The appellant (Mr. Hopkins) received following transcript from Karen Bolton via e-mail on Thursday evening, 9 January 2003. The appellant had already sent a letter regarding the disposition to the Appealing Officer early that day. This transcript was unexpected as the Forest Service said the appellant could not have a copy.

Note: There are significant gaps where the appellant's conversations are not included in the notes. Also, from what the appellant recalls, several points where there was important discussion from all parties seems to be missing.

Please note also, the following has been reformatted for the web page and notes (in red) have been inserted by the appellant. No transcript text was changed except formatting.

 

JANUARY 6, 2003
NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE

(THE FOLLOWING NOTES WERE PREPARED BY A CARTREPORTER, WHOSE SERVICES WERE RETAINED TO PROVIDE COMMUNICATION ACCESS FOR A HEARING-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUAL, AND THEREFOR DO NOT PURPORT TO BE A FORMAL VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER.)

MR. KING: WE'LL START. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF OUR HISTORY WITH THE ANALYSIS REAL BRIEFLY. REVIEW THE APPEALS PROCESS, AND THEN WE'LL FOCUS ON SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU WANT IN YOUR APPEAL. WE ARE USING OUR CART REPORTER, KAREN, AS A COMMUNICATION TOOL. AND SO THE

THIS IS NOT A HEARING. THIS IS NOT A DEPOSITION. THIS IS AN INFORMAL MEETING, TO SEE IF WE CAN'T REACH SOME COMMON GROUND. SO THERE'S NO OFFICIAL NOTES OF THIS MEETING IN THE SENSE OF A TRANSCRIBING. IT'S TO AID YOU IN THE DISCUSSION. AND THE RESULTS OF TODAY WILL BE A SHORT LETTER TO MY BOSS, TO THE APPROVING -- TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL, AS TO THE RESULTS OF TODAY. IT'S NOT A COMPREHENSIVE WORD FOR WORD DIALOGUE OF ALL THAT OCCURS. WE WILL SUMMARIZE AND FOCUS ON OUR CHANGES. SO WE WILL KEEP THE RESULTS ON THE DISK HERE TO HELP US PUT OUR NOTES TOGETHER IF WE NEED TO, FOR SENDING INFORMATION TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL IN ALBUQUERQUE. WE CONDUCTED OUR ANALYSIS OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO.

MS. FLETCHER: YEAR.

MR. KING: YEAR. WE MADE OUR DECISION. I MADE THE DECISION ON APRIL 1ST. WE HAD OUR MEETING AT THE YAVAPAI PERFORMANCE HALL WITH PEOPLE THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THIS DECISION OR HAD A STAKE IN THIS DECISION. WE CAN'T IMPLEMENT THIS DECISION WITHOUT PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER. AND WE EXPLAIN THAT IN OUR PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE -- NOVEMBER 4TH. ELEMENTS IN THE DECISION CALL FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE FOREST SERVICE.

Note: If the Decision was indeed made 1 April that would have been before the comments were reviewed.

MS. FLETCHER: YOU MADE YOUR DECISION NOVEMBER 1ST. YOU SAID APRIL.

MR. KING: DID I SAY APRIL? NOVEMBER. DID I SAY APRIL? IT WAS NOVEMBER. WE ANNOUNCED THAT WE HAD OUR MEETING ON THE 4TH. REMEMBER, WE DISCUSSED THE ELEMENTS OF THE DECISION AND SOME OF THE RATIONALE THERE. AND WE PROVIDED THE DECISION TO THE PEOPLE THAT ATTENDED. AND THEN IT WENT PUBLIC. AND THERE'S AN APPEAL PROCESS THAT KICKS IN AFTER THAT. AND YOU FILED AN APPEAL. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS, BECAUSE YOU DID SOME PRETTY GOOD CITATIONS IN YOUR APPEAL. THIS IS AN INFORMAL DISPOSITION MEETING. IT IS OPEN TO INTERESTED PUBLIC, AND INTERESTED PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC.

YOU MADE AN EFFORT, AS WELL AS MARC DELANY, TO GET PEOPLE HERE. THAT'S FINE. I INVITED MR. SUMNER BECAUSE HE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU REFERENCE WAS ABOUT SOME RELATIONSHIPS OR COMMUNICATION WITH WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE HE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. I'M SURPRISED THAT HE'S NOT HERE, BECAUSE I INVITED HIM LAST FRIDAY.

THE APPEAL PROCESS IS, WE WILL, THROUGH THIS INFORMAL MEETING TODAY, AND BY THE WAY, WE OFFERED THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE OTHER APPELLANT, AND HE CHOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE. AND WE WOULD HAVE SCHEDULED A DIFFERENT TIME, BUT WE HAVE TO DO THIS IN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME. SO WE WERE OBLIGED TO HAVE THIS MEETING WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME.

WE WILL SUMMARIZE THE RESULTS OF OUR DISCUSSION. AND WITHIN 15 DAYS, I WILL SEND THE RESULTS OF THAT TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL, WHO IS IN ALBUQUERQUE. IF WE REACH SOME AGREEMENT TODAY THAT YOU ARE ACCEPTABLE TO SOME OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSS, THEN WE'LL ASK YOU AT THE END OF THE DAY AS TO WHETHER -- LET'S JUST SAY, YOU HAVE 15 DAYS TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPEAL. AND YOU SEND THAT LETTER TO MY BOSS.

IF WE ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THAT AS OF THE END OF THE DAY, IT WILL HELP US IN OUR NOTES. IF NOT, YOU JUST HAVE TO ACT WITHIN YOUR OWN -- THINK ABOUT IT AND THEN SEND YOUR LETTER, IF YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPEAL. HE OR SHE HAS ABOUT 45 DAYS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. REMAND MEANS MAKE A NEW DECISION, MR. KING. REMAND IN PART, SOME PART OF YOUR DECISION IS GOOD, SOME IS NOT SO GOOD. OR TO AFFIRM, WHICH MEANS IT'S A GOOD DECISION. THEY WILL RELY ON THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THROUGH OUR YEAR OR SO OF ANALYSIS. THEY ARE FAIRLY DISINTERESTED. THEY JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD, MAKE SURE WE FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURES. SO THAT'S THE APPEAL PROCESS. SO I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE CHANGES THAT YOU SOUGHT, MARK, IN YOUR APPEAL.

MR. SAMS: JEFF.

MR. KING: JEFF. YEAH, I SAY MARK. THAT'S A FREUDIAN SLIP. I DID THAT BEFORE. MARK HOPKINS IS THE HOTEL I USED TO STAY IN IN MILWAUKEE ALL THE TIME, AND IT STUCK IN MY HEAD. SO JEFF, DO YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS CHANGES SOUGHT IN YOUR APPEAL? IF NOT, I CAN PROVIDE IT. I'LL TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO, BUT GENERALLY WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON.

MR. HOPKINS: IT WILL HELP US. YOU HAD A LITTLE INTRODUCTION. TALKED ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS. I HAVE THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT ON THAT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. HOW DOES CLOSING ROAD TRAIL 67 MAKE THINGS BETTER?

MR. KING: THAT'S PART OF OUR DECISION. THAT'S EXACTLY OUR DECISION. AND THROUGH ALL OF THE ANALYSIS, WE MADE A FIVE-POINT DECISION TO ISSUE A FLPMA ROAD EASEMENT. THE PURPOSE AND NEED WAS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST AS IT RELATES TO EASEMENT MANAGEMENT. WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT ANALYSIS. I MADE THE DECISION, AGAIN, TO ISSUE THE EASEMENT, TO REQUIRE RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS AMONG THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. GENERALLY DOWN HERE. AND DOWN HERE ON 94.

MR. HOPKINS: THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

MR. KING: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TRAIL 67.

MR. HOPKINS: THE UPPER PORTION.

MR. KING: LIKE I SAY, IT'S IN THE RECORD. I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT OR DEBATE THAT. I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE CHANGES THAT YOU ARE SEEKING IN YOUR APPEAL. THAT'S WHAT THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING IS.

MR. HOPKINS: LET ME EXPLAIN. THE MAIN REASON FOR MY APPEAL, AND IF WE ARE TO COME TO ANY KIND OF AN AGREEMENT, WE HAVE TO REACH SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING DO ABOUT THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67. IF WE DON'T, IF WE CAN'T COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT, IF WE CAN'T DISCUSS THIS, THEN I DOUBT YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT I WANT.

MR. KING: I'M DEALING WITH -- THANK YOU. THE CHANGES THAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON ARE RIGHT HERE. THAT'S WHAT YOU SUBMITTED IN YOUR --

MR. HOPKINS: I ASKED YOU A QUESTION. YOUR ANSWER IS, NO ANSWER. RIGHT? IT DOESN'T MAKE ANYTHING BETTER.

MR. KING: OH, IT DOES. IT DOES.

MR. HOPKINS: I ASKED YOU A QUESTION JUST NOW ABOUT HOW DOES CLOSING TRAIL 67 MAKE THINGS BETTER? WHAT DOES IT MAKE BETTER? AND I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER.

MR. KING: THANK YOU. THE PEOPLE AT SPRUCE MOUNTAIN, AND THE PEOPLE IN WALKER, AND EVEN SOME INTEREST IN GROOM CREEK, IS TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE BETWEEN THOSE COMMUNITIES. THIS PROVIDES AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE, BY ISSUING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT, TO USE AND MAINTAIN.

MR. HOPKINS: BUT YOU CANNOT DO THAT LEGALLY, BECAUSE THE ROAD IS NOT ENTIRELY IN YOUR CONTROL.

