross the Pacific Crest Trail will cause OHV use of the Pacific Crest Trail because it will be the only trail left in the area. OHV use in this area was not considered in the planning of this grant. This grant was ill conceived and would be a waste of OHV funds. Chris Wells - 3/29/15


  The use of ORV Watch as a partner in this grant, Utilization of Partnerships - Q8. “Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT.” clearly demonstrates how poorly this grant was researched and prepared. OHV Watch has reported many false complaints of OHV use on the Pacific Crest Trail to several law enforcement agencies and to the Kern County District Attorney’s office. OHV Watch proudly told the news media during a televised interview that they use firearms to get the attention of OHV users. The due diligence to make sure OHV funds are used in a responsible manner is clearly lacking in this grant request. This grant request must be denied. Andrew Chitiea - 3/29/15


  It is an irresponsible waste of OHV funds to close dirt roads and trails on a small parcel of public land because these roads and trails legally cross the PCT. The PCT is only temporarily located on this parcel of public land and as soon as the PCT is moved these roads and trails will have no impact on the PCT. Martin D. Ingram - 3/29/15


  The Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail dated 1-18-82 states, “Public and Private land in the Mojave Desert area is used primarily for motorized recreation activities”. In this grant request it states, “When the PCT was designated as a National Scenic Trail in 1968 the boom in motorized recreation in the Western Mojave Desert was well underway”. It also states in this grant request, “ By this time, many areas, including the project area, had been utilized for many varied motorized recreation activities for well over 30 years”. The truth is this area has been utilized for recreation for well over 60 years. This grant does nothing to “harmonize with and complement and any established multiple use plate for that specific area” as also stated in the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. This grant seeks to close historic trails that do not interfere with the temporary location of the PCT nor can these trails even be seen from the PCT. The OHV community was not even remotely considered in the planning for this OHMVR grant request. The OHMVR Commission has recently created a sub committee with Commissioner Cabral and Commissioner Patrovsky to study OHV use in this area of the PCT. The grant request must be denied because the OHV recreation was not considered as described in the Comprehensive Management Plan. Plus the OHMVR Commission should be given time to study the area prior to the grant being considered. Bill deMichele - 3/30/15


  I am the owner of 640 acres of desert property in the Western Mojave desert and my family owns another 100 acres adjacent to my property. I have been a life-long lover of the area and the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) runs (without easement or permission either express or oral) for ½ mile through my property. This letter is written to express my objection in the strongest possible terms to the grant being submitted to the commission that is requesting funds from the California OHV fund to fund the demolition of historic trails on public property. The reasons for my objections are varied but each reason on its own should be enough to warrant rejecting the grant request. One of the reasons given for trail demolition is that it will keep off-road vehicles from disturbing hikers on the PCT. It will also keep the view shed “pristine” for those making the trek. As far as disturbing the hikers on the PCT goes, in a recent conference call, Beth Boyst, US Forest PCT manager, was asked directly by me if she had any complaints by hikers being bothered, hassled or otherwise inconvenienced by off-road vehicles while on the PCT. She replied that she had received NO complaints from hikers. Knowing what I know about the hikers, Ms. Boyst has not received any complaints about other areas either. Additionally, the area can hardly be called “pristine”. The part of the area in the West Mojave that the PCT bisects is one of sandy dirt roads, solar plants, windmills, electrical substations and concrete for the Los Angeles aquaduct. It is like hiking through a utility plant. Furthermore, the PCT routes through public land where the historic trails to be obliterated are. There is an open pit quarry which has been gashed by bulldozers and mining equipment for decades. This is not a problem for hikers either. By Ms. Boyst’s own admission, OHV’s are not a problem for the people for whom the PCT exists, the hikers. The fact that the area is basically a utility with many roads and trails both new and old, has not bothered the hikers either. Why is this trail destruction a necessary expense? 2.) Another reason given for the demolition of the historic trails is that the PCT is a permanent trail and that nothing should interfere with it. The reality is that the PCT is attempting to move to a more “pristine” area within the boundaries of the Tejon Ranch. They have bought trail space from the Tejon Ranch for a significant sum and they still have some details to work out, mostly with private property owners adjacent to the Tejon Ranch. Why would you grant a grant request to demolish historic trails when the PCT is attempting to move the trail to a totally different area as soon as possible? 3.) Finally, the PCT in its Comprehensive Management Plan for the area acknowledges that OHV use is widespread in the area. I quote directly from the plan: “Public and private land in the Mojave desert area is used primarily for motorized recreation activities”. Furthermore, the PCT’s Comprehensive Management Plan states that they should “try to get along” with the existing users of the land. I quote again directly from the plan. ”Management and development of each segment of the national trails system shall be designated to harmonize with and complement any established multi-use plate for that specific area in order to insure continued benefits from the land”. Please note that these are not simply quotes taken out of context from the plan but the stated goal of the PCT. Given what the plan states, how is granting this request to demolish historic trails on public lands helping the PCT achieve its purpose? In fact if the grant request is granted, the PCT will be failing its mission to get along with everyone as it clearly say it should. I humbly ask that you reject the grant request from the PCT for funds to demolish historic trails on public lands. It will be a waste of money for a project that will have no impact on improving the PCT. Joel T. Chitiea - 3/30/15


