Actually, it was pretty cool. I met Mrs. Jergens... her family has been there since the mid 1800s -- and the family used to have Jeeps! Cool!

I arrived late to the meeting, but in time for what looked like a hatchet piece on the road, 'wheeling, and erosion. Al Franklin was presenting this, and from what I can tell, this was the BLM's effort to give a reality-check, showing that unrestricted access could cause problems.

To say it was ill-received was an understatement. Sure, unrestricted access can have its downsides, but the problems that they highlighted with their pictures presented the worst things about the road, and paired them with mostly-unrelated stream damage... and did this all without noting that the BLM has actively refused to work with several organized groups to mitigate erosion damage. :(

Well, once we got past that particular landmine, the meeting proceded pretty well, with pretty good discussion, and decent progress. We may indeed be able to mow down the remaining issues at the next meeting, on Tuesday, 12/11/01. We need the same majority to finish the job...

Good job to all who are continuing to attend, and kudos to everyone who attended and worked to compromise -- we're laying down solid recommendations that make sense in the context of this land and its communities of interest.

Randii

I was pretty disappointed with last nights meeting.

I too was about 10 minutes late and didn't get the intro and was pissed off with the slide show presented, along with the fact that it was one sided and did not allow for reasonable comments or questions.

It also was terribly unclear how much of the erosion shown was due to the road, or from another area entirely.

During the meeting I was also abit pissed that Jim (BLM) dodged my question when I asked why BLM didn't raise these issues sooner.

At the first meeting the "community" brainstormed and put down words for the goal statement and items for management issues, but not until last night did BLM bring their key issues of "legal compliance" and " following established policies" to the table, and the way they did it was abit if a slam. Really would have been nice to have seen these policies 6 weeks ago?

Things did cool down as randii mentioned and we did get consensus on a couple of management issues, but the progress was really slow.

Here's what I recall (from memory)

A consensus to restrict the parcel from commercial rafting use was made. I personally think this is an important one since the commercial rafting use already has established areas that they more or less control, and the potential for a big increase in traffic does exist.

The flip side of this, no restriction was put on public non-commercial "boating" which would include canoes, kayaks, rafts etc.


Shooting.

Shooting was divided into target shooting and hunting.

There was consensus to close the parcel for target shooting until such a time that an organized group can work with BLM to help manage this activity. I didn't really like voting for this, but IMO it was not a hill to die for since there are many other places better suited for target shooting and are not in a preserve and don't have a good wheeling trail there.

How BLM will be enforce this remains to be seen.

There was consensus to keep the parcel open for hunting. btw, after the meeting one of the homeowners was stating to Jim (BLM) that hunting and other uses are not compatible, and Jim stated that to his knowledge there has never been an issue on BLM land due to hunting and that it is an activity that is within the guidelines on public lands.

Overall, IMO an OK comprimise.

Next issue was campfires and camping.

I did not like the change of stance on BLM where they said they were not going to make recommendations for the Fish and game portion down at the confluence of Webber Creek and the South fork. The party line from BLM has been that the recommendations for Pine Hill preserve would treat the small blue square of Fish and Game land as if it were part of the preserve since it is more than likely to be tranferred to BLM.

I called Jim on this point but I wasn't satisfied with the response. It was unclear if or how any recommendations for that blue square will be handled.

Camping, Campfires, and Toilets as an overall issue went round and round for a while.

I think there was consensus for "cold camping" only. I would have preferred more precise wording to say what is allowed rather than a vague term like cold camping. I wanted to see wording like "year-round stage 1 fire restrictions at a minimum, and stage 2 fire restrictions consistant with CDF recommendations". This would then ensure camp stoves etc.

We didn't get to any issues on maintaining / reparing the road, but If I remember in the last meeting there was a statement that we approved where BLM was to support and encouraged organized groups working with BLM to do this. I did notice it was missing from the letter.

Thats what I remember. My notes are at home so this is from memory. I do have some other things but I can't recall what they were.

So, if your not asleep by now... ;)

Everyone, thanks for showing up. I missed Pizza and the video but I'm sure it was good.

- Dan

...was pissed off with the slide show presented, along with the fact that it was one sided and did not allow for reasonable comments or questions.
Yeah, can anyone who made it on time clarify the intent of the slides, at least how the BLM introduced it? Presenting that without allowing for questions or counterpoint was pretty much BS.