MR. KING: THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. HOPKINS: WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE WHOSE PROPERTY THE ROAD CROSSES. SO WE CAN GET AGREEMENT TO USE THAT ROAD, TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. SAMS: PERHAPS.

MR. KING: WELL, GO AHEAD IF YOU WANT.

MR. SAMS: I THINK THE BASIC PREMISE THAT WE ARE STARTING FROM, JEFF, AND THIS IS WHERE WE DISAGREE, THE FOREST SERVICE, THROUGH THE ROADS ANALYSIS, HAS DETERMINED THAT WE DO NOT NEED A ROAD OR A TRAIL, WHERE THE UPPER PART OF TRAIL 67 EXISTS. THE LOCAL CITIZENS, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BELIEVE THAT THEY NEED AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE. SO THE FOREST SERVICE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO NEGOTIATE AN EASEMENT WITH YOU FOR THAT ROUTE, BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THAT ROUTE. YOU NEED THAT ROUTE, AS FOR AN EMERGENCY ACCESS. THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT NEEDS THAT ROUTE FOR AN EMERGENCY ACCESS. THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE DOES NOT NEED THAT ROUTE. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE STARTING FROM. IF YOU WANT THE EMERGENCY ROUTE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU AND OTHERS SAID, THEN YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE DON'T NEED IT.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. DO YOU ADMIT THE ROAD EXISTS?

MR. SAMS: YEAH.

Somewhere in this area there was a discussion between the appellant and Mr. King about the age of the road. This appears to be missing from the transcript.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. DO YOU ADMIT THAT I COULD USE THAT ROAD IF I HAD PERMISSION TO ACCESS MY NEIGHBOR, AND TO ACCESS THIS OTHER PORTION OF MY PROPERTY?

MR. SAMS: IF YOU HAD PERMISSION.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH, FROM THE FOREST SERVICE MANUAL, 54003.3, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, FOREST SERVICE POLICIES PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES SHALL AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF REGULATING PRIVATE PROPERTY USE.

MR. SAMS: YOU ARE READING ONE EXCERPT JEFF AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU HAVE TO READ THAT ENTIRE SECTION. THAT SAME SECTION SAYS THAT WE WILL GRANT RIGHT OF WAY TO PRIVATE LAND OWNERS ON A ROUTE THAT'S APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. AND WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THIS DECISION.

MR. HOPKINS: HOW ABOUT FOREST SERVICE MANUAL 2734.6, STATUTORY RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. SUCH ACCESS TO NONFEDERAL LANDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES -- (READING) HOW AM I TO ACCESS THE LOWER PORTION OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH WAS ACCESSIBLE WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I HAD ACCESS TO IT VIA THIS TRAIL 67?

MR. SAMS: YOU HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY. YOU HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY, IF YOU CHOOSE TO --

*** From this point until the next red *** note, nothing of what the appellant said was typed:

MR. SAMS: IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO PROVIDE THAT ACCESS ON THE PRIVATE LAND. WELL, THERE IS, JEFF, BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US EVEN SHOW THE EASEMENT OF RECORD. THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN. THAT'S YOUR CONCERN. IF YOU WANT TO SELL THE LOWER PIECE OF YOUR PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP THAT ROAD. WE ARE SAYING JUST THE OPPOSITE IN THIS CASE. YOU HAVE LEGAL ACCESS. MARC DELANY HAS LEGAL ACCESS. NOT PHYSICAL ACCESS.

WE HAVE SAID THAT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT LEGAL ACCESS OCCURS, WE ARE WILLING TO GRANT ANOTHER RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE SOUTH, SO THAT ANOTHER -- SO THAT ROAD DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BUILT FROM YOUR PROPERTY DOWN TO MARC'S. THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT OURS. YOU HAVE LEGAL ACCESS.

MR. KING: BUT YOU WOULD HAVE ACCESS. JUST AS STEVE SAID, THIS ROAD HERE GOES THROUGH PORTIONS OF YOUR NATIONAL FOREST, AS A MEMBER OF YOUR PRIVATE LAND RIGHT HERE. THIS ROAD HERE. SO IF YOU JOIN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION DOWN HERE, YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER ACCESS.

YOU WILL ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ACCESSES. THE ONE YOU HAVE ON RECORD RIGHT NOW. AND BY JOINING THIS COOPERATIVE -- YEAH, UNDER ANILCA, YEAH. WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU REASONABLE ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY FROM THIS ROUTE. THAT IS REASONABLE. THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF LEGAL AND REASONABLE ACCESS. IN ADDITION, THE DECISION I MADE PROVIDES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- EXCUSE ME -- PROVIDES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THIS PRIVATE LAND OWNER ASSOCIATION HERE, TO GET ACCESS FROM THE BOTTOM, AS WELL. BECAUSE THIS ROAD GOES OVER YOUR PROPERTY. SO YOU WILL ACTUALLY HAVE TWO LEGAL ACCESSES TO YOUR PROPERTY. ISN'T THAT RIGHT, STEVE?

MR. SAMS: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. FLETCHER: RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS.

MR. KING: THAT'S WHAT A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT IS. THEY GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO TRAVEL OVER THEIR PROPERTY.

MS. FLETCHER: THAT WON'T BE PART OF ISSUING THAT EASEMENT --

MR. KING: THEN YOU GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO DO THAT.

MR. SAMS: HE IS SAYING NO DEAL.

MR. KING: THIS ROAD CROSSES YOUR LAND RIGHT HERE.

MR. SAMS: I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING. HE'S SAYING THAT UNLESS WE AGREE TO GRANT HIM AN EASEMENT UP THERE HE'S NOT GOING TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO CROSS HIS PROPERTY.

MR. KING: IS THAT TRUE?

MR. KING: THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

MR. SAMS: YES, IT IS.

MR. KING: THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE. THAT IS WHY WHEN I MENTIONED THE DECISION AT THE YAVAPAI PERFORMANCE HALL. WE ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO MEET EACH OTHER'S NEEDS. THAT MEANS YOU --

MR. SAMS: NOT US. WE DON'T NEED IT, JEFF. WE DON'T NEED IT.

MR. KING: WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT NEEDS IT. YES, SIR, I AM. THAT'S WHY WE ARE ISSUING THE PERMIT TO THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. I UNDERSTAND. THAT IS CHANGE NUMBER 3 IN YOUR APPEAL. SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. YOU JUST JUMPED TO NUMBER 3. EXACTLY. I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU HAVE ACCESS -- AND YOU TOO. YOU WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE UPPER PORTION OF THAT ROAD IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY. SHE'S PROBABLY TYPING WHAT WE ARE SAYING, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

MS. FLETCHER: BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT IS FOR US TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.

NOTE: About this point it was discovered the appellant's conversation was not now being typed and that the appellant would not be allowed a copy of the notes. The appellant packed up and started to leave the meeting. Mr. King pleaded with the appellant to stay saying there was no problem, that the appellant's conversation would be typed and the appellant could have a copy of the notes at the end of the meeting. Under those conditions the appellant agreed to stay and continue the meeting.

MR. KING: THIS IS NOT -- THE RESULTS OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY, WE WILL AGREE ON. THE DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS TO COME TO -- SO WE CAN HAVE SOME COMMUNICATION. SO THIS IS NOT A HEARING. THIS IS NOT A DEPOSITION. THIS IS NOT A FORMAL RECORD KEEPING. WE WILL JUST SUMMARIZE THE RESULTS OF OUR MEETING. SO THE DISK IS OURS. WE HAVE ASKED KAREN TO BE HERE TO HELP IN THE COMMUNICATION, AND TO HELP SUMMARIZE OUR POINTS OF AGREEMENT DISAGREEMENT. THAT WHICH IS OCCURRING RIGHT NOW IS DIALOGUE. WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY ASKING FOR -- WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE COMMUNICATING, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE RECORD, SO TO SPEAK. OUR SUMMARY, OUR RESULTS WILL BE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND. THERE'S STILL DISCUSSION. JEFF, CAN WE TALK SOME MORE?

NOTE: Prior to the meeting the appellant discussed with the CART Reporter what was required to assist him. It was agreed to type all conversation and that the appellant would be provided a copy of the notes at the end of the meeting. The appellant then formatted a DOS diskette on his PowerBook and gave it to the CART Reporter for use in making the copy of the notes file at the end of the meeting.

At the start of the meeting Doug Vandergon took the CART Report aside and discussed something. Doug then left the meeting.

THE CART REPORTER: THIS IS ME TALKING. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLY REASON I WASN'T WRITING IS BECAUSE I WAS TOLD WHEN I CAME IN HERE THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING BE ABLE TO HAVE A DISK OF THE SESSION. SO I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY FOR ME TO WRITE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, KNOWING I WAS JUST PROVIDING COMMUNICATION ACCESS FOR YOU FOR THIS MEETING. NOW SINCE YOU HAVE TOLD ME THAT YOU NEED FOR ME TO WRITE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS JUST FOR THIS MEETING, AND EVEN THOUGH I TOLD YOU BEFORE THE MEETING THAT I HAD NO PROBLEM E-MAILING YOU THE TRANSCRIPT AFTER I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN IT UP IF NECESSARY. BUT WHEN I CAME IN THE MEETING, I WAS TOLD THAT I WAS NOT TO PROVIDE YOU A DISK. AND I AM HIRED BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT, AND I AM TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT THEY HIRED ME FOR.

MIKE TOLD ME THAT I WAS NOT TO PROVIDE A DISK OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO YOU, AND THAT I WAS JUST HERE FOR THE COMMUNICATION ACCESS FOR YOU. THAT'S WHY I WAS NOT WRITING WHAT YOU SAID. BUT WE HAVE ALL AGREED THAT I CAN WRITE WHAT YOU SAY. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. IF THAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, I CAN DO THAT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

NOTE: Some of the above does not ring true as the CART Reported did type the appellant's conversation the first part of the meeting. Something changed after a short time and the appellant's conversation ceased to be typed.