  I am opposed to the passing of this grant. 1st I'd like to say I have been riding this area, responsibly and leagaly for years. I purchased my property for the express reason of enjoying this part of the california desert to recreate with my family and friends. At the February Jawbone Conyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail Administrator stated that the parcel of land in question, is a temporary location of the Pacific Crest trail. I feel that it is a gross misuse of OHV funds. I do not believe that if people new that it is to be moved they would agree to fund this. I am strongley opposed to any partnership with Kern (Tehachapi) ORV Watch. They have and continue to make false accusations about riding on the PCT and private property. This grant requests funds for more signage on the PCT. It was the responsibility of the US Forest Service to sign adequately the PCT years ago. OHV grant funds should not be used to make up for a US Forest Service failure. If this is in fact a restoration grant, then the $21,760.00 Law Enforcement funds should not be hidden in this grant. Funds for Law Enforcement grants should compete with other law enforcement grants. Bill Wilkins - 3/30/15


  The Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail states, “Public and Private land in the Mojave Desert area is used primarily for motorized recreation activities”. It is also stated, “There exists conflicts with motorized recreation activities on public and private lands”. A conflict was created in the area of this grant request because the PCT was temporarily located on small portions of existing dirt roads and trails without any regard to the OHV community that enjoyed the area for years prior to the PCT entering into the area. Now another conflict is being initiated by this grant request to close trails near the PCT. These trails do not interfere with the PCT hikers enjoyment of the area and many of the trails cannot be seen from the PCT. There have been NO complaints of OHV activity by the PCT hikers in this area. Again there has been no regard given to the OHV Community. This is clearly demonstrated in the grant itself as the only partner in the grant request is ORV Watch. ORV Watch is an extreme anti off road group that repeatedly lies to law enforcement about OHV use on the PCT. This grant request should be denied until the off road community and their interests have been recognized. Kenny Clark - 3/30/15


  Dear Decisions Maker, I strongly urge you to deny this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02) for the following reasons: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Orion Weihe - 3/31/15


  Dear Decisions Maker, I strongly urge you to deny this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02) for the following reasons: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Justin Gastrich - 3/31/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be used for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Joshua Widen - 3/31/15


  The "natural and cultural resources" section 2 is very suspect. The parcel adjoins a gravel yard where the top of the mountain has been harvested and flattened. The water drainages are well defined and erosion is minimal. This is not a natural and cultural area. This is a gravel mine area for portland cement. There is no evidence of any California Condor activity. The California Condors have transponders. The evidence is available on whether a Condor has ever inhabited this parcel. No points should be awarded as the evidence has purposely not been provided. Mark MacFarlane - 4/1/15


  It is irresponsible that the BLM and U.S. Forestry have not followed the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest national Scenic Trail and adequately signed the Pacific Crest Trail. It is irresponsible that the BLM and U.S. Forestry have not maintained the few signs that were put into place. It is irresponsible not to understand OHVs have enjoyed this area for many years prior to the PCT being temporarily located in this area when the Comprehensive Management Plan states, “Public and Private land in the Mojave Desert is used primarily for motorized recreation activities”. It would be irresponsible to grant OHV funds to the BLM for work on a temporary location of the PCT that should have been completed years ago under the PCT budget. This is a disservice to the OHV Community. Bob Churner - 4/1/15


  It should not be the responsibility of OHV grant funds to pay for “Route of PCT is unclear, signage is inadequate", and “Hikers damaging wattles” as stated in Appendix A: 2014 Tehachapi Mountains Restoration Plan. The OHV Community is being asked for funds that should come from a variety of other sources. The OHV Fund should not be used to fill in the gaps in other Federal Recreation budgets. Scott Collier - 4/1/15


  1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. Aaron Dickinson - 4/1/15


  This grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Aaron Dickinson - 4/1/15


  6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. Aaron Dickinson - 4/1/15


  This outstanding grant proposal should be funded. While the PCT is not an OHV Recreation Area in and of itself, it has experienced significant impacts from OHV Recreation in adjacent lands. This grant will enable the Ridgecrest FO to manage the impacts from OHV Recreation, and protect this important National Scenic Trail. Ridgecrest FO has a long record of successfully implementing such restoration projects. This grant proposal should be fully funded. -Patrick Donnelly - 4/2/15


  I am against the grant. I am an OHV enthusiast and a backpacker. I see and understand both sides of the argument. Continuing to close riding areas for OHV is not the solution. The people responsible for the damage are the issue. I admit there are some bad seeds out there in the OHV community and I've seen them in the backpack community too. Educating these individuals is the true solution for long term success. Punishing all for a few individuals is not fair. I am preaching to my fellow riders the importance of staying on trails and following the rules. Both sides are always such polar opposites. I'd love if both sides came together for once instead of fighting. So much more would get done to benefit the land that we both love and want to continue to enjoy for generations to come. Darren Bart - 4/2/15


  I do not believe this is a proper use of our funds and does not give OHV riders the type of access that should be granted in these areas. It's singled sided to block OHV trails for the PCT. I think the restoration that's been completed in Dove Springs is a good use of money and has also allowed through hikers a way to restock their resources. Patrick Field - 4/2/15