It also was terribly unclear how much of the erosion shown was due to the road, or from another area entirely.
They even said that it wasn't necessarily a direct relation, when questioned closely. But while they were flipping slides, with one slide of the road, the next of the creekside erosion, the suggestion is clear. Frankly, that was somewhat wasted on the audience there last night -- many of us know better. What I'm worried about is them showing the same slideshow in the Pinehill Prserve Planning meetings behind closed doors... we'll have even LESS of an opportunity to comment on them then. :(

During the meeting I was also abit pissed that Jim (BLM) dodged my question when I asked why BLM didn't raise these issues sooner.
Yep. Their timing sucks -- and worse yet, that this came from them REALLY sucks. It is one thing when the American River Coalition stands up and drivels their junk science (you notice Alan Ergot pulled the same trick -- no question, no counterpoint), or when I stand up and show slides of the good parts of the road, but it is a whole 'nother thing when the BLM (who is supposed to be neutral, just extracting consensus from the community) stands up with that kind of hatchet piece. :mad:

Things did cool down as randii mentioned and we did get consensus on a couple of management issues, but the progress was really slow.
That we made progress at all, IMHO, is a strong statement on the maturity of the folks who attended. Kudos all -- and thanks for the gent next to me who commented, "Steady, Dude," as I was watching that hatchet-job of a slide show, clenching my fists, and working on my own little coronary.

I would have preferred more precise wording to say what is allowed rather than a vague term like cold camping. I wanted to see wording like "year-round stage 1 fire restrictions at a minimum, and stage 2 fire restrictions consistant with CDF recommendations". This would then ensure camp stoves etc.
Good point, Dan -- I think we can refer to that as cold camping, but we need to define that for this parcel.

BTW, our recommendations WILL NOT apply to the F&G property until they cede it to the BLM, and my understanding of this is that the timing of that is key.... if they cede it now, after the BLM publishes its recommendations, during the Pinehill planning stage, or after the Pinehill planning stage, they essentially get to pick what rules to insert under. A neat trick of dodging public comment on their land, eh? :rolleyes:

Randii

More....

Access from the River
My understanding was that the parcel will still be accessible by water to the commercial and non-commericial rafters, it is just the ROAD that the commericial folks can't use for ingress/egress. If they did use this road, it would really up the traffic and hurt the peace and quiet that most of us go there for -- plant-lovers and 'wheelers alike.
Always keep in mind that rafting is a sacred cow for this community. We need to be cautious about pissing those folks off!

Enforcement
Enforcement is a BIG deal. We need to organize as a community to peer police. We need to get funding to get the county mounties down there on regular patrols. BLM needs to post a 'Tip Line.' Etc., etc... basically, none of these reccomendations are worth a damn without enforcement.

Camping
We're gonna have to get consensus within out group if we expect consensus in the meeting. We need to pick where we want to land on the following continuums:
- no fires - cold camping (cookstoves and lanterns OK) - fires only in approved fire rings - fires by permit anywhere - unlimited fires (with all of these, any rules would exist on the base assumption of the BLM's existing Stage I, Stage II, Stage III etc. fire restrictions, so the most restrictive of the two would stand)
and
- no camping - individual camping by permit only, no group use - camping by permit only, unlimited individual use - unlimited camping
and
- no day use (area *closed*) - day use by permit only - unlimited day use
These are three very separate issues, and should probably be discussed as such. Personally, I'd like to see fires by permit in established fire rings, unlimited day use, and overnight use by permit only. Realistically, we may need to compromise to permitted overnight cold camping.

Randii

Originally posted by randii

Yeah, can anyone who made it on time clarify the intent of the slides, at least how the BLM introduced it? Presenting that without allowing for questions or counterpoint was pretty much BS.

Randii [/B]

I was there early and I still do not know what it was about.

You saw what happened when I asked him that very question point blank. I thought he was gonna explode. He never did answer.

It seemed like he was stalling for some reason. I hope we do not get overwhelmed at the next meeting. We should have finished up last night.

well i was there.. front and center from the get go, with probably 75 to 100 wheeleres and MAYBE 5 or 10 landowners, the slide show came out of NOWHARE, but berfore it started i clearly asked both presenters, jim and the wirey plant guy, "HAY during this presintation PLEASE show us one situation that can not be fixed by either a seasonal closure or ROAD MAINTENANCE"!!!!!!!!!!! thay couldn't .......
. it's not wheelers against the land owners anymore, we get along!