Note: This was a public meeting, the conversations were public, a diskette was provided, requesting a copy of the note posed absolutely no burden on the Note Taker or the Forest Service, but would have helped the appellant understand better what was said during the disposition.

MR. KING: WE WILL AGREE ON THE RESULTS OF OUR MEETING. THAT IS THE KEY THING. WE WILL -- THAT INFORMATION CAN BE SHARED. WE WILL BOTH KNOW THAT RIGHT HERE TODAY, THE RESULTS OF OUR MEETING. FOCUSING ON THE CHANGES THAT YOU THOUGHT. THAT INFORMATION I WILL PROVIDE TO YOU BECAUSE WE WILL DEVELOP IT TOGETHER.

*** Typing of all the appellant's conversation resumed here.

MR. HOPKINS: I FEEL I HAVE BEEN SANDBAGGED HERE, BECAUSE I TALKED TO KAREN ABOUT THIS

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. HOPKINS: -- IN DETAIL BEFORE THE MEETING AND I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL SET. I THOUGHT SHE WAS TYPING WHAT I WAS SAYING. BECAUSE I WAS TALKING WITH YOU. IT WAS A LONG TALK. I WANTED TO GO BACK AND SEE. I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF TALK. SO SOMETIMES I FORGET WHAT I AM SAYING. AND THERE WAS NOTHING THERE.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND. SHE WAS TELLING YOU WHY SHE DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN. WE DIDN'T TELL HER NOT TO WRITE IT DOWN. SHE JUST UNDERSTOOD SHE DIDN'T NEED TO BECAUSE IT WAS A COMMUNICATION TOOL. BUT THE SUMMARY OF OUR WORK TODAY WE'LL WORK TOGETHER ON AND PROVIDE THAT TO YOU. THANK YOU FOR STAYING. SECONDLY, YOU ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING YOURSELF. WHETHER YOU HEAR YOUR WORDS OR NOT, THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD BY US. BY ME. I WILL ONLY SPEAK FOR ME.

MR. HOPKINS: WHAT NUMBER?

MR. KING: WELL, WE WERE ON NUMBER 3. WE WILL CONTINUE WITH NUMBER 3, BECAUSE THAT IS THE DISCUSSION WE WERE HAVING.

MR. HOPKINS: I'M SURE YOU ARE GOING TO UPDATE IT. JUST USING THAT AS A BASIS AND GIVING IT TO ME AS A REFERENCE FOR DECISIONS MADE, ARE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

MS. FLETCHER: ARE YOU ON NUMBER 1?

MR. KING: WHICH ONE ARE YOU READING FROM? MS. FLETCHER: WHICH CHANGE NUMBER?

MR. HOPKINS: I AM NUMBER 1. MR. KING: OKAY, THANK YOU. I WAS ON NUMBER 3.

MR. HOPKINS: I ASKED YOU WHICH NUMBER, AND YOU SAID NUMBER 1.

MR. KING: OKAY. WE'LL START. READY. NUMBER 1. OKAY?

MR. HOPKINS: IS THAT THE ONE YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT? OKAY, CHANGE 1 I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT. YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THAT. POWERS GREATER THAN ME ARE GOING TO BE AFTER YOU FOR THAT. CHANGE 2.

MS. FLETCHER: WHAT I HEARD MR. HOPKINS SAY WAS THAT CHANGE NUMBER 1 WAS NOT A CONCERN FOR HIM AT THIS TIME. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU WANT ME TO CLARIFY THAT?

MS. FLETCHER: NO, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY. THAT CHANGE NUMBER 1, WHICH IS UPDATING THE FOREST PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT EXPECT TO BE RESOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, AND WILL BE -- WILL BE RESOLVED AT A LATER DATE, IN A SEPARATE PROCESS.

MR. HOPKINS: I AM WILLING TO CONCEDE CHANGE 1. MS. FLETCHER: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. MR. KING: THANK YOU.

MS. FLETCHER: THANK YOU. I DID HEAR THAT. MR. KING: WELL UNDERSTOOD.

MR. HOPKINS: BECAUSE I FEEL CONFIDENT POWERS GREATER THAN ME WILL BE AFTER YOU GUYS WITH A BIG STICK TO GET THAT DONE. THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK.

MR. KING: JUST TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND, AND POWERS TO BE ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, BUT WE ARE DOING THIS MUCH OF OURSELF. WE ARE UPDATING OUR FOREST PLAN RIGHT NOW. WE WILL HAVE A DECISION LATE THIS SPRING THAT DEALS WITH LIKE FIREWOOD AND FIRE USE, AND IT REFORMATS OUR FOREST PLAN TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ. SO THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON THERE. SO IT JUST ADDS TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID. AND YOU ACCEPT THAT, AND YOU CONCEDE THAT? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

MS. FLETCHER: JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

MR. HOPKINS: I WASN'T TRYING TO BE JUST A HARD NOSE ABOUT THAT. I REALLY COULD NOT READ PART OF THAT.

MS. FLETCHER: JEFF, WE CAN'T READ IT SOMETIMES.

MR. HOPKINS: BUT YOU COME UP WITH A DOCUMENT, AND A DECISION BASED ON THINGS REFERENCED SOMEPLACE THAT YOU CAN'T READ.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MS. FLETCHER: CHANGE NUMBER 2.

MR. KING: NUMBER 2. MR. HOPKINS: NUMBER 2. THIS IS WHAT I STARTED TO TALK ABOUT IN THE BEGINNING. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE.

MR. KING: NUMBER 2 DEALS WITH CHANGE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE FOREST SERVICE PROPERTY OWNERS AND WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT THE SAME CHANGE YOU HAVE?

MR. HOPKINS: THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. SAMS: AND CHANGE 2 AND CHANGE 3 ARE VERY, VERY CLOSELY TIED.

MR. HOPKINS: YES.

MR. KING: OKAY. THE DECISION I MADE IS TO ISSUE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR EMERGENCY USE OF THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67. AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS WE WILL -- THEY, WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT, HAS TO WORK WITH YOU. AND THESE PEOPLE DOWN HERE, TO HAVE A RECIPROCAL ROAD EASEMENT. SO THAT WALKER HAS PERMISSION TO TRAVEL OVER THE PRIVATE LAND OWNERS. AND YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE.

WHEN I TALKED TO MR. SUMNER AND INVITED HIM TO TODAY'S MEETING, I SAID, HAVE YOU BEEN DISCUSSING YOUR ABILITY TO CROSS PRIVATE LAND OWNERS? AND DO YOU FEEL ASSURED, OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP, SUCH THAT YOU CAN OBTAIN APPROVAL TO CROSS OVER THEIR LANDS? HIS ANSWER TO ME WAS YES. HE HAD BEEN TALKING WITH YOU, AND HE HAD BEEN TALKING WITH MR. DELANY. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD BEEN TALKING TO SPRUCE MOUNTAIN FIRE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THEY, IN WORKING WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT, WANT THAT ACCESS, AS WELL. AND EVEN GROOM CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO WITH THAT, AND BASED ON THE MEETING WE HAD IN NOVEMBER, AND THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS DECISION IMPLEMENTABLE, OR HAPPEN, THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU AND WALKER ARE YET TO COME, ABOUT THE AUTHORITIES AND PERMISSION TO CROSS OVER YOUR LANDS. WE CAN'T GRANT AUTHORITIES OVER PRIVATE LAND, UNLESS WE HAVE RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SOME PEOPLE FROM THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. AND I AGREE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CROSS MY LAND. IN FACT, I WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT IN A WRITTEN EASEMENT FOR THEM, CONTINGENT UPON HAVING RIGHT FROM THE FOREST SERVICE TO USE THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67.

THE REASON, SEVERALFOLD. ONE, I NEED ACCESS TO THE BOTTOM OF MY PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS ONLY ONE ROAD. THAT ROAD HAS BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY. I NEED ACCESS TO MY LOWER NEIGHBOR. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS MY LOWER NEIGHBOR. PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, THAT ROAD THAT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN. THIS IS IN A MOUNTAIN AREA. YOU HAVE LOTS OF STORMS UP THERE ALL THE TIME.

WHO IS GOING TO ASSURE THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT, IF THEY HAVE AN EMERGENCY GOING UP THAT ROAD, THAT THERE AREN'T TEN TREES BLOCKING IT? NOBODY IS USING IT, BECAUSE THE FOREST SERVICE DOESN'T ALLOW IT.

NOW IF YOUR CONCERN IS THE PUBLIC USING THAT ROAD, NO PROBLEM. THEY ARE CUT OFF BECAUSE IT GOES ACROSS PRIVATE LAND.

YOU HAVE ALREADY TRIED TO MAKE IT A TRAIL TO ALLOW MOUNTAIN BIKERS, HIKERS AND HORSES TO USE THAT TRAIL, WITHOUT EVER CONSULTING US. OKAY. THAT WAS BAD, BAD ON YOUR PART. I HAVE PICTURES OF ALL THE SIGNS. THE POINT IS THIS, IS -- I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE HESITATING ABOUT ALLOWING US TO USE THAT ROAD. WHAT IS THE HARM?

BY ALLOWING US TO USE THAT ROAD, BY TALKING WITH US AND COMING TO AN AGREEMENT, ALL THESE PROBLEMS, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, GO AWAY. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU, AND SAY, FOREST SERVICE, PUT IT IN WRITING. YOU CAN USE ROUTE TRAIL 67 ACROSS MY PROPERTY. IN RETURN, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67, FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY PROPERTY, UP TO THE TOP PORTION. THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A DESIGNATION. THIS IS TRAIL 67. AND YOU HAVE FDR 52 A. FROM 52 A FROM TRAIL 67, DOES THAT HAVE A NAME?