  My family and I have enjoyed this precious area for many years for family off road recreation. We accepted the PCT when it was temporarly placed in our area. We have never had a negative encounter with the many PCT hikes we have come into contact. We have provided food, water and first aid to the PCT hikers. It is a shame some choose to use the PCT against off road recreation and will use this grant to further a non motorized agenda. The following are several reason why this grant should be denied: 1. The parcel of public that is the subject of the grant is surrounded by Private Property. No consideration has been given to the Private Property owners in the destruction of dirt roads and trails. 2. The PCT is in a temporary location and when it is moved to it’s permanent location it will nullify the work to be paid by this grant. 3. Signage should have been provided and paid for by other government budgets. OHV funds should not be raided for this work. 4. A Law Enforcement grant should not be hidden in a restoration grant. 5. The grant request was poorly prepared. There are many inaccuracies, errors, and false statements in the grant request. The OHV community deserves accurate information. 6. OHMVR has established a sub committee to study the area of the grant request. It would be premature to fund this grant request prior to this OHMVR sub committee’s first meeting. 7. The BLM will violate the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail by failing to “ Harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plate for that specific area”. OHV funds should not be used to allow the BLM to violate the Comprehensive Management Plan. 8. The only “partnership” listed in this grant is with ORV Watch. “ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT.” This group routinely make false complaints of OHV use on the Pacific Crest Trail. In fact they have made false claims to California State Parks OHMVR division. By using this group as the only partner in this grant, it calls into question the validity of other statements in this grant. Each one of these points individually would be reason enough to disallow this grant request. Together they overwhelmingly demonstrate the need to reject this grant request. Marla Fogg - 4/2/15



  This Grant application should not be funded! Its not needed! The Pacific Crest Trail ( PCT) in this grant request area is a temporary location through a long established Family OHV recreation area. The long range plan is to move the PCT to its permanent location. The Pacific Crest Trail should be moved to that permanent location now. Green sticker funds and grants are to enhance OHV recreation. Closing historic OHV trails surrounding a temporary hiking trail is not a good use of OHV funds. This is not in the General Public interest. It is definitely not in the interest of family OHV recreation to close historic trails and restrict access for Families to enjoy the outdoors together. The Pacific Crest Trail Association is a single person with a stated goal of closing OHV recreation. Funding that goal is not what Grants and Green sticker funds are collected and distributed for. The historic reduction of OHV trails and areas has resulted in more people in too little space causing injury to users and kids. Please do not continue this reduction. Grants and funds should be used to preserve existing trail and areas and open new trails and areas to this family recreation that benefits local economies. Moving and maintaining the PCT should be funded from non OHV recreation fund sources. Thank you Monica Materna - 4/2/15


  This Grant application should not be funded! The Pacific Crest Trail ( PCT) in this grant request area is a temporary location through a long established Family OHV recreation area. The long range plan is to move the PCT to its permanent location. The Pacific Crest Trail should be moved to that permanent location now. Green sticker funds and grants are to enhance OHV recreation. Closing historic OHV trails surrounding a temporary hiking trail is not a good use of OHV funds. This is not in the General Public interest. It is definitely not in the interest of family OHV recreation to close historic trails and restrict access for Families to enjoy the outdoors together. The Pacific Crest Trail Association is a single person with a stated goal of closing OHV recreation. Funding that goal is not what Grants and Green sticker funds are collected and distributed for. The historic reduction of OHV trails and areas has resulted in more people in too little space causing injury to users and kids. Please do not continue this reduction. Grants and funds should be used to preserve existing trail and areas and open new trails and areas to this family recreation that benefits local economies. Moving and maintaining the PCT should be funded from non OHV recreation fund sources. Warmest regards, Tom Materna - 4/2/15


  I own private property in the area of this grant request. I have enjoyed riding off road vehicles in this area with my son and now my grand son. It is our family form of recreation. The following are several reason why this grant should be denied: 1. The parcel of public that is the subject of the grant is surrounded by Private Property. No consideration has been given to the Private Property owners in the destruction of dirt roads and trails. 2. The PCT is in a temporary location and when it is moved to it’s permanent location it will nullify the work to be paid by this grant. 3. Signage should have been provided and paid for by other government budgets. OHV funds should not be raided for this work. 4. A Law Enforcement grant should not be hidden in a restoration grant. 5. The grant request was poorly prepared. There are many inaccuracies, errors, and false statements in the grant request. The OHV community deserves accurate information. 6. OHMVR has established a sub committee to study the area of the grant request. It would be premature to fund this grant request prior to this OHMVR sub committee’s first meeting. 7. The BLM will violate the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail by failing to “ Harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plate for that specific area”. OHV funds should not be used to allow the BLM to violate the Comprehensive Management Plan. 8. The only “partnership” listed in this grant is with ORV Watch. “ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT.” This group routinely make false complaints of OHV use on the Pacific Crest Trail. In fact they have made false claims to California State Parks OHMVR division. By using this group as the only partner in this grant, it calls into question the validity of other statements in this grant. Each one of these points individually would be reason enough to disallow this grant request. Together they overwhelmingly demonstrate the need to reject this grant request. Richard Combs DDS - 4/2/15


  I object to this grant request. I believe motorists abide by the current trails, and have enjoyed this land harmoniously with the property owners. Promoting enjoyment of the outdoors is key to its protection. - Eric - 4/2/15