I was sitting next to the guy who owns the private property which includes the only public access, and he wants someone to buy the 10 acres plot for $167,000 or the BLM to trade him 10 ac somewherelse. he is a good guy.

Anyways.... it's more like the BLM AGAINST PUBLIC ACCESS now.

Thay basically said
'we don't give a fuk what 99% of the public agree on and suggest at this "PUBLIC MEETING" if you guys don't ageee on'' NO FIRES AND, AND.. CAMPING ONLY BY PERMIT"" my boss or field manager will throw out all the suggestions and recomendations the public has made in the last several months"!. what the????

does any one have Jims Bosses phone number????

IS IT TIME we start thinking about getting signatures to fight this shit

We have been warned before about going around the system as in going around Jim right to his boss.(can't remember his name)
The way it looks if we don't come to a consenses on cold camping by permit only , and define coldcamping a little better(which is up to us anyway) that we stand a huge chance that camping will not be allowed all.
The sh*tty thing here is that this road fall right into a preserve.

Maybey it should go like this ,break it up into steps to get consenses:

1- Cold camping by permit only,cold camping as defined
as______________________________?
2- Only 20 permits per a 14 day period , limit the # of
People to 8-10 per permit?
3- Camping open when the road is open.
Feel free to jump in anywhere here with suggestions, I think if we break it up a little and not make it to complicated we will get stuff pushed thru.

I was there in the begining of the meeting and yes it was a one sided slide show. starting out just to show the rare plants I thought.
I did talk to Al the plant man after the meeting about funding and he is very interested in finding it to help fix the road.But I got the feeling we are dealing with another monster here , it was different with Placer County because they are into road maintance and they have the equipment to do so. I get the feeling that BLM has no Idea how to do anything as far as road maintence. Do they have engineers? that can come up with a plan? You know that there will have to be a master plan made up for the whole road and that it will have to get approved by the other 8 agencies that are invold here.

I will try to have some agencies wrote down on paper for Jim before the next meeting that they can apply for funding if they are interested. I do not know if I will be wasting my time or not but it is wirth trying

his bosses name is Dean, i cant remember his last name. they pretty much think alike so work it out with Jim.

Last meeting ** We ** were unorganized, rude at times, certainly pissed off, and definitely not all on the same page. I'd say the first half of was basically wasted.

Now in fairness to us, BLM blindsided the process with the BS slide show and it pissed off almost everyone. It was out of context, one sided and BLM did not allow for suggeestions or improvement.

FINE -- let them.

But we need a better game plan for the next meeting since I think it is the last one of this stage.

I propose this as *our agenda*

1) listen to any intro
2) respond with a prepared written statement
3) move to get onto the management issues
4) agree amongst ourselves on each of the manangement issues *BEFORE* the meeting

here's how this could play out:

assume there will be another intro as bad and as biased, or maybe even worse. If not then we goto item 2.

1) listen to whatever is presented by BLM or whoever and only contest blatent mis statements and do this quickly and politely. Basically I suggest we just sit there and let whatever is being presented get done with. ( this will get it finished faster so we can move on to important things)

2) have someone read a short, sweet but potent prepared in advance, counter statement addressing some items from last weeks slide show. Give a printed copy to have entered into the formal record ( and perhaps a few other copies to float around to attendees and the BLM staff)

Whoever reads this should just close their ears and read the statement, thank them and sit down. Don't argue the merit just present it and be done.

Then lets not get bogged down in a debate here since nothing gets resolved. just let this part end.

How ---

3) Have someone else in the audience move to proceed with the manageement issues and end the debate on whatever was said in items 1 and 2 any more at this time.

Then for each of the management issues we need a prepared in advance position that at WE agree on so we aren't debating amongst ourselves. Lets argue it here and get a consensus of us and bring these statements in writing to the meeting.

So, lets get input on the management isssues

A) -- what is desireable
B) -- what we can live with
C) -- what we cannot live with.

We can try to push through a desireable position, but if we have to cave in we can agree to B, but we need to know where to draw the line and not cave.

We need input from everyone now, before tuesday and we need to agree.

- Dan

his bosses name is Dean, i cant remember his last name. they pretty much think alike so work it out with Jim.
Jime Eicher is leading this coomunity planning process. His boss, the Folsom Field Manager, is Deane Swickart.