MS. FLETCHER: LONESTAR MOHAWK.

MR. HOPKINS: FOREST SERVICE MAP. SPRUCE MOUNTAIN. ALMOST LOOKS LIKE IT'S 52 A. THAT'S BLOWN UP FROM THIS.

MR. SAMS: NO, THE ARROW CLEARLY POINTS TO 52 A BEING THE SPRUCE MOUNTAIN ROAD.

MR. HOPKINS: I'M JUST CURIOUS. BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY DESIGNATIONS FOR THAT.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. HOPKINS: BUT MIKE, THAT IS THE WHOLE BALLGAME AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IF YOU CAN TALK TO ME, I THINK MARC WILL GO ALONG WITH PART OF THIS TOO. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM. BUT I KNOW MARC. I THINK THERE WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. SOMEONE HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT ROAD. OCCASIONAL TRAVEL OVER IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR. IF YOU ONLY ALLOW THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GO OVER, IN CASE FOR EMERGENCY --

MR. KING: WELL, IT'S NOT ONLY THAT. THEY WILL HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO USE AND MAINTAIN. IT WILL BE THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP THAT ROAD OPEN, AND TO KEEP IT PASSABLE FOR EMERGENCY USE. THAT'S WHAT THE PERMIT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ISSUE. IT'S NOT JUST WHEN YOU NEED TO USE IT. THEY HAVE TO KEEP IT UP. SO WALKER WILL BE THE -- HAVE THE -- WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT -- EXCUSE ME -- WILL HAVE THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY TO USE AND MANAGE IT.

MR. HOPKINS: SO THEY HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIAL POINT. ARE THEY GOING TO MAINTAIN IT ON MY PROPERTY?

MS. FLETCHER: NO.

MR. KING: IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.

MR. HOPKINS: IT COMES DOWN TO THIS, MIKE. UNLESS I HAVE PERMISSION TO USE THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67, NO ONE, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO USE TRAIL 67 ACROSS MY PROPERTY.

MR. KING: THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

MR. HOPKINS: COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE IF YOU CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH ME TO ALLOW ME TO USE THE UPPER PORTION.

MR. KING: WE'VE PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY FROM, REPEATING MYSELF. WE HAVE PROVIDED LEGAL ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY ALONG THIS ROAD DOWN TO HERE. ALSO, WORKING WITH THESE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ON A RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT EASEMENT, YOU WILL HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS. TWO LEGAL ACCESS ROUTES, REASONABLE ACCESS ROUTES TO YOUR PROPERTY. SO I FEEL LIKE MY DECISION ALLOWS YOU THE ABILITY TO HAVE ACCESS.

MR. HOPKINS: HAVE YOU BEEN UP THERE?

MR. KING: YEAH. YES.

MR. HOPKINS: DO YOU THINK YOU COULD DRIVE UP TO MY CABIN FROM THE SOUTHERN WAY WITHOUT DRIVING ON THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67?

MR. KING: WE ARE OBLIGED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ACCESS.

MR. HOPKINS: NO, DON'T GIVE ME WHAT YOU ARE OBLIGED. YOU JUST SAID I HAD TWO ACCESSES. COME SEE ME. DRIVE UP TO SEE ME. LOTS OF LUCK. THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN DO IT.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. HOPKINS: WHERE ARE THESE TWO ACCESSES? ACCESS TO ME MEANS I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE ON IT.

MR. SAMS: I DON'T THINK ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ALL THAT FRUITFUL. YOU HAVE STATED THAT UNLESS WE ALLOW UPPER 67 ACCESS YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO GRANT THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT OR YOUR NEIGHBORS ACCESS. SINCE WE DON'T NEED ACCESS ON UPPER 67, AND WE DON'T NEED FOR THERE TO BE A ROAD OR TRAIL THERE AT ALL, THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO NEGOTIATE THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVE MET OUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS FOR ACCESS, AND THEN SOME.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU DON'T NEED. OKAY. WHAT IS THE HARM OF ALLOWING US TO USE THE ROAD?

MR. KING: I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A PHILOSOPHICAL ANSWER BECAUSE I'M GOING TO CALL IT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY YOU ARE GOING TO PERCEIVE IT, JEFF. OUR JOB IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE NATIONAL FOREST IS MANAGED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S USE, AND THAT ONLY THOSE USES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW, AND NECESSARY, ARE AUTHORIZED. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU NEED -- I USE THE WORD NEED VERY CAREFULLY -- THAT MIDDLE PIECE.

YOU CAN PHYSICALLY GET TO YOUR PROPERTY AND LEGALLY GET TO YOUR PROPERTY WITH ONE OF THE TWO ACCESSES THAT WE HAVE JUST DESCRIBED. YOU HAVE NO NEED LEGALLY FOR THE LOWER ONE AT THIS POINT. BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, IF YOU EVER DECIDED TO SELL THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY, THE EASEMENT THAT WE ARE WILLING TO GRANT TO AN ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS, WOULD PROVIDE THE LEGAL ACCESS FOR YOU TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY. IS IT CONVENIENT FOR YOU? NO. DOES IT PROVIDE THE INTENT AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW? YES.

MR. HOPKINS: I DON'T KNOW HOW. THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

MR. SAMS: I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DESCRIBE IT.

MR. HOPKINS: I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING, BUT THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

MR. KING: ALSO, IF YOU WERE TO SELL THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY, THEY STILL COULD HAVE ACCESS FROM THE NORTH, BY YOU GRANTING EASEMENTS.

MR. HOPKINS: WHERE FROM THE NORTH?

MR. KING: THAT YOU HAVE --

MR. HOPKINS: BUT THERE IS NO ROAD IN THERE.

MR. KING: THERE IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT THOUGH SAYS THERE IS AN EASEMENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MARK'S PROPERTY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A ROAD.

MR. HOPKINS: NOT ON MY PROPERTY.

MR. KING: IF YOU ALLOWED FOR IT.

MR. HOPKINS: IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MARC'S PROPERTY. WHAT IF I DON'T SELL PROPERTY THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE EASEMENT? YOU ALREADY HAVE A ROAD THAT GOES TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF MY PROPERTY.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. HOPKINS: DO YOU REALIZE HOW HARD IT'S GOING TO BE TO GET LEE DUNNING TO ALLOW US TO PLOW A ROAD DOWN HIS PROPERTY? HE HAS NOT ANSWERED ANY E-MAILS. WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE HIM TO COURT.

MR. KING: IT'S RECORDED IN THE YAVAPAI COUNTY COURTHOUSE AS A LEGITIMATE EASEMENT. THAT'S HOW THAT PROPERTY WAS. THAT'S HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THAT PROPERTY.

MR. HOPKINS: THERE'S ANOTHER MINOR PROBLEM FOR MR. DUNNING. HE BUILT HIS CABIN WHEN HE THOUGHT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES WERE. HE HAS BUILT A BIG WATER TANK RIGHT SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EASEMENT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE EASEMENT, OR HE THOUGHT THE PROPERTY WAS LAID OUT DIFFERENTLY. THIS LAST YEAR I PAID NEARLY $700 TO HAVE MY LAND SURVEYED. I HAVE IT ALL IN GREAT DETAIL. MR. DUNNING IS NOT A HAPPY CAMPER.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I THINK ALSO AGREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN. THAT'S A PRIVATE LAND MATTER BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS. I SYMPATHIZE, BUT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. IN CONCLUSION, I FEEL THE FOREST SERVICE IS REGULATING THE USE OF MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I FEEL THE FOREST SERVICE IS PREVENTING ME INGRESS AND EGRESS TO MY PROPERTY WHERE I'VE HAD IT. I FEEL THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS ILLEGALLY. I FEEL THE FOREST SERVICE IS NOT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR?

MR. KING: YES, I DO.

MR. HOPKINS: OF COURSE. YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEND ME A CHRISTMAS CARD.

MR. KING: I DON'T SEND MY CLOSE FRIENDS CHRISTMAS CARDS. BECAUSE I SEE THEM OFTEN.

MS. FLETCHER: WAIT A MINUTE. I GOT ONE. KIDDING.

MR. KING: NOT FROM ME, YOU DIDN'T.

MS. FLETCHER: I WAS BEING SARCASTIC.

MR. KING: SO ON POINT NUMBER 2, THERE STILL IS SOME -- YOU STATED THAT -- WELL, I GUESS I TOLD YOU. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ABOUT THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. WHAT OUR DECISION WAS WAS THAT PRIVATE LAND OWNERS WOULD WORK WITH THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT. OR ACTUALLY THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD WORK WITH PRIVATE LAND OWNERS TO GET PERMISSION TO CROSS OVER THEIR PROPERTIES SO THEY COULD PROVIDE THE EMERGENCY ACCESS. THAT WAS, AND THAT'S STILL UP TO --

MR. HOPKINS: THE ONLY WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN IS IF YOU COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH US.

MR. KING: WITH YOU, OKAY.

MR. HOPKINS: IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DISCUSS IT OR COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THAT'S INVALID.

MR. KING: OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENT ON NUMBER 2?