  I strongly object to this grant request. The partner of this grant request, OHV Watch of Kern County, is a vocal anti-OHV group who does not have any interest in helping property owners retain their rights to their property. This group has fabricated numerous false and misleading allegations of OHV use on the PCT. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. I have been riding with one of the property owners and my sons for nine years, and we have never ridden on nor destroyed the Pacific Crest Trail. In fact, I know of several off-road riders who have actually helped restore parts of the trail. I am both a hiker and a motorcycle rider, and I enjoy nature and our natural environment. The area in question is a large area, and there is plenty of room for both activities to take place. Additionally, the parcel of land that is the subject of this grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trall, and is due to be re-routed to a trail through Tejon Ranch. Funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. I strongly urge you to deny this grant request. Laurie Colbert - 4/2/15


  I own property in the area of this grant request. My family and my friends have enjoyed this area for many years for family off road recreation. We accepted the PCT when it was temporarly placed in our area. We have never had a negative encounter with the many PCT hikes we have come into contact. We accepted and worked with wind energy companies that have recently located in this area. This is an area of a verity of multi use that is open to renuable energy and outdoor recreation as well. It is a shame a select few choose to use the PCT against off road recreation and will use this grant to further a non motorized agenda. The following are several reason why this grant should be denied: 1. The parcel of public that is the subject of the grant is surrounded by Private Property. No consideration has been given to the Private Property owners in the destruction of dirt roads and trails. 2. The PCT is in a temporary location and when it is moved to it’s permanent location it will nullify the work to be paid by this grant. 3. Signage should have been provided and paid for by other government budgets. OHV funds should not be raided for this work. 4. A Law Enforcement grant should not be hidden in a restoration grant. 5. The grant request was poorly prepared. There are many inaccuracies, errors, and false statements in the grant request. The OHV community deserves accurate information. 6. OHMVR has established a sub committee to study the area of the grant request. It would be premature to fund this grant request prior to this OHMVR sub committee’s first meeting. 7. The BLM will violate the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail by failing to “ Harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plate for that specific area”. OHV funds should not be used to allow the BLM to violate the Comprehensive Management Plan. 8. The only “partnership” listed in this grant is with ORV Watch. “ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT.” This group routinely make false complaints of OHV use on the Pacific Crest Trail. In fact they have made false claims to California State Parks OHMVR division. By using this group as the only partner in this grant, it calls into question the validity of other statements in this grant. Each one of these points individually would be reason enough to disallow this grant request. Together they overwhelmingly demonstrate the need to reject this grant request. Jeff Drummen - 4/2/15


  I strongly support the BLM - Ridgecrest Field Office's in their grant request for restoration of offroad damaged public lands, however, with this phenomenal amount of money requested, restoration is pointless unless more is done about actual law enforcement. Perhaps fines and/or stiffer fines instead of warnings to curb the illegal offroad use in these areas. Diana Palmer - 4/2/15


  As a full time resident in the vicinity of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT), we frequently see or hear the dirt bikers riding on the trail or we see the new damage they have created to the trail tread. My neighbors and I have taken hundreds of photos of them riding as well as the damage to the trail. While many claim there is no adequate signage, the trail is properly signed from the base of the Tehachapi Mountains on the south and heading north-easterly all the way up to Highway 58. Anyone hiking on the PCT in the Tehachapi Mountains can see that the off-road use on the trail is phenomenal. Law enforcement rangers from the Sequoia Forest field office and BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, patrol this area fairly consistently, they also witness the off-road damage to the trail. Off-roaders in this area profess to be the good-guys and respect the PCT and help hikers, so I ask this: why would they have any objection to any person or organization going after the illegal riders that give them all a bad name? Restoration and law enforcement would not be necessary if the illegal OHV use on the PCT didn’t exist. I wholeheartedly support the restoration grant for the PCT. It is imperative to continue to do trail restoration to preserve the trail experience so many hikers and equestrians enjoy. Along with that, law enforcement has to be more pro-active or the trail restoration is pointless. When the PCT was first proposed, landowners objected to the ‘optimal location’ for the trail; 90 landowners, the Sierra Club, BLM Bakersfield office, Kern County Board of Supervisors, the PCT Advisory Council, Editors from the Tehachapi News and Mojave Desert News, Equestrian Trails Inc., a representative from Assemblyman Phil Wyman’s office, and Calportland Cement attended meetings in Tehachapi, Lancaster and Pasadena. An ad hoc committee representing landowners was formed and working with the US Forest Service and BLM, came up with an alternative to the optimal location, which determined where the trail is today. Tejon later on agreed to allow the trail through their holdings, to gain approval of their Centennial development over by I-5. There is nothing in the report that says that where the trail is now and along the south ridge of the Tehachapi’s is a ‘temporary’ route. A copy of that report can be provided if you wish. The public lands (BLM land) south of the Tehachapi’s, are not designated open riding areas as claimed by many in the OHV community. They can ride legally on their own property or property they were given permission to ride on by another landowner or the aqueduct. Exception to that is certain landowners on the desert floor do share their property with the PCT and can cross the PCT with OHV’s. The rest of the PCT however, as per the WEMO Plan (lawsuit), it states that: "OHV routes are closed if not designated open." There are no legal designated OHV open routes on any of the BLM parcels south of the Tehachapi Mountains, and this needs to be addressed by the BLM, as well as continued protection and restoration of the trail. Diana Palmer - 4/2/15


