31 March 2017 California State Parks OHMVR Division 1725 23rd St. Sacramento, CA 95916 Attn: Grants Manager Dear Sir: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the OHMVR Division regarding the current grants cycle application and review process. I have been an active trail rider in California since 1968. I have lived in Mount Shasta, on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, for the past 44 years. I cannot support the grant application by The Watershed Research and Training Center (Restoration, G16-04-50-R01). In fact, I firmly oppose the request. These trails have been solely maintained by trail riders for more than 4 decades; and it is possible that more than one were created by them (memories are growing dim). The trails were inappropriately designated non-motorized at one point, with no input from the majority stake holders. These trails provide access to another major artery, the River Trail, which purportedly was designated non-motorized also when it was given the National Recreation Trail status. Damage has been minimal and overstated. Although trail riders are the largest user group, there have been no reported conflicts with any other recreationists- everybody gets along. There is no plan to replace the loss of 28 miles of trails, even though the S-TNF is completely lacking in legal trails (the claim of 4000+ miles of OHV trails is predominately Maintenance Level 2 roads). I mention this because this restoration almost has the feel of a Forest Service closure-by-proxy. There is nothing in the designations of “National Recreation Trail”, “Wild and Scenic River” or “Roadless Area” (weirdly) that preclude a motorized trail. And in fact, the USFS is supposed to review the NRT every 10 years and re-evaluate the designation and users groups. I do not think this has been done and actually, I've never seen any documentation for the NRT designation. Our club, the Redding Dirt Riders, had reached out to the WRTC some years ago: a few members went to a meeting and requested to be kept “in the loop” about projects in their area of concern. This was agreed to, and so this unexpected grant application blind-sided our members- as we had no contact in the last year from them, I believe. Legal trail riding opportunities are insanely rare on one of Region 5's biggest forest (over 2 million acres). Trails that were once legal are now, by bureaucratic fiat, gone. This project would be another nail in the coffin of legal recourse, ensuring the trail designation's could never be modified or returned to us. Sincerely, Scott Linden - 4/3/17

I have reviewed the grant application submitted by the WRTC and unfortunately cannot support this grant request at this time. The applicant falsely claims to have built a strong relationship with OHV Stakeholders when this is simply not true. On February 11, 2015 the Redding Dirt Riders were invited to a meeting by the WRTC in Weaverville to discuss OHV related activities and proposed actions in the Southern Trinity County. The club sent three representatives including myself, the club President and another active member who resides in Trinity County. At the meeting were also representatives of the Shasta Trinity National Forest and the TCRCD. A discussion was held about OHV program management issues in Trinity County and information was discussed between all parties. Names, addresses and other information was exchanged. I left the meeting with an expectation that I and the club would be contacted about further WRTC planning activities, field visits, and other OHV matters. I never was contacted by electronic transfer, a telephone call or through the mails. As an elected officer of the Redding Dirt Riders, I routinely collect the mails and the electronic communications. The RDR was never contacted by the WRTC to my knowledge. Some of the critical areas of interest in the proposed action that are very important to me and to other members of our club have not been referenced in this WRTC grant application. I could go into specifics but I firmly think that members of the WRTC need to regroup and better communicate, consult and coordinate their planned actions with OHV Stakeholders who had expected to be involved in this planning process but were not. Michael Mitchell - 4/3/17