MR. SAMS: JEFF, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S VERY CLEAR TO YOU. WE CAN ONLY GRANT RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS PUBLIC LAND. WE CANNOT FORCE OR REQUIRE PRIVATE LAND OWNERS TO GRANT RIGHTS OF WAYS. SO EVEN THE ISSUANCE OF THE EASEMENT ON THE VERY SOUTHERN PORTION OF THIS ROAD SYSTEM REQUIRES THAT NEIGHBORS HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER, SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE LEGAL ACCESS. IF THEY FAIL TO DO THAT, WE CANNOT ISSUE THE EASEMENT.

MR. KING: THE PERMIT.

MR. SAMS: THE EASEMENT.

MR. KING: OH, THE EASEMENT. IT'S TO EVERYONE'S ADVANTAGE, EXCEPT YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PHYSICAL LEGAL ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY, BUT NONE OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS CURRENTLY HAVE LEGAL PHYSICAL ACCESS. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE.

MR. HOPKINS: I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING. IT'S TO EVERYONE'S ADVANTAGE. IF YOU WOULD COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO ALLOW TO US USE THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

MR. HOPKINS: THE FOREST SERVICE ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS. YOU ARE TAKING AWAY WHAT WAS. MR. KING: WELL --

MR. HOPKINS: I HAD USE OF THAT ROAD FOR 20 YEARS. MR. KING: BUT NOT LEGALLY.

MR. HOPKINS: I ASKED YOU HOW DOES CLOSING WHICH ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE DOING, TRAIL 67, MAKE THINGS BETTER? FOREST SERVICE DOES NOT NEED. THAT'S YOUR ANSWER.

MR. KING: YES.

MR. KING: IT MAKES IT BETTER.

MR. HOPKINS: I QUOTED YOU.

MR. KING: IT MAKES IT BETTER. WE HAD A LITTLE IMPASSE THERE. IT MAKES IT BETTER BECAUSE IT PROVIDES LEGAL ACCESS FOR.

MR. SAMS: EMERGENCY ACCESS.

MR. KING: FOR THE EMERGENCY USE OF THAT ROAD ON THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67. AND OUR DECISION WAS NOT JUST ABOUT TRAIL 67. IT WAS ALSO ABOUT THESE ROADS. SO OUR DECISION --

MR. HOPKINS: WELL, THAT'S ABSURD. SURE, IT PROVIDES EMERGENCY ACCESS. BUT IT PROVIDES EMERGENCY ACCESS RIGHT NOW. IT PROVIDES ANY ACCESS RIGHT NOW. YOU ARE SAYING BY CLOSING IT, IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS. YOU ALREADY HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. YOU ARE HURTING THINGS. YOU ARE NOT MAKING THINGS BETTER.

MR. KING: IN YOUR VIEW, IT'S HURTING. IN MY VIEW, IT'S POSITIVE. IT PROVIDES

MR. HOPKINS: TELL ME WHAT'S THE POSITIVE THING. I STILL DON'T SEE IT. WHAT'S THE POSITIVE THING?

MR. KING: THE POSITIVE THING IS THIS ROAD HERE GETS UNDER PERMIT TO THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO USE AND MAINTAIN --

MR. HOPKINS: WE CAN STILL.

MR. KING: RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO INSTRUMENTS TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THIS LEGALIZES IT. THIS PUTS IT UNDER -- IT LEGALIZES IT.

MR. HOPKINS: I WANT TO WORK WITH YOU. I WANT TO CREATE THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS. BUT YOU ARE UNWILLING. YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IT. YOU ARE HARD-HEADED. YOU SAY THAT'S IT.

MR. KING: I AM RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES OF WALKER AND SPRUCE MOUNTAIN AND GROOM CREEK FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.

MR. HOPKINS: AND BY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, YOU ARE CLOSING THAT ROAD OFF. BECAUSE OF YOU ARE REQUIRING ME TO BLOCK THE ROAD BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS. FACT. I'LL STATE IT. I'LL PUT IT IN WRITING.

MR. KING: YOU HAVE A CHOICE, JEFF, TO DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

MR. HOPKINS: SO DO YOU.

MR. KING: YES. THAT'S WHY I HAD THE MEETING AND SAID EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO WORK TOGETHER. AND THAT CHOICE IS YOURS AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO CROSS OVER YOUR PROPERTY. YOU ALSO HAVE A CHOICE, AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR, TO PROVIDE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.

MR. HOPKINS: BUT SAY WHETHER OR NOT I ALLOW WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ANYBODY ELSE TO CROSS MY PROPERTY IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERN OF YOURS. WHAT HAPPENS ON MY PROPERTY IS MY BUSINESS, NOT YOUR BUSINESS. IT IS OF NO CONCERN TO YOU. BUT IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE SAFETY FOR THE PEOPLE ON SPRUCEMOUNTAIN, YOU WANT TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR THE WALKER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GET UP THERE IN EMERGENCY, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MUST DO TO DO THAT IS WORK WITH ME TO GET ME TO AGREE TO ALLOW THEM TO CROSS MY PROPERTY. AND I TELL YOU I AM FULLY IN AGREEMENT TO DO THAT IF WE CAN WORK OUT A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT TO ALLOW ME TO USE THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND. AND THAT'S POINT NUMBER 3. AND MY DECISION WAS NOT TO ISSUE YOU A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT ON TRAIL 67. AND I'M GOING TO STAY WITH MY DECISION, BECAUSE I BELIEVE I HAVE PROVIDED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ACCESS FROM HERE. AND WHEN YOU JOIN THIS PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, YOU'LL HAVE ACCESS FROM THE BOTTOM. SO I'VE SAID THAT THREE TIMES NOW. I THINK THAT'S MY ANSWER TO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE COME TO ANY AGREEMENT ON POINTS NUMBER 2 OR 3.

MR. HOPKINS: WHY WOULD I JOIN THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION IF I CAN'T -- OR THE ROAD ASSOCIATION IF I CAN'T GET TO THE ROAD? SURE I CAN GET TO IT IF I WANT TO DRIVE 50 MILES. THAT'S RATHER STUPID. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING. I'D BE HAPPY TO JOIN IF I CAN USE ALL OF TRAIL 67. I'LL EVEN VOLUNTEER FOR AN OFFICER. I'M THE TREASURER OF THE UPPER ASSOCIATION.

MR. SAMS: JEFF, YOU IDENTIFIED THE REASON WHY YOU WOULD JOIN THE ASSOCIATION. AND THAT IS IF YOU WOULD EVER DECIDE TO SELL THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY, THE ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH MARK TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY WOULD SERVE AS THE LEGAL ACCESS, WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO SCAR YOUR OTHER PROPERTY.

MR. HOPKINS: BUT SAY UNLESS MARC DELANY ALLOWS ME TO USE HIS PROPERTY, IF I SELL THE SOUTHERN PORTION, AND HE DOESN'T LIKE WHO I SELL IT TO, AND HE SAYS THE PERSON CAN'T

MR. SAMS: NO, IF YOU HAVE RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS THAT ARE RECORDED THAT GO TO THE PROPERTY, NOT TO AN OWNER, IT'S A PERMANENT ACCESS.

MS. FLETCHER: HE CAN'T RESCIND THAT.

MR. HOPKINS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RECIPROCAL EASEMENT ON DELANY'S PROPERTY IS ALL ABOUT.

MR. SAMS: IT'S THE SAME AS THE RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS ON EVERYTHING ELSE DOWN BELOW, JEFF. IF RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS, LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ARE GRANTED AND RECORDED.

MR. HOPKINS: WHY WOULD ANYBODY DOWN THERE WANT TO GO ON DELANY'S PROPERTY? THERE'S NO PLACE THEY CAN GO.

MR. SAMS: THEY WOULDN'T, BUT YOU WOULD.

MR. HOPKINS: IT'S A DEAD END BECAUSE YOU CLOSED THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67. WHERE CAN THEY GO?

MR. SAMS: NO, YOU WOULDN'T. NOT THE PUBLIC. YOU. AS ONE OF THE COMMUNITY OUT THERE. OUR OBJECTIVE IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS WAS TO TRY TO MAKE EVERYONE, ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOLE. NOT THE PUBLIC.

MR. HOPKINS: THEN WHY NOT LET US USE THE UPPER PORTION OF TRAIL 67?

MR. SAMS: WE HAVE THIS BASIC DISAGREEMENT ON --

MR. HOPKINS: YOU SAY ONE THING AND TURN IT COMPLETELY AROUND.

MR. SAMS: IN OUR MIND, IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR. AND WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE BEYOND WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO IN --

MR. HOPKINS: AM I AFFECTING FOREST SERVICE IN ANY WAY IF I USE THAT TRAIL? AM I ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING BAD? I USED IT IN THE PAST MAYBE THREE OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR. A COUPLE OF TIMES I FOUND DOWN TREES. I CLEARED THEM. BOULDERS N THE ROAD. I CLEARED THEM. THE SPEED ON THE ROAD IS TYPICALLY ONE OR TWO MILES AN HOUR.

MR. SAMS: YES.

MR. HOPKINS: I CERTAINLY DON'T DAMAGE THE ROAD. THE WEATHER IS 100 TIMES WORSE THAN ANYTHING I WOULD DO. I DO THE FOREST SERVICE A FAVOR, BECAUSE I CLEAR IT. I MAKE SURE I CAN DRIVE ON IT. I AM DOING YOU A FAVOR, BUT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED. ALL I ASK IS ALLOW ME TO USE WHAT I HAVE USED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND. I THINK WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE ON POINTS 2 AND 3. SO

MR. HOPKINS: SO YOU ARE UNWILLING TO COOPERATE. WHAT IS YOUR COOPERATION? WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE IN THIS EFFORT?

MR. KING: IN MY DECISION, MY DECISION STILL STANDS IS WHAT I AM SAYING. THAT IS WHAT I AM WILLING TO GIVE. A ROAD USE PERMIT TO THE COMMUNITY.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO NEGOTIATE ON THIS? YOUR DECISION IS IT.