I still think our best bet is to work through the full process with Jim -- especially since we have a majority. AFTER the process is done, THAT's when Deane gets his say on the recommendations we provide. IMHO then is the right time to flood Deane with letters.

Randii

I agree with what Dan is saying -- we need to get to the management recommendations and get DONE. I'll admit that I was part of the problem in staying focused on their slideshow -- after a year worth of sitting back and NOT making recommendations, but just recording the public comment, that slide show was the BLM taking sides and making recommendations, and it pissed me off to no end.

It is tough getting past that, BUT WE HAVE TO.

Dan is right -- we need a game plan, and we need to get in there and finish this process with unity.

So, lets get input on the management isssues
A) -- what is desireable
B) -- what we can live with
C) -- what we cannot live with.
I suggest that we use the continuums I posted further up this page:
* FIRES - no fires - cold camping (cookstoves and lanterns OK) - fires only in approved fire rings - fires by permit anywhere - unlimited fires (with all of these, any rules would exist on the base assumption of the BLM's existing Stage I, Stage II, Stage III etc. fire restrictions, so the most restrictive of the two would stand)
* OVERNIGHT CAMPING - no camping - individual camping by permit only, no group use - camping by permit only, unlimited individual use - unlimited camping
* DAY USE - no day use (area *closed*) - day use by permit only - unlimited day use
These are three very separate issues, and should probably be discussed as such.

Mapping this to Dan's A) desireable, B) livable, or C) intolerable organization, here's my take:
A) desireable: fires by permit in established fire rings, overnight use by permit only, unlimited day use
B) livable: cold camping, permitted overnight use, unlimited day use
C) intolerable: no overnight use, permitted day use

Randii

I do not think fires are going to fly , we might adopt haveing them in consenses but when it hits Deans desk it will be killed in an instint.
I like (B) in Randy's thoughts I could live with that , don't want to but I feel more at stake here other than the Fires.
The other thing that will come up is how many can camp down there at one time , correct me if I am wrong but doesn't BLM have rules for this so many people in so big of a spot?

Originally posted by randii
his bosses name is Dean, i cant remember his last name. they pretty much think alike so work it out with Jim.
Jime Eicher is leading this coomunity planning process. His boss, the Folsom Field Manager, is Deane Swickart.

I still think our best bet is to work through the full process with Jim -- especially since we have a majority. AFTER the process is done, THAT's when Deane gets his say on the recommendations we provide. IMHO then is the right time to flood Deane with letters.

Randii

Sorry I missed the meeting last week. I don't frequent the General 4x4 area much and didn't see the meeting announcement. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I can make the 12/11 meeting either.

I posted a link under the Land Use section.

His name is Deane Swickard, Resource Area Manager for BLM:
Deane_Swickard@ca.blm.gov
Bureau of Land Management
63 Natoma St.
Folsom, CA 95762

Email doesn't work for all of DOI (that includes BLM) at the moment:
http://www.crowley-offroad.com/Snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=132

When would it be useful to have a letter writing campaign? We don't have to go over Jim's head right now. There are tons of people on this board alone that are out of the area that would be willing to send a letter if given a bit of guidance.

Crowdog

The meeting started out with a re-reading of the meeting guidelines and of the goal statements/planning restraints. Jim said that we'd have a slide show of the road and of the plants endangered. I for one did not see any pictures of the plants everyone is jumping through hoops for during the entire presentation.

The slide show really started the evening out on a sour note. It was so slanted and biased... and every problem presented in the show could be fixed by a 4wd clean-up/maintenance run. However, we will not get anywhere within their system and in this planning process as long as we're 1) fighting amongst ourselves, 2) trying to circumvent the community based process, and 3) rude or belligerent during the meetings. All number 3 will do is make things worse for us... so everybody, hang on to your tempers, even when they're doing a hatchet job on us.

As for what has been talked about above...
I really approve of Randii's listing of desireable, tolerable, and intolerable planning constraints.
As a group, we're going to have to be willing to concede some points... such as target shooting.
Another such point that I think we are going to have to concede is the issue of fires. While a fire down by the rocks isn't probably going to hurt anything - provided it's a responsible party creating and monitoring the fire... we have to look at the possiblily and reality that many of the fires are being started by drinking and partying minors that are not in the least bit responsible. This is a major worry for landowners, and frankly, I don't blame them one iota.
I would suggest overnight use/camping by permit only, with no open fires, camp stoves and lanterns okay, as long as stronger fire restristions are not currently in place for the region.

