Placerville Meeting REPORT

[Kurtuleas]

SInce I couldn't make it to the Placerville meeting, (I am teaching tonight....)

WHAT HAPPENED???

How many people showed up? (REAL curious about this one)

How many of those were tree-huggin greenies?

Did it go good or bad?

Any new news?

Did they give sample forms for public input?

Did anyone get otta hand and punch Nedlo?

I know there is still more than an hour left, but the wait is KILLING me..

[Skynnard]

200 people. It was just a snow job. They couldn't answer 75% of the questions (to much incriminating evidence I think). People were not allowed follow up questions. I got so sick of it I had to leave at about 8:15. It was very simular to the Jergens trail closure meetings. I just wish the general public knew what was going on.

[vetteboy79]

Couldn't answer, because they were closing the trails with no real basis?

I'm 3000 miles away from that area but I hope to wheel there some day. I've been to Tahoe several times for skiing and it's an amazing place. Best of luck to you guys in your preservation efforts...hopefully the BRC fundraising will help some.

[Kurtuleas]

200?

I guess that's OK, but I was really hoping for A LOT more after those flyers and newspaper articles...

That REALLY makes we want the other meetings, esp. the Pleasant hill one, SLAMMED with people. I want to show that we have the ability to rally the troops...

[worknplay]

My wife went with some club members ([Toys on the Rocks, I also couldn't make it... work), didn't get all the particulars will get full run down when she gets home, but she said there was alot of people and the meeting was 'very lively"...

Am sure the results will start coming in.

[Studebaker4x4]

The biggest problem is relaying the message to the public. We need EVERYONE to know about this issue. They couldn't answer very many questions. They kept throwing in big words and terms to make it sound like a good answer. Honestly they didn't seem like they knew which end of the rock went into the ground.

I am very glad I went and now I understand what's going on. Basically the FS got sued because of poor management and some court in frisco ruled that they had to institute a new EIS by 2007 because their 1990 plan was invalid. So instead of doing their job and managing the forest better they'll just close some of it down and make the public pay the consequences. By the way, the government was supposed to be run BY the people and FOR the people.

[ROCK HUGGER]

I am going to the meeting on the 25th in Jackson.

[jtraver]

thats all I can say. It was a cluster the guy officiating the thing could not remember who was next. Neblo could not answer half the questions asked. they spent a lot of time beating around the bush(which is now protected) they needed to extend the meeting because there were still plenty of people that had questions that undoubtably would not have been answered anyway. I can not wait to send my email to Jason about how to get the word out. The biggest concern for most of us was there lack of getting the info to the people. Jason kept saying they post it on the ENF web site but how many people know that any of this is happening. I am going to suggest to him that he pulls all the green sticker vehicle owners names from the DMV and send out some sort of flier or post card about these things. Using the Mountain Democrat only does good to those who live up there and who get it....SAC BEE...LOCAL NEWS....I also gave BEBE another 1000 fliers so who ever needs them she has plenty and I can make more..

Jack

[Curly]

I was there. Guy in the front glaring at Neblo, insisting he answer the question about Mckinstry/Ellis connector that Bebe asked. I really am at a loss for words right now and in an effort to not come across as being negative, I will leave it at that for now.

Need time to think this over and post up more tomorrow. Good turnout though, compared to other meetings I have attended.

[microtus]

First off please note that the Forest supervisor Ramiro Villalvazo was not at the meeting due to critical health of his father who is outside of the area. Best wishes to his father and family.

Initial count was around 170-180 people at the start of the meeting. More people continued to file in after it started. There may have been as many as 220 so rounding down to 200 would be a safe guess.

There was one comment/question put forth by someone that appeared "anti-access" regarding what percentage of the forest use is ohv. The answer given referenced back to a field survey done in 2003 that listed 7% as ohv users though a "significant" (their words) number of users were via vehicle use and not just quote un-quote ohv.

I would estimate a very very small percentage of those present were "anti-ohv". Those that were present were keeping a low profile. It almost makes me wish I was wearing an Earth First shirt.

There were roughly 28 questions they tried to answer. At lest they put down 28 on their tear away poster sheets (Del would have been proud). I forgot my camera and used my cell phone instead to take pictures of the questions but now cant find my patch cable. Give it a day. I copied sown the first 6 then got bogged down.

1. clarify their use of the term motorcycle in reference to ohv use. Was a question I didn't quite figure out but was in reference to a phrase that Jason Nedlo used earlier in his presentation.

2. Was it possible to extend the 45 day comment period. That was shot down due to time constraints. They need to have the whole thing out there by the end of the year ( court order) and expect it to take roughly 3 months after the 45 day period.