MR. KING: NOT GOING TO.

MR. HOPKINS: WHY ARE WE EVEN HERE TODAY?

MR. KING: TO SEE HOW FAR WE CAN GO WITH THIS. LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. HOPKINS: LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT FOR YOU.

MR. SAMS: THERE IS NO EXPECTATION IN THESE PROCESSES THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE EVERYTHING, JEFF. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TALK ONE MORE TIME BEFORE IT GOES --

MR. HOPKINS: WE HAVE RESOLVED NOTHING. THE FOREST SERVICE PLAN.

MR. SAMS: WHICH WAS GOING TO GET DONE ANYWAY. BUT WE WANTED TO COME TO THE TABLE ONE MORE TIME AND TRY, JEFF. AND I FEEL BAD THAT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE AT. BUT I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO LET THE PROCESS GO AHEAD AND WORK NOW, AND LET THE REVIEWING OFFICER DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT OUR DECISION WAS APPROPRIATE.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. I FEEL BAD, BECAUSE I TALKED TO MARC ABOUT THIS. AND I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WOULD BE REASONABLE. BUT HE SAID NO CHANCE. YOU ALREADY MADE YOUR DECISION. NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS HE WASN'T INTERESTED IN COMING. HE'S RIGHT. I MADE MY DECISION.

MR. KING: WELL, AND THAT'S WHY YOU ARE APPEALING.

MR. HOPKINS: I AM MOCKING YOU. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT I SAY.

MR. KING: AT LEAST YOU ARE SMILING WHEN YOU DO IT. IS THERE ANY NEED TO GO ON TO ANY OTHER POINTS?

MR. HOPKINS: LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING ELSE, MIKE. THIS IS YOUR JOB. YOU WORK HERE. AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU GO HOME, WATCH TV, DO WHATEVER. WHAT YOU ARE DOING CONCERNS ME PERSONALLY.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. HOPKINS: I AM SEMIRETIRED. I HAVE LOTS OF TIME. I SPENT PROBABLY 150 HOURS ON THAT APPEAL. DON'T THINK EVEN IF YOU -- OR THE NEXT LEVEL TURNS ME DOWN, DON'T THINK THAT'S THE END OF IT. THIS IS GOING TO GO ON AND ON AND ON. I GUARANTEE YOU. I WILL TAKE THE FOREST SERVICE TO COURT. I WILL DO WHATEVER I HAVE TO. AND IT'S A SHAME, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CAUSE YOU TO WASTE A LOT OF YOUR RESOURCES, WHEN ALL HAVE YOU TO DO IS COME UP WITH A SIMPLE AGREEMENT.

MR. SAMS: OR SAID ANOTHER WAY, JEFF, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT.

MR. HOPKINS: AND I DON'T THINK WHAT I WANT IS ALL THAT GREAT. ALL I WANT IS WHAT IS THERE. REALLY REQUIRES VERY LITTLE OF YOU. AND I'M WILLING TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING IN RETURN.

MR. SAMS: THAT WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR.

MR. HOPKINS: AND YOU DON'T CARE. USUALLY WHEN YOU COME INTO A NEGOTIATION IT'S A KIND OF A GIVE TAKE THING IF YOU WANT TO GET ANYTHING ACCOMPLISHED. I TOLD YOU WHAT I WANT AND I TOLD YOU WHAT I WOULD GIVE. YOU SAID THIS IS WHAT WE WANT AND THAT'S IT.

MR. SAMS: AND WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED?

MR. HOPKINS: WHAT HAVE I CHANGED?

MR. SAMS: YEAH.

MR. HOPKINS: I WAS UNABLE TO. YOU GUYS --

MR. SAMS: YOU DIDN'T BRING ANYTHING TO THE TABLE EITHER.

MR. HOPKINS: YES. I'M SAYING THAT I AM WILLING TO WORK WITH THE FOREST SERVICE ABOUT AN EASEMENT ACROSS MY PROPERTY, PLUS AN AGREEMENT ON HOW THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINED. THIS IS WHAT I AM OFFERING. THIS IS WHAT I AM PUTTING ON THE TABLE. WHAT ARE YOU PUTTING ON THE TABLE THAT'S ANY DIFFERENT? WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING?

MR. SAMS: YOUR POSITION HASN'T CHANGED AND OUR POSITION HASN'T CHANGED FROM DAY ONE. YOU HAVE ALWAYS HAD THAT POSITION. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THIS POSITION. NEITHER ONE OF US HAVE CHANGED, JEFF.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU ARE SAYING I SHOULDN'T HAVE OFFERED ANYTHING IN THE BEGINNING. I SHOULD HAVE JUST SAID I WANT TO USE TRAIL 67. I'M NOT OFFERING YOU ANYTHING IN RETURN. AND THEN COME IN TODAY AND SAY, WELL, IN RETURN, I WILL GRANT YOU EASEMENT ACROSS MY PROPERTY AND I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO COME UP WITH A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. I'M NOT SMART. THAT'S WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE.

MR. SAMS: I WANT TO, BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT IN ON THE VERY INITIAL CONVERSATIONS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE ARE NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED UNDER ANILCA, TO GRANT THE EASEMENT FROM THE SOUTH TO HERE.

MS. FLETCHER: TO ANY OF THIS.

MR. SAMS: BECAUSE MARC HAS LEGAL ACCESS ON THE RECORDED EASEMENT HERE.

MR. HOPKINS: THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE DECIDED IN COURT.

MR. SAMS: WELL, IF IT HAS TO GO THERE, I GUESS IT DOES.

MR. HOPKINS: FIRST OF ALL, THE ALASKA BUSINESS, SAYS RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING, THE WHOLE DOCUMENT APPLIES TO ALASKA. I KNOW YOU ARE USING IT PROBABLY AS PRECEDENCE. BUT IT REALLY SAYS THIS IS FOR ALASKA.

MR. SAMS: DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. WHEN CONGRESS PASSES LAWS LIKE THIS, THEY FREQUENTLY PUT THINGS IN THERE THAT APPLY TO SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

MR. HOPKINS: I READ THAT IN DETAIL AND IT TALKED ABOUT ALASKA AND PLACES IN ALASKA. I REALIZE THE WAY THE GOVERNMENT WORKS, THEY TAKE THAT AS KIND OF A PRECEDENT. EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ALASKA, SINCE NOBODY ELSE TALKED ABOUT IT ANYPLACE ELSE --

MR. SAMS: IT ACTUALLY AMENDED A PREVIOUS LAW THAT SAYS THE SAME THING, THAT WE HAD TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ISOLATED TRACTS. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO FIND WHEN YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY, AND HE STARTS RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE, THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF PRECEDENT IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION THAT MIKE HAS MADE.

MR. HOPKINS: I KNOW. I'VE GOT A CD FULL OF REFERENCES. I'VE WORN OUT THE FEDERAL FOREST SERVICE SITES.

Somewhere around this time of the discussion the appellant said that continued litigation caused by the Forest Service's unwillingness to compromise or come to agreements would be very costly. Mike King replied with something to the effect that the Forest Service has lots of money for litigation.

MR. SAMS: I GUESS SINCE WE ARE WHERE WE ARE AT, JEFF, I WOULD SAY --

MR. HOPKINS: I STILL DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET AROUND IT, THAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PRESENT ANY APPEARANCE OF REGULATING ACCESS OR REGULATING PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND THAT THE FOREST SERVICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THAT. THOSE ARE NOT JUST WORDS. THOSE ARE STATUTES OR LAWS, OR WHATEVER. NOT MY WORDS.

MR. SAMS: AND WE BELIEVE WE ARE MEETING THAT TEST.

MR. KING: EXACTLY.

MR. HOPKINS: I THINK IF YOU TOOK A POLL OF TEN PEOPLE NOT CONNECTED WITH THIS, AND EXPLAINED WHAT WAS GOING ON AND ASKED THEM IF YOU GUYS WERE BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS, OR ASK THEM IF IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE REGULATING PROPERTY, WHAT WOULD THEY SAY?

MR. SAMS: WOULD DEPEND ON WHO YOU ASKED. MR. KING: EXACTLY.

MR. HOPKINS: ON THE AVERAGE, I THINK ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD AGREE THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND THAT YOU ARE GIVING AT LEAST THE APPEARANCE, AND IN FACT A LOT MORE THAN THE APPEARANCE OF REGULATING PRIVATE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE BOTTOM PORTION. YOU HAVE A TANGLE DOWN THERE. YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH EASEMENTS. THIS IS ONE THING I REALLY OBJECT TO ABOUT WHAT YOU DID, MIKE. YOU COMBINED THE TWO. THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUES. I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT WITH WHAT HAS TO BE DONE DOWN BELOW. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE ROADS ARE DOWN THERE. ALL I AM CONCERNED WITH IS THE UPPER PORTION. SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE THING.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND. WE DID THE ROADS ANALYSIS AND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE THIS AREA THAT NEEDED THE EASEMENT, SO WE WOULD BE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS. WE LOOKED AT THE ROADS THAT ARE RIGHT HERE. TO ME IT'S INTEGRATED. IT'S PART OF. YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT.

MR. HOPKINS: IT'S ALSO SEPARATED BY PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND THE ISSUES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

MS. FLETCHER: THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY IS THE LINK THAT TIES THE TWO PIECES TOGETHER. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON, IS THE MOHAWK 4.

MR. SAMS: YEAH.

MR. KING: WELL, WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE ON 2 AND 3. DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH CHANGES 4 AND 5, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO LET IT GO ON ITS MERITS?