  1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. Paul Thoegersen - 4/2/15


  To whom it may concern this is my second letter opposing OHV funding of this grant. As stated here previously I am one of the few private land owners in the vicinity of this BLM parcel in question. A extremely important factor that was not mentioned here in the request for this grant was not brought to light to the public, and is a huge fact/player in the current problems we face here to this day, and this is the White fire of 2007 which ravaged the area with over 12,000 ac burned! Believe me I know it burned close to 60% of my beautiful oak and pine trees on my property personally, and am still dealing with it to this day with fallen trees everytime the wind blows hard(often)There is no OHV that has done even a fraction of damage compared to what this fire did! How could this be left out of the information to the public regarding this grant? Its very misleading as the fire devastated this part of the tehachapis mtns as there is no man, motor, animal etc. force that could even come close to inflicting the damage that this fire has done to the area. This is the major problem for falling trees and erosion hands down in this area, and to ask for public OHV funds earmarked for restoring the ravages of a wildfire is completely inappropriate! My hope is the voice of reason will prevail here to use our public OHV funds in a more intelligent responsible manner as this is just a waste of OHV funds where it could be used in a much wiser way. Once again I ask that this grant be denied for logical reasons stated here and in my previous letter as well. OHV funds should not be used to restore damage from wildfires! Thank you The Douglas K Pearce Rev trust - 4/2/15


  I am a land owner in this area and would like to post my objections to this grant at this time for the following reasons. * This grant will affect property owners ability to use trails and roads. * The grant is premature and should be postponed until a study of OHV use on the PCT is completed. * The grant will not be needed once the PCT is moved. * The grant partners with a group that has demonstrated itself to be an organization led by unscrupulous individuals. * Signage on the PCT has always been inadequate and proper signage would result in fewer violations. I realize my voice as a land owner probably means little compared to the non owner led organizations that have instigated this request, however, I as a land owner and a responsible user of this area, I feel this grant should be denied. Samuel Ferguson - 4/5/15


  I feel that we should not give money to this grant. These people have been offered a lot of donated time and man power for no money and they turned it down. Second, a lot of what this grant request should be done by the BLM on their own. They have already gotten money for this type of project and didn't do anything. Third, our money should be used to better our needs for off road parks, not for taking away areas. The people that want this grant just want to shut us down. Thank you for your time. Rick Still - 4/5/15


  Dear Decisions Maker, I strongly urge you to deny this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02) for the following reasons: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Chris Whalley - 4/5/15


 Dear Decisions Maker, I strongly urge you to deny this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02) for the following reasons: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Chris Whalley - 4/5/15


 Dear Decisions Maker, I strongly urge you to deny this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02) for the following reasons: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Chris Whalley - 4/5/15


  Boy, you got a tough job, what with all the propaganda flying about. With all respect, though, I recommend that a decision to punt - to reject - is the smart move on the merits. If you were REQUIRED to include the following SUMMARY list of declarations of DEMONSTRABLE fact in a (theoretical) published approval announcement, your decision would be a whole lot easier: ( 0.)“We are approving this application DESPITE the fact that: ( 1.) An investigatory committee formed by OHMVR Commisioners has not had the opportunity to investigate and report timely; ( 2.) The designated temporary path of the Pacific Crest Trail will be relocated out of the project area within the near future; ( 3.) The mountain adjacent is slated for strip-mining by the Cal Portland Company; ( 4.) Owners of private lands within and surrounding the designated project area were never consulted regarding impacts on their rights and property values; ( 5.) Eliminating trails denies these owners lawful access; ( 6.) Items Number 4 and 5 together represent a de facto “taking” of private property; ( 7.) There have been zero complaints from PCT hikers, the ones who actually use the trail; ( 8. ) The only allegations come from Kern ORV Watch, a small, non-local branch of an out-of-area activist group dedicated to eliminating all ORV activity on public and private lands throughout California and the West; ( 9.) These allegations are revealed as outright fabrication or misrepresentation of simple, observable truth in reports by the several responding, investigative agencies; resulting in the mis-allocation of law enforcement resources and wastage of several hundred thousand dollars of public monies; ( 10.) Designating Kern ORV Watch as the enforcement “partner” in the area ensures that the “problem” will never be “solved”, with truth and balance the first and forever enforcement casualties; ( 11.) The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates that potential PCT violators who now have many other options will have none; encouraging resort to the temporary PCT; thus ensuring the bad result supposedly resolved by the grant; ( 12.) This “unintended” access will embolden those calling for elimination of all lawful ORV access to private and public land (see Kern ORV Watch, above); with more demands upon declining public resources; ( 13.) Given the above, this appears to many to be the “Camel’s Nose” for further restriction on lawful ORV activities on lands at distance from the PCT; ( 12.) Given the above, this approval casts a shadow across the integrity of our evaluation process, with unintended consequences of its own.” ( End.) Hope that helps. I appreciate your respectful consideration. Bruce Chitiea, KRLA; Hiker, non-rider, Member of a land-owning family since 1970. Bruce Chitiea - 4/5/15


  I oppose this grant request. This grant request has erroneous and misleading information in it and should be denied. The parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail, and funds should not be wasted on a temporary location of the PCT. The OHV Watch as a partner should be scrutinized, as OHV Watch has filed false statements against off road recreationists and they obviously demonstrate a negative bias against off road recreation. Kevin Tai - 4/5/15


  I strongly urge the DENIAL of this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02). Please review and consider the following justification for said grant denial: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Chris Lubas - 4/5/15