3. A question/concern was raised regarding the closure of roads and the loss of access by fire equipment crews in a fire event. This was the first tuff question and was a big stumble. Final statement was that the road would be closed to ohv use but not CDF, USFS etc. A side comment made was/noted that if the trail was not used and maintained then emergency service equipment wouldn't be able to use the route anyway. Money would be needed to maintain that road for emergency vehicle use???

4. If there has been a 15x increase in use of ENF since 1988? and they reduce the number of routes accessible to ohv use then they will be concentrating users and creating additional potential for resource damage. Answer was stumble stumble cough. (If I remember right, somewhere in their monster publication they state that additonal resource damage of the newly congested location could result in it's closure as well.....wasn't the words used but you get the point.)

5. Who are stakeholders? Was in reference to a comment made by Jason Nedlo regarding the ENF seeking feedback from stakeholders regarding their routed Designation Process. Once again stumble stumble hack hack cough. Final answer finally given was "we" are the stakeholders....ummm k

6. what was the breakdown of users in plan b...4wd v horses v atv v motorcycle etc and once again the impact of 15x the users on less land and the spiral effect of additional closures due to the increased user density. The breakdown is in their new document DEIS which they refered to. The 15x response was basically the same as above.

My question was in regards to the lack of information out to the different user groups be they ohv users, hikers, campers, fishermen, hunters, photographers etc regarding this process and their future restrictions (actually this was hounded on them by a few people) and how do they tend to monitor/enforce trail closures to all these well informed user groups? with a gate? They never answered that question until somebody else asked it about 20 minutes later and even then it was vague but end results seemed to be a gate!

Also in that question they made reference to changes every year regarding route access and that a new pamphlet would be printed each year to inform user groups of what was allowed. How can you expect the general public to keep track?

Terminology I'm vague on but closure of forest service roads that lead to private property was a hot button question that also lead to a song and dance.

Final thing pointed out was how do they ENF get the word out about the Route Designation process (um kinda late now don't you think)? Jason Nedlo emphasized the local newspaper "mountain democrat"? had an add and 2 reader comments and they used "public outreach" <--their term to solicit feedback via a couple meetings, 2 open houses and 7 field meetings, an emial list they generated from users at the cal4wheel website, bi-monthly phone conferences and a posting on their website.

So basically if you were one of the limited number of users on the cal4wheel website they sent an email to (I don't remember getting one) or were clarivoiant and figured "hey let me check the ENF website and find out about the Route Designatin Process" or heard it through the grapevine such as Pirate, FOTR, etc then you were SOL

There were a number of other questions as mentioned. I'll dig up a patch cable and post up the pics if possible. The ENF reps did state that they would post said list on their website.

Robert

[Kurtuleas]

I addressed the issue of getting the word out with Scardinia back when he was in charge of route dez for Eldo.

Just posting on the FS site does not do JACK. Who reads that unless they have too? Even then, it's hard for a lay person to understand 90% of it becuase of the jargon and they way it's worded. I seriously believe that it is done intentionally. The less people know about this, the less work the FS will have to do....did they seem surprised about the turnout at all?

200 people showing up is great....but we need A LOT more at the other meetings. The more people hear about all this, the more they will be pissed and hopefully that will drive up the number of comments made during the 45 day window.

We REALLY need to step it up and pack in the people at these other meetings. I think the Bay Area meeting has the potential to draw several hundred if we put our noses to the grindstone.

[Kurtuleas]

In response to Robert's post...

Those questions that were asked were good ones from the crowd...but what's done is done. It's too late to argue about the whole process.

Did anyone ask about HOW to argue for trails during the 45 day window? I think those would be better questions at this point. For example,
How can we argue for an indiviual route if the FS did not give us a reason WHY it was closed?

One more thing EVERYONE has to remember, just becuase a route is on alternative D DOES NOT MEAN IT IS SAFE!!! Do not assume a trail will remain on the map! Sure, Barrett is there today, but what if a bunch of tree-huggers write in comments to shut it down? Trails can disappear too! We have to argue for CURRENT indiviual routes, or in our comments say that we agree with the current system of routes and want the ones on the alternative to remain.

Nedlo said during the last phone meeting an extention of the 45 days was possible......now it's not?

I am sorry about Villalvazo's dad, but we have not heard 1 peep from the guy about the biggest change to EVER happen to this forest, and from what I have heard, he has YET to make one meeting......

God, I did not even go to the freakin meeting and I am pissed....