Any single one of us can get a permit if we want to camp. And if that's going to keep our trail open for day use (which is the primary concern), we all can work with the BLM if we want to camp.

I would also bet that most of us have the camping equipment we need to cold camp, and that we don't need a fire to keep warm or cook. Nevermind that by eliminating open fires, we're eliminating the need to tromp through the plants/vegitation/trees for fuel sources. (Besides, who wants to play in all the poison oak down there anyway looking for stuff to burn???)

And if it comes down to it, I'd be willing to get day-use permits as well. If getting a day use permit allows us access to the trail and keeps the riff-raff out, I'm all for that. We don't need people in their mini-vans coming onto the BML property and dumping their old dishwashers. So if a gate keeps them out and lets us in, why not?

As for toilets... while I agree that a composting toilet in the area would be really, really nice for those of us that use the trail responsibly... I can't see them a) funding the project or b) doing this becuase ultimately, they don't want us down at the confluence. In other parcels, we've recommended pack-in, pack-out for human waste... and I'm sure we all could live with this here as well.

I'm still feeling another letter coming on... as to how the wheeling community can pull together and make this enviornmentally sensitive area an even more enviornmentally sound area through trail maintenance.

Think we can all manage to show up in staff event shirts, club shirts, FOTR shirts, etc. to get our unified efforts across?

Flashlightman, any way you can get the landowner to stand up and say on public record that he's willing to sell that land to the BLM so we can have legal access to that trail???

See you Tuesday... not to do battle... but to present a unified front and suitable action plan.

Audra
MountainHighToys

I would support going for "fires in rings by permit only" but i will be prepared to go " no fires"

Lets not tie camping and fires together keep the issues seperate unless its "camping and fires by permit"
but i think we need to clarify the permiting process either "easilly accessable permits" or like "100 permits per month"
Jim was pushing "Cold camping by permit".......how bout "NO FIRES" and "camping as long as the road is open"??, but then again jim did say "unrestricted camping will not fly" WTF



More importantly as Dan noted above the very important sentance we DID have consencous on the preseeding meeting was NOT IN THE GOAL STATEMENT which had specific verbage simialar to " BLM will allow and suppoprt organized groups to adopt-the-trail including performing road maintenance, removing trash and clean up runs" I think it is CRITICAL that we get this sentance back into the goal statement!

More importantly as Dan noted above the very important sentance we DID have consencous on the preseeding meeting was NOT IN THE GOAL STATEMENT which had specific verbage simialar to " BLM will allow and suppoprt organized groups to adopt-the-trail including performing road maintenance, removing trash and clean up runs" I think it is CRITICAL that we get this sentance back into the goal statement!

Where is Jergens at ? I live in Folsom and wanted to go and take a look at it, before I go to the meeting tonight.

I was trying to go to the BLM site to get info on it, but the site is down.

Thx
Dave Rittiman

The trail is in Rescue, between Deer Valley Road and the American River. I believe the BLM has already gated it for the season, tho... wet weather can make the road succeptible to damage by vehicle use.

Randii

Well, what happened at the meeting last night?

Crowdog

Last night completed the first stage of this planning effort.

The meeting was lightly attended, I'd say the room was about 1/3 full. a handfull of homeowners, the same 3 or 4 families that have been to all of them. The issue voting generally followed "party lines". We barely had "consensus numbers" but the topics were not that controversial.

Seasonal closure, Enforcement, Camping, Campfires, Toilets, Road Repair and access were the issues that I recall. Then an "adaptive Management plan" was kind of slammed through by BLM on the basis that without one, this proposal won't fly.


Seasonal closure. we reached a consensus that BLM will seasonally close the road to motor vehicles in order to minimize the damage to the road and surrounding habitat. The dates of the closure were 1 December to 1 April, but could be extended or shortened depending on weather and condition of the road. We did get wording that road repair and cleanups could be done during the seasonal closure under guidance from the BLM.

Brian (flashlightman) did offer the services of his club stating that there are civil engineers and geologists available to help with the planning and engineering of any repairs. Jim (BLM) said they would of course have to do this right, but he didn't get into any details.


Enforcement: alot of the discussion here is making new rules, but given the existing ones are being ignored, enforcement was made an up front key issue. The group agreed (I think unanimously) that BLM shall persue funding for El Do. Co. Sherrif to patrol and enforce this area.