  I oppose this grant request. In the grant section titled "Reason for Project," the author of the grant states the following: "The PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited." This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. Nick Colbert - 4/5/15


  I oppose this grant request. In Section 8 of the grant request Utilization of Partrnerships, it is stated: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMV law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled, "Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10/14/11. Even though the allegations were proven false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. Nick Colbert - 4/5/15


  I am a property owner in the area in question, and I object to this grant request. I have enjoyed this area for 30 years with my family. I enjoy hiking and recreating with my family and friends. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Tim Redmond - 4/5/15


  Dear Decisions Maker, I strongly urge you to deny this PCT grant request (ref # G14-01-15-R02) for the following reasons: 1. At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. 2. In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. 3. In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. 4. This grant requests OHV funds to sign the Pacific Crest Trail. The lack of adequate signage on the PCT has been a complaint for years and noted in OHMVRD report dated 10-14-11. The Pacific Crest Trail management plan calls for adequate signage. It was the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service to have adequately sign the Pacific Crest Trail years ago. OHV funds should not now be used to make up for the failure of the U.S. Forest Service. All funds for signs, stickers, and labor to install these PCT signs should be denied. 5. This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. 6. This is a restoration grant request. Hidden within the restoration grant request is a request for $21,760 for law enforcement. The request for funds for law enforcement should not be intermingled with a restoration grant. The request for $21,760 for law enforcement should be a separate grant request to compete with other law enforcement grant requests. The amount of $21,760 should be removed from this restoration grant request. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, this grant would basically use CA OHV “Green Sticker” funds to destroy historic OHV trails on BLM land in CA. These funds should be used for the benefit of OHV users in our state and to increase OHV opportunities, not to diminish them. For all of these reasons, please deny this grant! Sincerely, Lisa Morse - 4/5/15


  The Pacific Crest Trail Association and USFS established where the trail is today and contacted the landowners in the area where the trail went through at that time. The PCT, a National Scenic Trail, is a federal trail created for hikers and equestrians. If the off-road community wants to go through the process and establish their own cross-country OHV trail, then go through the process of notification and environmental assessments that need to be done, just as every other developer of a project has to do across public lands. If the PCT didn’t go through on private land or public land (public lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management, not owned by them), there is no other land designation out there for a trail to be put on; its private or its public land. The conflict lies with many private landowners who do have the trail through their property - which they welcomed, and the OHV community is destroying not only their posted private land but the federally designated trail as well. Continued restoration is necessary, moving the trail will only bring exactly what is happening to the PCT today, and dirt bikers are trashing it and ignoring the signage. Excerpt from the National Trails Act of 1968: The National Trails System Act, P.L. 90-543, became law October 2, 1968. The Act and its subsequent amendments authorized a national system of trails and defined four categories of national trails. Organization and Management Each national trail is administered by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of the National Trails System Act. The National Park Service administers 15 of the 20 trails in the NTS; the Forest Service administers 4 trails; and Bureau of Land Management administers one. The Secretaries are to administer the federal lands, working cooperatively with agencies managing lands not under their jurisdiction. Management responsibilities vary for the type of trail. National Scenic Trails NSTs provide recreation, conservation and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities. The use of motorized vehicles on these long-distance trails is generally prohibited, except for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail which allows: (1) access for emergencies; (2) reasonable access for adjacent landowners (including timber rights); and (3) landowner use on private lands in the right of way, in accordance with regulations established by the administering Secretary. National Historic Trails These trails follow travel routes of national historical significance. To qualify for designation as a NHT, the proposed trail must meet all of the following criteria: (1) the route must have documented historical significance as a result of its use and location; (2) there must be evidence of a trail's national significance with respect to American history; and (3) the trail must have significant potential for public recreational use or historical interest. These trails do not have to be continuous, and can include land and water segments, marked highways paralleling the route, and sites that together form a chain or network along the historic route. 6 National Recreation Trails The Forest Service administers national recreation trails within national forests, while the National Park Service is responsible for the overall administration of the national recreation trails program on all other lands, including coordination of non-federal trails. NRTs are existing trails in or reasonably accessible to urban areas, recognized by the federal government as contributing to the Trails System and are managed by public and private agencies at the local, state and national levels. 7 There are NRTs which provide recreation opportunities for the handicapped, hikers, bicyclists, cross country skiers, and horseback riders. Connecting and Side Trails These trails provide public access to nationally designated trails or connections between such trails. They are administered by the Secretary of the Interior, except that the Secretary of Agriculture administers those trails located on national forest lands. Diana Palmer - 4/5/15


  This grant request has only one partner supporting this project “Tehachapi ORV Watch”. The Tehachapi ORV Watch maintains false information in regards to trespassing on the PCT. Why would the BLM want to enter into a partnership with them? As a land owner in this area and a contributor to the OHV Funds I find this relationship unacceptable. In addition the PCT will be moving to the Tejon Ranch area, why would we waste these resources on a project like this? Why didn’t the Forestry Department install and maintained proper signage on the PCT years ago? I strongly urge this grant to be denied. Mark D Smith - 4/6/15