[BEAR]

I would say maybe 15 greenies showed (at the most), including mrs anti-ohv...Karen Schambach. (http://www.sierraconservation.org/OH...ationists.html)
Dont think that she isnt going to post that they (greenies) were out numbered by a huge margin and try to rally her troops for future meetings.

The meeting was a joke, as noted above...more time was waisted by the "host" trying to figure out who was next to ask a question.
FS chased thier tails and walked around each question or just plainly stated that they dont have an answer.


Oh Yea......the forest supervisor, RAMIRO VILLALVAZO could not make it due to his fathers poor health.

[Glenn]

I was there too. I felt kinda sorry for Jason. He was thrown to the wolves since Villavazo didn't show up. Lots of angry people for him to deal with but he handled it pretty well, all things considered... It was typical bureaucratical bullshit. Sounds like they have put a lot of time and effort into this little plan of theirs and no matter how much we bitch about it, by gawd, they're gonna stick with it.

But, the final decision has not been made just yet so there is still hope we can influence them somewhat. Attend the meetings. Bring your friends/neighbors/relatives/etc. Anyone that has ever or may ever use the national forest for any purpose...

Pick up some of those comment forms and send them your thoughts... And when you attend the meetings, and if they continue the same format to allow questions, please have your questions written down and concise and to the point. That way, we can get in more questions with little wasted time. An hour and 1/2 isn't nearly enough for that many people but it's better than nothing...

[88bigvan]

"One more thing EVERYONE has to remember, just becuase a route is on alternative D DOES NOT MEAN IT IS SAFE!!! Do not assume a trail will remain on the map! Sure, Barrett is there today, but what if a bunch of tree-huggers write in comments to shut it down? Trails can disappear too! We have to argue for CURRENT indiviual routes, or in our comments say that we agree with the current system of routes and want the ones on the alternative to remain."

Believe the above....Below is from Karen Schambach's site

The Forest Service has embarked upon the commendable and long-overdue task of determining what roads and trails on each National Forest will allow use by motorized vehicles, specifically, off-road vehicles. This is an enormous task, largely because the thousands of miles of routes that have been “user-created” over the past twenty years greatly exceeds the miles of Forest Service “system” routes. These user-created routes were neither engineered nor built to any kind of standard; the result has been resource damage on such a scale that the Chief of the Forest Service has declared that unmanaged ORV use is one of the “Four Threats” to our National Forests, along with fire, fragmentation and noxious weeds. These other three threats are all exasperated further by unmanaged ORV use.
Each National Forest is currently asking off-roaders to identify which roads and trails they wish to continue using. The official line of the Blue Ribbon Coalition - a national coalition of pro-motorized access groups - is that they don’t want to lose a single mile of ORV opportunity.

Conservationists, along with hikers, birders, botanists, fishermen, hunters, equestrians and others who enjoy using our public lands in sustainable ways, must quickly identify both the trails they would enjoy using without the dust, noise and safety issues that accompany off-road use. We also need to identify those roads and trails where resource damage is occurring as a result of motorized use.
We need your help! Please let us know if there are trails you wish to see designated as non-motorized, and your reason for this. If you experience a recreational conflict on a trail, or see illegal ORV use on a trail, please use CSNC’s conflict reporting form.
Also, please let us know if there are roads or trails where erosion, stream sedimentation, vegetation damage or wildlife conflicts are occurring. We need to know on which National Forest the route lies, as well as the route number, if one exists. If no identifying route number is available, please provide a detailed description of the route location. You may email us at csnc@hughes.net or call Karen at 530-333-1106. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help the Forest Service get ORV route designation right. It’s a huge task, and we only have a few months in which to do this, so we need the help of everyone who wants to see our National Forests be restored as intact ecosystems.

[randii]

How many people showed up? (REAL curious about this one) 200 or so.
How many of those were tree-huggin greenies?5 that I knew, maybe 5 more hiding out unknown and unspoken.
Did it go good or bad?About as sucky as expected.
Any new news?Nothing new.
Did they give sample forms for public input?Yes. Really basic... will type in tomorrow.
Did anyone get otta hand and punch Nedlo?Nah. Some folks were steamed, but everyone stayed in control.

Thanks, everyone who could make it... everyone else, there are other meetings, as well. Your presence is non-trivial to show steady support, and your letters are even more necessary.

Randii

[Bebe]

We need to stay positive in regards to the process.

I handed out tons of fliers and posters. I will have plenty more at Jackson, Folsom and Pleasant Hill.

Nedlo is doing his best I think, but has no clue on how the process got to where we are today.

I just can't help but assume that the plan is the plan, and they are doing their best to stick to it.

randii asked Amy Reid what happened to all the input he gave, and the comments and suggestion he submitted. She replied "they were considered".