MR. HOPKINS: NO, UNLESS WE COULD COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON 2 AND 3, THE OTHERS --

MR. KING: WE'LL JUST LET THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL SEE IF I DID A GOOD ENOUGH JOB TO DOCUMENT AND WHETHER I FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURES AND MADE THE APPROPRIATE ANALYSIS TO DEFEND THE DECISION. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? YOU WILL JUST LET THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL DETERMINE, WHETHER I DID THAT RIGHT.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU ARE ASKING ME MY OPINION, IF YOU --

MR. KING: THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING. YOU WOULD RATHER NOT GO INTO ANY DISCUSSION. WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE. THE ONLY ITEM WE AGREED TO WAS NUMBER 1. AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR US TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. SO THEREFORE, YOU WOULD LIKE THE PROCESS TO CONTINUE. THAT'S --

MR. HOPKINS: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. I'M WILLING TO DISCUSS IT. YOU PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT AREN'T WILLING TO DISCUSS IT.

MR. KING: WELL, TO CHANGE IT. WE ARE WILLING TO DISCUSS IT, BUT WE ARE NOT WILLING TO CHANGE IT, 2 AND 3. THERE'S NO NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT WOULD -- ABOUT I WOULD CHANGE MY DECISION ON POINTS 2 AND 3. AND THERE'S NO NEW INFORMATION FOR YOU --

MR. HOPKINS: AS LONG AS YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE LAW. MR. KING: I FEEL I HAVE.

MR. HOPKINS: I POINTED OUT THE PARTS. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT I READ THIS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN YOU DO.

MR. KING: REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN COME TO DISAGREEMENT. THAT'S WHY WE ARE IN AN APPEALS PROCESS. THAT'S WHY IT'S PROVIDED FOR. THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL WILL REVIEW MY DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURES AND PROPER LAWS. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER WILL EITHER AFFIRM, OR REMAND IN PART OR REMAND IN TOTAL IF I ERRED. AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO USE LITIGATION. THAT IS ANOTHER STEP AFTER THE APPEALS PROCESS.

MR. HOPKINS: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU CAME INTO THIS MEETING FIXED THAT YOU WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING, NO MATTER WHAT WE DISCUSSED. IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. KING: WELL, ON POINTS 2 AND 3, YES.

MR. HOPKINS: ON WHAT OTHER POINTS WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CHANGE SOMETHING?

MR. KING: WELL, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE EXPLAINED TO YOU AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 1. YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE GAVE YOU WHAT WE WERE DOING TO HELP MAKE OUR PLAN MORE READABLE AND MORE CURRENT. YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE FOREST SERVICE TO CHANGE OUR DECISION, CHANGE OR DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE'S NOT MUCH ROOM FOR ME. I THINK MY DECISION IS DEFENSIBLE.

MR. HOPKINS: DO YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND FROM MY APPEAL THAT I OBJECTED TO THE WAY THE WHOLE DECISION WAS HANDLED?

MR. KING: YEAH.

MR. HOPKINS: I OBJECTED FROM THE UNPROFESSIONALNESS OF IT, BY REFERENCING THINGS THAT DIDN'T EXIST, THAT I COULDN'T FIND.

MR. KING: YEAH, YOU HAD SEVERAL PAGES OF OBJECTIONS. AND AGAIN, I FOCUSED ON THE THINGS THAT YOU WANTED CHANGED. THAT IS WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS IS ABOUT. WHAT DO YOU WANT CHANGED, MR. HOPKINS? YOU TOLD ME WHAT THAT WAS.

MR. HOPKINS: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. KING: ON POINTS 2 AND 3, I'M NOT WILLING TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO CHANGE.

MR. HOPKINS: BUT YOU MUST ALSO REALIZE THAT IN THE PROCESS OF ANALYZING YOUR DECISION TO COME UP WITH MY APPEAL, I HAD TO LOOK FOR THE REFERENCES IN THE DECISION, WHICH I COULD NOT FIND.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND. YOU MADE THOSE POINTS. AND WE WILL SHOW IN OUR RECORD THAT WE DID ADDRESS THOSE THINGS, WHEN I SEND IT TO MY BOSS, OR TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL. THEY WILL REVIEW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT MY ANALYSIS.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU DID ADDRESS THEM? YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER, TABLE 2 ON PAGE 12, THAT'S NOT IN THE FOREST SERVICE PLAN.

MR. SAMS: YEAH.

MR. HOPKINS: I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.

MR. SAMS: IF YOU WILL LOOK IN THE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL --

MR. HOPKINS: YOU SAID IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT I SHOULD HAVE?

MR. SAMS: YES.

MR. KING: YOU WERE SENT THAT. YOU WERE GIVEN THAT.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. I HAVE WORKED A LOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TOO. I KNOW IF YOU DON'T REFERENCE THINGS PROPERLY, THAT'S BAD.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS AND THE ANALYSIS, THAT DAYLIGHTS THAT INFORMATION, SO PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW IN THE DECISION MAKING. SO I'M WITH YOU. I UNDERSTAND.

MR. HOPKINS: I AM GLAD THAT YOU AGREE THAT THERE WERE -- THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE REFERENCE THAT WAS WRONG.

MR. SAMS: IT WAS NOT CLEAR.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. MR. KING: OKAY.

MR. HOPKINS: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MR. KING: OKAY. SO NOW GOING BACK TO HOW WE STARTED TODAY. THE USE OF THE -- OF KAREN AS A CART REPORTER WAS TO HELP FACILITATE THE DIALOGUE, SO WE COULD UNDERSTAND. IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE GOT OFF TO A KIND OF A STUMBLY START THERE. BUT WE DO -- I MEAN IN SUMMARY, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS TO TELL THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL WE DID NOT REACH AGREEMENT ON ANY POINTS.

MS. FLETCHER: MR. HOPKINS CONCEDED NUMBER 1. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

MR. KING: WE COULD SAY THAT.

MS. FLETCHER: I'D LIKE TO.

MR. KING: CONCEDED NUMBER 1. AND BECAUSE WE DID NOT REACH AGREEMENT ON THE OTHER ITEMS, THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL WILL TAKE THE RECORD AS IT IS AND MAKE HIS DECISION, HIS OR HER. REALLY THAT'S THE PART I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND. THAT IS THE KEY FOR TODAY. THAT'S WHY I WAS FOCUSING ON THE CHANGES, SO THAT WE WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT ON WHERE WE ARE. WE CONCEDED ON 1. WE DID NOT CONCEDE ON 2 OR 3. NEITHER ONE OF US DID. WE DID NOT REACH 4 AND 5. WE DID NOT DISCUSS ITEMS 4 AND 5. THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN.

MR. HOPKINS: THEY ONLY STAND ON THEIR OWN IF WE HAD COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON 2 AND 3.

MR. SAMS: UNDERSTOOD.

MR. HOPKINS: WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT ON 2 AND 3, THERE'S NOTHING TO DISCUSS ON THE REST. MR. KING: OKAY.

MR. HOPKINS: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANYTHING OFFICIALLY ABOUT THIS, BUT I WILL WRITE THE REVIEWING OFFICER MY SIDE OF THIS ALSO. I KNOW YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO IT. I SAW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE APPELLANT CAN DO. HE CAN JUST TOSS MY LETTER IN THE TRASH CAN IF HE WANTS.

MR. KING: WELL, THIS IS NEW FOR ME. BUT JUST THINKING HERE A LITTLE BIT OUT LOUD. THE REGULATIONS SAY YOU HAVE 15 DAYS TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPEAL.

MR. HOPKINS: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. KING: NOW YOU CAN SEND -- IN THAT CONTEXT, YOU CAN SEND A LETTER TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL, WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU CONCEDE NUMBER 1, AND THAT MEANS HE WON'T EVEN ADDRESS IT IN HIS REVIEW OF THE APPEAL. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN PROBABLY PUT YOUR WORDS IN TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL. SO I AM SUPPORTING WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, JEFF? ARE YOU READING FROM THE REGS?

MR. HOPKINS: THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICE MUST NOTIFY THE APPEAL DECIDING OFFICER OF THE NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS AND THE OUTCOME OF THE INFORMAL MEETING.

MR. KING: RIGHT.

MR. HOPKINS: YOU TALK ABOUT THE 15 DAYS. MR. KING: RIGHT.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY. ONE THING, PART OF SOMETHING NEW WAS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THERE WERE WRONG REFERENCES AND DECISION. THAT'S NEW. YOU DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BEFORE. THE DECISION WAS AS IT STOOD, SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN CORRECT. YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE WERE THINGS IN THE DECISION THAT WERE IN ERROR. I WILL PRESENT THAT.

MR. KING: SOME OF THE REFERENCES WERE INCORRECT. OR UNCLEAR. I THINK THAT'S -- WE'LL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

MS. FLETCHER: YES, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.

MR. HOPKINS: THAT'S NEW.

MR. KING: YES.

MR. HOPKINS: THAT WASN'T AGREED UPON BEFORE TODAY.

MR. KING: SO IF YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL, YOU WOULD SAY I CONCEDE ITEM NUMBER 1. AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN IN YOUR APPEAL, YOU CAN DO THAT TOO. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO DO.

MR. HOPKINS: I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT I WILL.

MR. KING: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF YOU WANT TO, THAT'S OKAY. GENERALLY THE APPEAL WILL BE THE BASIS FOR THEIR REVIEW. THE INFORMATION, YOUR APPEAL WILL BE WHAT THEY WILL LOOK AT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS THE REAL REASON WHY -- ONE OF THE REASONS WHY KAREN IS HERE, SO THAT WE BOTH UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE AND ANY AGREEMENTS THAT WE CAME TO. SO YOU ARE WELCOME TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL. IF YOU DO SO, YOU CAN CONCEDE NUMBER 1. THEN THEY WON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT IT IN YOUR APPEAL. BUT THEY WILL ADDRESS THE OTHER ITEMS AND ANY NEW INFORMATION YOU WANT TO PROVIDE.