  In Section 8 of the grant request, “Utilization of Partnerships” it states: Tehachapi ORV Watch assists in monitoring and reports vehicle trespass on the PCT. ORV Watch has fabricated numerous allegations of OHV use on the PCT. One fabricated incident was investigated by OHMVR law enforcement staff. The erroneous allegations were documented in an eight page report titled Tehachapi Mountain Range-Site Visit, date 10-14-11. Even though the allegations were prove false, the photos of this incident remain proudly on ORV Watch web site to this date. The use of OHV Watch as a partner, the only partner, clearly demonstrates a negative bias against off road recreation. This alone should call into question the motives of this grant request. Thank you Jesse Ziegler  - 4/6/15


  In the grant request section titled “Reason for Project” the author of the grant states the following: “the PCT is a Congressional Designated National Scenic Trail and motorized vehicle use along the trail is prohibited.” This statement is false. There are sections of the PCT in this area that allow motorized travel on the PCT. State Motorized Trail Route number 5 and the PCT share the same path in this area. False and misleading statements have no place in a government grant request. Jean Turner  - 4/6/15


  This restoration grant requests $21,760 for Law Enforcement on the Pacific Crest Trail. BLM Ridgecrest Law Enforcement Grant #G14-01-15-L01 requests $252,065 part of which is is to provide law enforcement for the same area as named in this grant. Grant #G14-01-15-L01 states the following: Approximately 80 miles of the PCT, including segments passing through the Tehachapi Mountains and Antelope Valley, also require enforcement patrols to deter motorized use of the trail. This is a duplicate request for funds for the same law enforcement action and should be eliminated from this grant. Crista Booth - 4/6/15


  At the February 18, 2015 Jawbone Canyon meeting, the Pacific Crest Trail administrator admitted the parcel of land that is the subject of the grant request is a temporary location for the Pacific Crest Trail. This area of the PCT is due to be rerouted to the optimal trail route through Tejon Ranch. This information does not appear in the grant request. By omitting this information, it gives a misleading impression to the purpose of this grant request. OHV grant funds should not be wasted for work on a temporary location of the Pacific Crest Trail. Thank you Adam Booth - 4/6/15


  I object to the grant request. I agree with all the written comments submitted prior to my submittal regarding rejection grant of G14-01-15-L01. Thomas T Bea - 4/6/15


  The historic PCT is being destroyed by motor vehicles in several areas in Southern California. This trail is know world-wide and represents American ideals, beauty and natural resources. It's important that it is protected for this and is an example of American pride in our country. Those that destroy this symbol need to be educated on its value. Please fund this grant. pam nelson - 4/6/15


  The Ridgecrest area is a diverse and exciting region that introduces visitors from all over the world to the Southern entrance of the Sierra. Californians take pride in their public lands and need to be informed about the best ways to protect it. BLM law enforcement need this grant to help educate the public and keep our public lands safe from abuse. pam nelson - 4/6/15


  Under Section 2, the Pacific Crest Trail is not a Sensitive Area. The trail is actually multi-use in many locations in this area. Including a main aqueduct road. There should be no point for Sensitive area. Soils eroding should get no points as the bordering parcel is a gravel mine for portland cement. There are no Tehachapi Monardella on this parcel. It is located at higher elevation. No point should be given. California condor should not be included for 2 points. THIS AREA BORDERS 3 WINDMILL FARMS. Windmills kill condors. Restoration for Condors next to windmills is a danger to the Condors themselves. No point should be given. Also, All Condors have transponders. Logs are available for any condors in the area. No information indicates Condors on this parcel. No point should be given. Lindsey Hambleton - 4/6/15


  Under Section 3, they ask for 3 points. This area is not closed. This was an open, legal parcel. A judge asked the BLM to designate trails in the WEMO plan. That process is currently going forward. Do not obliterate historically legal trails because the BLM is understaffed to take on a monumental task of designating all these historically legal trails. No points should be given as this is a historically legal multi-use parcel. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  No points should be given for Publicly Review Plan. The PCT is not following their own Comprehensive Management Plan. The PCT Comprehensive Management Plan states: 1. "Public and private land in Mojave Desert area is used primarily for motorized Recreation Activities." 2. The management plan requires on BLM land "due consideration to the existence of the trail and trail users within the multiple-use concept." I, as an attorney, am putting you on notice through the public comment process. I will appeal the decision to move forward with this plan requested by Beth Boyst of the PCT. If the appeal is not successful, a lawsuit will follow. Certainly, 5 points should not be awarded as they are acting in direct contradiction to the PCT Comprehensive Management Plan. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  Under Section 7, no points should be awarded. Beth Boyst of the PCT was painfully aware of a landowner group of 100 plus that recreate in the area. Beth Boyst of the PCT worked with Doug Varner, the landowners' contact in the past. Beth Boyst chose not to notify the stakeholders in the area and instead to hold a sneaky "public meeting" on the other side of Kern County. The general public was not noticed and the steakholders were not noticed. In fact, the stakeholders of the area were known to Beth Boyst and the PCT and she chose to hide this grant request. No points should be awarded. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  Under Section 11, it says greater than 10 acres of "sensitive habitat" will be restored. This parcel is next to a gravel mine for Portland Cement. This is not a "sensitive habitat." This is part of a gravel mine. There is no evidence of the criteria for a "sensitive habitat." No points should be awarded. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  The PCT is protected by the Code of Federal Regulations which states "no one shall operate a motorized vehicles along a national scenic trail." However, the PCT is attempting to expand to surrounding areas. The PCT and Beth Boyst admits not a single hiker complained about OHV use on the PCT. So, there is no problem. However, an anti-access and arrogant attitude is emerging in the administration of the PCT. The PCT is being used as a weapon against multi-use. The Kern County Sheriffs have wasted enough time on false claims by Kern ORV Watch. Talk to the Kern County Sheriffs about the truth. Don't create more wasted time for our Sheriffs. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  The definition of along is "moving in a constant direction on a path." The PCT Management Plan does not mention taking away multi-use BESIDE the PCT. It says along. Do not let the PCT expand their already generous footprint and enormous wilderness. Most of the 69 restoration sites are BESIDE the PCT not along. Do not grant these funds. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  I am an attorney, representing a number of handicapped that would like to recreate using the PCT. On March 27th and on April 3rd, I inquired on obtaining a special-use permit for my clients. Both calls were documented. I was forwarded to a voicemail. I left messages both times with no response. At this point, the PCT does not appear to issue special use permits for the handicapped. Although the inquiry is admittedly fresh, an ADA lawsuit is likely. As an attorney, I have not been able to obtain a special-use permit for my clients over the past 2 weeks. This is unacceptable. Do not obliterate the multi-use trails in the area. The handicap are flagrantly discriminated against on the PCT and therefore, have been using the multi-use trails BESIDE the PCT. The BLM will be dragged into a lawsuit on ADA access. Deny this grant request. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  Under Section 2, the Pacific Crest Trail is not a Sensitive Area. The trail is actually multi-use in many locations in this area. Including a main aqueduct road. There should be no point for Sensitive area. Soils eroding should get no points as the bordering parcel is a gravel mine for portland cement. There are no Tehachapi Monardella on this parcel. It is located at higher elevation. No point should be given. California condor should not be included for 2 points. THIS AREA BORDERS 3 WINDMILL FARMS. Windmills kill condors. Restoration for Condors next to windmills is a danger to the Condors themselves. No point should be given. Also, All Condors have transponders. Logs are available for any condors in the area. No information indicates Condors on this parcel. No point should be given. Lindsey Hambleton - 4/6/15