Camping. a consensus decision was made to allow camping by permit only, and the permit would be an on-site (i.e. Iron Ranger) system. Camping would be in designated sites and the area down by the river is a desireable area, and up by the mine. No sites were actually designated. A limit on numbers was discussed, but nothing firm was stated.

Campfires. we got clarification on this. A consensus recommendation was made that year-round Stage 1 fire restrictions would be imposed. This means no wood fires, but gas stoves and lanterns are allowed, unless a higher restriction is posted for the overall area.

Toilets. It was stated that at the last meeting a consensus was agreed on that BLM would persue installing Toilet facilities. The location would be above the 100 year high water mark.

Road repair. Geez we went round and round and round. One guy wants to be able to go down in his mini-van, others still want no-access, what are designated roads.

Access. BLM is looking at aquiring the parcel for access. It solves a few problems for them so I think this might happen. We should continue to support this aquisition.

Unlimited Day-use without a permit was agreed on by consensus. No "times" was place to define Day-use, but Jim did not see a problem with evenings being included. This could be an area that could be abused so we need to be careful on what gets put in place.

We got consensus that BLM will work with the community and organized clubs to perform road maintenance to repair and improve the existing road without changing the routes or overall characteristic of the road.

A future open item is the actual road designation and a road inventory would need to be done.

An "Adopt-a-trail" recommendation was agreed on. I forget the wording.

At the end, an "Adaptive Management Plan" was agreed on, but we debated what this would be and how it would work. It was generally feared that this would be the future avenue toward closure without first attempting to fix whatever is getting out of hand.

That's what I remember.

So this marked the end of this stage. I think they said the draft plan would be out in about 4 months:rolleyes: and then it would open for public comment and there would be more meetings.

Everyone that signed up on the mailing list would get a copy when it surfaces.

...

Dan,
It didn't seem like we had any trouble coming up with a consensus vote on anything we wanted changed? :confused: Were there other issues that didn't get voted on?

Donovan

No, I think everything got voted on last night.

I didn't like some of the open ended vague statements like "adaptive management plan" without defining what and how an Ad. Mgt. Plan would work.

I didn't like wording like "camping in designated areas" without actually designating areas.

I didn't like "motorized vehicles on designated roads" without designating roads.

I think we all would have liked unrestricted, no-permit required camping and responsible campfires, but I think we all know this won't fly when it goes further along in the process, so these inputs show some level of responsibility for the area, but keep access to the river and use of the area open.

The next fight will be when the 8 agencies get together and try to mold this parcel into the overall Pine Hill plan.

Wow, am I having a helluva bad day. I'll have more comments on this when I have time, but in a nutshell, we finished a stage in the process -- and we finished it well.

We should all shake hands, maybe pass some high-fives around, then look to our next steps... we're not done yet.

We are, however, done with the restrictions of the community planning process... and now we can write letters. Now we can work outside of this process -- not to circumvent it, but to be sure that the recommendations derived from it are taken with the weight of the whole community -- the folks that achieved consensus and worked through their differences to create an equitable plan.

We need to:
* start working amongst ourselves to outline elements of a management plan -- with specific adaptive steps and a specific monitoring plan.
* do a road inventory of the area with GPS

Our community needs to write letters.
* Fish and Game needs to hear that the community supports the BLM recommendations drawn from this community planning process, and we support F&G prioiritizing IMMEDIATE transfer of the confluence inholding to the BLM **prior** to the real beginning of the Pinehill planning process.
* ARC (American River Conservancy) is the only non-public agency scheduled to sit in on the Pinehill planning meetings. We need to get them outta there or get us into there.
* BLM needs to hear from the community how strongly we support acquisition of the private property that currently straddles the first 1/4 mile of road -- we need legal access confirmed, preferably without substantiating a de facto easement court case.
I'll have some template suggestions up in the next few weeks -- the ket element is to state our support of the plan as multiple use advocates, not just as four-wheelers. In fact, it may not help us to state that we are four-wheelers in these letters -- what we want to do is get solidly behind the elements that the COMMUNITY put into the BLM recommendations.

We did well -- but we're not done yet.

Randii

From what I got from the conversasion with Jim was that if you are a land owner within the Pine Hill Preserve than you could sign the MOU along with the other 8 agencies involed , I do not know if it to late to do that or not?But I beleive that there is some wheeler's that live within it. That might be are way into the planning sessions.