I asked about the trails that were closed on Private property, including McKinstry Ellis, Jerret Peak and Bugle Lake. They fumbled and then said they had no jusidiction and that WE had to take it up with the Property Owner.

Then someone behind me mentioned the "Prescriptive Easments" on private property, and why they had not maintianed/kept the easments, they again replied they have no jurisdiction.

How can that be possible, when those roads have been on THEIR MAPS for the last 60-100 years? What changed? How come all of a sudden they are not their issue?

That will be my question tonight in Jackson.

We had 200 people at that meeting, I know Jackson will be smaller, but I hope we can get 300-500 at Folsom and Pleasant Hill.

WHO'S GOING TO MARKLEEVILLE???

In regards to public involvement and the ways to which they 'advertised', they seem to be in their own little bubble. They have a duty to notify the WHOLE public, not just Forest users. There are so many folks who would speak out against the resrictions on public lands purely on principle.

GET UP AND SHOW UP....WE NEED YOU AND YOUR QUESTIONS AT THESE MEETINGS!!!!!!

[Bebe]

Speaking of Property Owners, we know that SPI (Sierra Pacific Industries) is a major land owner and is mostly the reason our trails are being closed.(Mostly due to the amount of land they own and he Forest Services refusal to keep our trails on their Property.)

Does aanyone know the players at SPI and how can we exercise our prescriptive easments with them?

[BEAR]

If the majority of the public forest users are OHV, then I would assume that the 7% that is used for this recreation would be a fair number to keep.

Also, If you round out the number of OHV routes to 10%, that still leaves 90% of the forest to use for those who are claiming they "experience a recreational conflict on a trail".

Sounds selfish to me.

[Redheck]

Originally Posted by microtus

There were roughly 28 questions they tried to answer. At lest they put down 28 on their tear away poster sheets (Del would have been proud). I forgot my camera and used my cell phone instead to take pictures of the questions but now cant find my patch cable. Give it a day. I copied sown the first 6 then got bogged down.


Robert

Let me know if the pics you took didn't come out. Mine are fuzzy, but I can transcribe them for you if need be.

[84rocktoy]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Speaking of Property Owners, we know that SPI (Sierra Pacific Industries) is a major land owner and is mostly the reason our trails are being closed.(Mostly due to the amount of land they own and he Forest Services refusal to keep our trails on their Property.)

Does aanyone know the players at SPI and how can we exercise our prescriptive easments with them?

SPI- main office is in Anderson. I have contacts in the Red Bluff area and the Main Office in Anderson. I will try to get some information on the areas of concern to us.

[monstercomp]

Sorry I didnt make the meeting in Placerville. I hope to be at the meeting in Folsom and am for sure in Pleasant Hill.

I have never been to one of these meetings and need a little information.

Should we submit questions in writing before the meeting begins, after it starts, or is this more of a stand up and hope to be picked by a moderator for a verbal question type meeting?

In the conference call that we had a couple weeks back with the FS they mentioned that we had to mention specific routes in our letters to them. Was this the way that the questions should be posed at the meeting in Placerville or is it more of a general discussion?

I would really appreciate information about this or any other input on how to proceed at the upcoming meetings.

Thanks
Johnny

[JohnDF]

Originally Posted by monstercomp

In the conference call that we had a couple weeks back with the FS they mentioned that we had to mention specific routes in our letters to them. Was this the way that the questions should be posed at the meeting in Placerville or is it more of a general discussion?

Thanks
Johnny

They would not take questions on specific trails

[Redheck]

Originally Posted by monstercomp

Sorry I didnt make the meeting in Placerville. I hope to be at the meeting in Folsom and am for sure in Pleasant Hill.

I have never been to one of these meetings and need a little information.

Should we submit questions in writing before the meeting begins, after it starts, or is this more of a stand up and hope to be picked by a moderator for a verbal question type meeting?

In the conference call that we had a couple weeks back with the FS they mentioned that we had to mention specific routes in our letters to them. Was this the way that the questions should be posed at the meeting in Placerville or is it more of a general discussion?

I would really appreciate information about this or any other input on how to proceed at the upcoming meetings.

Thanks
Johnny

You may want to write down specific questions before the meeting so you don't forget them. They said upfront they wouldn't be discussing specific routes or trails.
They do however want the written comments to be trail or route specific.

It's more of a raise your hand and hope the guy with the mic picks you to speak. He was kind of all over the place last night. Alfred and I are going to try and make the Folsom meeting as well.

[FAM]

Prescriptive easements were brought up during the meeting last night in regards to easements on private property. Do prescriptive easements apply to forest land as well?