Blue John Project Appeal
Informal Disposition Meeting
6 January 2003
Prescott, AZ
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Attendees:
Jeff Hopkins, Appellant
Karen Bolton, Note Taker
Mike King, USFS
Steve Sams, USFS
Noel Fletcher, USFA

General:

I am totally deaf and required a note taker to type for me what was said at the meeting.

It was my intention to use the notes taken by the assigned note taker as a reference for my discussion of the meeting. This was agreed upon with the note taker prior to the meeting and during the meeting by Mike King. At the end of the meeting Mike King prohibited me from having a copy of the meeting notes or reviewing them.

This is very serious as I spoke probably more than 50% of the time, the note taker played catch up a great many times and I probably saw less than 60% of what was typed. Many times several people spoke simultaneously. The only way to sort things out and make sure I understood what went on was to review the notes at the end of the meeting.

Prior to the start of the meeting I commented to Steve Sams that there were significant errors in the Decision. I then pointed out one which he then acknowledged and made a handwritten correction on my copy of the Decision. He agreed the decision has significant errors.

Mike King indicated he had talked with John Summer of the Walker Fire Department and that John would attend the meeting. Mr. Summer did not show up at the meeting.

Because of inadequate note taking provide to me, I consider the meeting void and invalid.

For the record the following is what transpired as I perceived and remember it.

The Meeting:

1. Mike King stated off by saying he made the Decision at a meeting on 1 April. I was about to question this as I knew of no meeting on 1 April, when Steve Sams corrected Mike. The Decision was made (supposedly) on 1 November and the meeting was on 4 November. Mike also has a tendency to call me Marc instead of Jeff.

2. I asked the question of Mike King, " How does closing road Trail 67 make things better?"

Mike King's response "The Forest Service does not need it."

Since the Forest Service plans to grant the Walker Fire Department a permit to use it and the Forest Service has acknowledged the importance of the road for emergencies, this is contradictory.

3. Instead of reviewing my appeal objections, Mike King choose to just discuss the changes I wanted.

4. I pointed out that the Decision has significant errors.

Mike King acknowledged there were significant errors in the Decision.

5. When pointed out that the Forest Service was not being a good neighbor as per:

Forest Service Manual
5403.3 - Private Property Rights.
it is long-standing Forest Service policy to be a "good neighbor" to non-Federal landowners whose property is adjacent to or intermingled with National Forest System lands.

Mike King's response was essentially "so what?"

6. When pointed out that the Forest Service was giving the appearance of regulating private property illegally as per:

Forest Service Manual
5403.3 - Private Property Rights.
...Forest Service policies, practices, and procedures shall avoid any appearance of regulating private property use.

Mike King's response was essentially "so what?"

7. When pointed out that the Forest Service was not recognizing the right to reasonable access to and use of private property rights as per:

Forest Service Manual
5403.3 - Private Property Rights.
...it is long-standing Forest Service policy to recognize their right to reasonable access to and use of their property

Mike King's response was essentially "so what?"

8. When pointed out that the Forest Service was not allowing the appellant to ingress and egress over existing National Forest System roads and trails in order to reach his home and utilize his property as per:

36CFR212.6 Sec. 212.6 Ingress and egress.
(b) ... and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service shall be permitted ingress and egress over the same and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails in order to reach their homes and to utilize their property.

and

c) ... use of existing National Forest System roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used.

Mike King's response was essentially "so what?"

9. Mike King said repeatedly he wanted to work with the private property owners to resolve problems. When I said I was willing to create an easement across my property so the Forest Service, Walker Fire Department and any others in emergency situation could cross my property in exchange for allowing me to continue to access the lower portion of my property via the upper portion of road Trail 67,

Mike King said he was not interested in coming to any agreement on that.

10. I indicated that this was a negotiation and I was willing to give an easement in return to being allowed to use the upper portion of road Trail 67.

Mike King responded to the effect that he was not interested.

So much for his working with the private property owners.

11. Mike King indicated I had access to my property from the south. When I asked him to drive up and see me at my cabin via the south route and not use the upper portion of road Trail 67,

Mike King agreed he could not do that as there is no road.

12. When pointing out that the Forest Plan as used for a basis for the Decision had numerous problems and was next to worthless,

Mike King agreed.

13. When asked if Mike King thought the upper portion of road Trail 67 was needed for emergency use, he agreed. Then stated the upper portion of road Trail 67 was of no value or need.

14. Mike King said that the western property line easement on the Dunning Mohawk 4 property must be activated and a new road cut through the forest. When asked if it wouldn't be better for the forest to use an existing road rather than cut a new one,

Mike Kings response was something to the effect that he didn't care about the forest on private property.

15. When noted that continued pursuit of these issues would cost the Forest Service in litigation charges,

Mike King's response was that the Forest Service had lots of money for litigation.

The problem is that is taxpayer's money and Mike King appears to have no qualms about wasting the money.

Conclusion:

The meeting was a waste of time. The Forest Service did not show ANY good faith of trying to resolve or come to agreement on anything. Mike King lied about providing me the notes of the meeting at the end of the meeting. Any future access to these notes makes them totally unacceptable as there is no telling what may have been changed. Mike King made a mockery of the informal disposition.

It is my opinion that Mike King is not an honorable person and cannot be trusted. It is my opinion that Mike King makes a mockery of the laws that he is supposed abide by. I feel Mike King should be replaced by someone honorable, whose word is good, who is law-abiding, who cares about the forest and private property owners and who is willing to work with them.

The Informal Disposition MUST be done again.

Jeff Hopkins, Appellant
Spruce Mountain
Mohawk 4 Property Owner
7812 West Clayton Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85033-2439
(623) 849-5889 (Fax)
phxjeff@hposoft.com
http://www.hposoft.com/SMT/SMT.html