  Under Section 3, they ask for 3 points. This area is not closed. This was an open, legal parcel. A judge asked the BLM to designate trails in the WEMO plan. That process is currently going forward. Do not obliterate historically legal trails because the BLM is understaffed to take on a monumental task of designating all these historically legal trails. No points should be given as this is a historically legal multi-use parcel. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  No points should be given for Publicly Review Plan. The PCT is not following their own Comprehensive Management Plan. The PCT Comprehensive Management Plan states: 1. "Public and private land in Mojave Desert area is used primarily for motorized Recreation Activities." 2. The management plan requires on BLM land "due consideration to the existence of the trail and trail users within the multiple-use concept." I, as an attorney, am putting you on notice through the public comment process. I will appeal the decision to move forward with this plan requested by Beth Boyst of the PCT. If the appeal is not successful, a lawsuit will follow. Certainly, 5 points should not be awarded as they are acting in direct contradiction to the PCT Comprehensive Management Plan. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


 Under Section 7, no points should be awarded. Beth Boyst of the PCT was painfully aware of a landowner group of 100 plus that recreate in the area. Beth Boyst of the PCT worked with Doug Varner, the landowners' contact in the past. Beth Boyst chose not to notify the stakeholders in the area and instead to hold a sneaky "public meeting" on the other side of Kern County. The general public was not noticed and the steakholders were not noticed. In fact, the stakeholders of the area were known to Beth Boyst and the PCT and she chose to hide this grant request. No points should be awarded. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


 Under Section 11, it says greater than 10 acres of "sensitive habitat" will be restored. This parcel is next to a gravel mine for Portland Cement. This is not a "sensitive habitat." This is part of a gravel mine. There is no evidence of the criteria for a "sensitive habitat." No points should be awarded. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


 The PCT is protected by the Code of Federal Regulations which states "no one shall operate a motorized vehicles along a national scenic trail." However, the PCT is attempting to expand to surrounding areas. The PCT and Beth Boyst admits not a single hiker complained about OHV use on the PCT. So, there is no problem. However, an anti-access and arrogant attitude is emerging in the administration of the PCT. The PCT is being used as a weapon against multi-use. The Kern County Sheriffs have wasted enough time on false claims by Kern ORV Watch. Talk to the Kern County Sheriffs about the truth. Don't create more wasted time for our Sheriffs. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  The definition of along is "moving in a constant direction on a path." The PCT Management Plan does not mention taking away multi-use BESIDE the PCT. It says along. Do not let the PCT expand their already generous footprint and enormous wilderness. Most of the 69 restoration sites are BESIDE the PCT not along. Do not grant these funds. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15


  I am an attorney, representing a number of handicapped that would like to recreate using the PCT. On March 27th and on April 3rd, I inquired on obtaining a special-use permit for my clients. Both calls were documented. I was forwarded to a voicemail. I left messages both times with no response. At this point, the PCT does not appear to issue special use permits for the handicapped. Although the inquiry is admittedly fresh, an ADA lawsuit is likely. As an attorney, I have not been able to obtain a special-use permit for my clients over the past 2 weeks. This is unacceptable. Do not obliterate the multi-use trails in the area. The handicap are flagrantly discriminated against on the PCT and therefore, have been using the multi-use trails BESIDE the PCT. The BLM will be dragged into a lawsuit on ADA access. Deny this grant request. Mark MacFarlane - 4/6/15