MR. HOPKINS: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. KING: THANK YOU.SO I THINK THIS CONCLUDES OUR MEETING.

MR. HOPKINS: ALL I CAN SAY IS THIS HAS PROBABLY BEEN GOOD PRACTICE.

MR. KING: FOR YOU?

The following is a disucssion of the Boundry Project. There is a gap here.

MR. KING: THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF TREATMENTS THAT ARE IN THE BOUNDARY PROJECT. TIMBER SALES, THINNING, BRUSH CRUSHING. AND WE HAVE --

MR. HOPKINS: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. KING: WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN ALL THREE OF THOSE ARENAS.

MR. HOPKINS: THE ONLY ONE THAT'S GOING TO WORK ARE THE PRESCRIBED BURNS.

*** Typing of the appellant's conversation again stops here.

MR. KING: ALL THREE WORK VERY WELL. EVEN WHEN WE DO BRUSH CRUSHING WHERE THERE'S NOT FIRE, WE POUND ON THE DOOR OF EVERY NEIGHBOR WE HAVE, AND TELL THEM WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK WHEN IT'S OVER. WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD REPUTATION. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THAT. BUT WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD REPUTATION OF WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. WE ARE WORKING RIGHT ADJACENT TO MILLION DOLLAR HOMES IN CATHEDRAL PINES AND THUMB BUTTE.

MR. SAMS: THAT'S IN A WILDFIRE SITUATION, JEFF. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN IN A PRESCRIBED BURN. WE WOULD LIGHT FROM A RIDGE. SO THAT IT WOULD BACK DOWN FROM THE RIDGE.

MR. KING: NO, NO. WE HAVE TO DO A PRESCRIBED BURN PLAN FOR ANY PRESCRIBED FIRE THAT WE DO. AND WE WORK WITH THE PRIVATE LAND OWNERS. WE DO COMPUTER MODELING ON THE WEATHER, THE FUELS, THE HEIGHT OF THE FLAMES. WE BUILD A WHOLE BURN PLAN SO WE DO THE WEATHER ON THE DAY IT HAPPENS. WE ALSO BUILD N EXACTLY THE BEST PLACE TO START THE FIRE, TO MINIMIZE RISK TO YOU OR TO PARTS OF THE FOREST THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT.

MS. FLETCHER: THAT'S HOW WE DESIGN IT.

MR. KING: THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT I WOULD TAKE THAT LITTLE EXTRA TIME. BECAUSE I DID SEE YOUR E-MAIL THAT CAME OVER YOUR SITE. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT MAKE CLAIMS. IF WE WERE IN ERROR OR NEGLIGENT, THERE'S CLAIMS. WE PAY A LOT OF MONEY OUT IN PRESCRIBED -- WELL, NOT PRESCRIBED FIRE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD TOO MANY OF THOSE. WE WON'T DO THAT.

MR. SAMS: THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THE BOUNDARY PROJECT IS TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY.

MS. FLETCHER: THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

MR. SAMS: THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR DOING THIS PROJECT.

MS. FLETCHER: IT IS THE DRIVING PURPOSE AND NEED. LOOK IN THE PURPOSE AND NEED, PLEASE. THAT IS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS PROJECT, IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND LIVES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THAT IS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS PROJECT. IT IS 100 PERCENT. WELL, THAT IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS ENTIRE PROJECT. I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT, THAT THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR IT.

MR. SAMS: JEFF, GO BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT, AND LOOK FOR THE PURPOSE AND NEED SECTION. AND THAT WILL DESCRIBE IN DETAIL WHY WE ARE DOING THIS PROJECT.

MR. KING: WE DON'T DO A LOT OF HOWS. WE BUILD BUFFERS AROUND PRIVATE PROPERTY. SOME OF THIS YOU JUST CAN'T PUT FIRE ON THE LANDSCAPE FIRST. YOU MAY HAVE TO DO SOME THINNING. IT'S A STEP.

MS. FLETCHER: ON THE BOUNDARY PROJECT, WE ARE CUTTING THE TREES TO A THINNER DENSITY ADJACENT TO PRIVATE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAN WE ARE FURTHER OUT ON THE LANDSCAPE. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRIVATE LAND OWNER. YOU CAN CALL THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY.

MR. SAMS: JEFF, IF YOU FOLLOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE. WE ARE NOT THE ONLY EXPERTS. MS. FLETCHER: YOU CAN CALL THE YAVAPAI COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE.

MR. SAMS: WILD LAND URBAN INTERFACE COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF BOTH FEDERAL AND COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO DEAL WITH THE THREAT OF FIRE ON THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE, NOT JUST ON THE FEDERAL LAND. THERE ARE EXPERTS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS. THEY TRAIN RIGHT ALONGSIDE OF US, IN WILD LAND FIRE SUPPRESSION. THEY HAVE HIRED CREWS TO DO WORK ON. THEY WILL BE DEALING WITH PRIVATE LAND.

MS. FLETCHER: THAT WOULD BE AN OCCASION TO USE MECHANICAL INSTEAD OF PRESCRIBED FIRE. WE WOULD CUT TREES DOWN. WE WOULD USE A BRUSH CRUSHER THAT WE COULD CONTROL. THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE ON YOUR LAND. NO, YOU DON'T.

MR. KING: I UNDERSTAND.

MS. FLETCHER: YOU ARE INCUMBENT TO GET AHOLD OF THE RESOURCES TO HELP YOU MANAGE YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

MR. KING: THERE'S COMMERCIAL FORESTERS AROUND HERE TO PROVIDE THAT.

MR. SAMS: OR SIMULTANEOUS.

MR. KING: YEAH.

MR. SAMS: OFTEN, WE WILL BE SIDE BY SIDE. A CITY FIREMAN AND A FOREST SERVICE FIREMAN WORKING ON THE SAME PIECE OF REAL ESTATE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR DILEMMA, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THERE ARE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR US TO DO ANY ONE OF THESE PROJECTS. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL WHO WOULD WRITE THE BURN PLANS, EXECUTE THE BURN PLANS.

MR. KING: GOING TO PROTECT THEM. I DON'T MEAN TO GIGGLE OVER THAT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE ARE DOING THAT. LET ME HELP YOU WITH ANOTHER THING TOO. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE. NOW WE ARE JUST CITIZENS HERE TALKING. YOU CAN CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN. TELL THEM TO FUND THE FIRE PLAN. BECAUSE THAT GIVES US THE DOLLARS TO DO THESE THINGS. YOU CAN SUPPORT SOME OF THE PRESIDENT'S INITIATIVES ON STREAMLINING SOME OF OUR PROCESSES. WHITEHOUSE.COM. YOU CAN HELP US BY HELPING THOSE PEOPLE HELP US. THAT'S THE FUNDING FOR ALL OF THIS WORK. MS. FLETCHER: THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN. IF YOU TYPE IN NATIONAL FIRE PLAN ON YOUR SEARCH ENGINE, IT WILL PULL IT UP. NO. NO.

MR. KING: IF YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, TO TREAT THE FOREST, HELP US THROUGH THE FUNDING.

THE CART REPORTER: DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I WASN'T WRITING AND THAT I'M NOT A BAD REPORTER? AND THAT I WAS TOLD NOT TO GIVE YOU A DISK.

MR. KING: WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE YOU A COPY OF THIS. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE IN AGREEMENT ON THE POINTS. AND WE DID NOT COME --

This is after promising the appellant a copy of the notes at the end of the meeting just a few minutes early in return for staying and continuing the meeting.

*** Typing of all the appellant's conversation resumed here.

MR. HOPKINS: THIS IS SORT OF LIKE TRAIL 67 BUSINESS AND HAS NO EFFECT ON YOU, BUT BENEFITS ME. SINCE IT DOESN'T BENEFIT YOU, I CAN'T HAVE IT?

This refers to the fact the Forest Service forbid the Note Taker from copying the notes file onto the Appellant's disk.

MR. KING: THAT'S NOT THE WAY I WOULD --

MR. SAMS: WE PROVIDED THE SERVICE SO WE COULD COMMUNICATE TO YOU TODAY.

MR. HOPKINS: AND YOU PROVIDED TRAIL 67 FOR ME TO LOOK AT. I AM GOING TO HAVE TO TRANSCRIBE THIS FROM MEMORY AND PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE FOR ALL THE OTHER GUYS TO SEE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL GET IT RIGHT. I'LL DO THE BEST I COULD.

MR. KING: WE WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF WHAT WE SEND TO THE REVIEWING OFFICER TO YOU ABOUT THE RESULTS OF OUR MEETING.

MS. FLETCHER: ELECTRONICALLY AND HARD COPY.

MR. KING: WE HAVE YOUR E-MAIL. SO THE RESULTS OF OUR MEETING YOU WILL GET A COPY OF.

MR. HOPKINS: OKAY.

MR. KING: THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE IN AGREEMENT ON.

MR. HOPKINS: RATHER THAN MAKING SURE I REMEMBER ACCURATELY, I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON MY MEMORY.

MR. KING: YOU HAVE A GOOD MEMORY.

MR. HOPKINS: NAH. I CONFUSE THINGS. I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKE YOU GUYS THAT NEVER MAKE A MISTAKE, LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A MEETING ON APRIL 1ST, THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT.

MR. KING: SHE'S TYPING IT TOO.

End of transcript as received by the appellant.