 |
|
|
|
| |
Page Title
Petrifi ed Wood Thieves in Gold Run
One Sunday in Late October, NFARA Treasurer
Judy Suter was out riding her horse on BLM
(Bureau of Land Management) land in the Gold Run
diggings. As she rode up the trail toward Garrett
Road, she passed a man and woman pulling a large
piece of petrifi ed wood up the slope with ropes. Judy
told the couple that removing petrifi ed wood from BLM
land was illegal. The couple responded that the BLM
website said it was legal. While it is in fact legal to
gather small pieces of petrifi ed wood on some BLM
land, it is illegal to do so in the Gold Run area. These
people were obviously breaking the law. Judy rode to
where the couple’s car was parked and wrote down
the license plate number. Judy contacted the Sheriff’s
Department, but they said it was not their jurisdiction.
Then, she contacted the BLM, but of course the cou-
Continued on Page 14
ple had left the area.
There are only two law enforcement rangers
for the entire Folsom BLM Area. Response times are
often slow and perpetrators usually need to be caught
in the act for effective prosecution. The BLM takes
the removal of petrifi ed wood seriously. Additional
signs have been put up in the diggings alerting the
public that collecting petrifi ed wood is illegal. Contact
the BLM Folsom Field Offi ce at 916-985-4474 if you
witness this crime. It is also illegal to collect petrifi ed
wood on private property without the owner’s permission.
North Fork American River Property Acquired
From Timber Firm
The Placer Land Trust (PLT) and the American
River Conservancy (ARC) announced the purchase
and protection of two parcels totaling 94 acres
of land within the Wild & Scenic River corridor on
the North Fork American River. The parcels of land,
which lie southeast of the Gold Run area on Interstate
80, were purchased from the Siller Brothers Timber
Company for $100,000. All the funding was provided
by grants from private sources, including the United
Auburn Indian Community in Rocklin.
The North Fork American River Canyon, and
particularly the area around Giant Gap, “… Has been
a focus area of the Placer Land Trust since its inception
in 1991,” said Jeff Darlington, PLT’s Executive Director.
“We’re excited to work with willing landowners,
private foundations and public agencies to preserve
some of these special river-front lands for future generations.”
Ownership to the 94 acres will be held by the
ARC until title can be transferred to the Tahoe National
Forest for management as Wild & Scenic River
lands.
Lost Camp Road
You may remember from recent editions that
NFARA is involved in a public access dispute in Blue
Canyon. Landowners along Lost Camp Road (LCR)
are attempting to limit public use of this historic road.
One property owner has erected a gate across the
road complete with no trespassing sign. A couple
of other individuals have harassed members of the
public trying to use the road. Some people have been
stopped and denied all access. Several others report
they were prevented from driving past the gate but
were allowed to walk past. One man said he and his
family, on their annual visit, were told it would cost
them $50 to drive past. Not wanting to spoil the family
picnic, they paid the $50. Lost Camp Road dates from the 1850’s when
the town of Lost Camp was established. The road
also provided the jump-off point for trails to mines in
the various canyons. One of these trails, the China
Camp Trail, is popular today, providing access to
Tahoe National Forest (TNF) lands in the North Fork
of the North Fork American River. LCR provides access
to other segments of TNF as well. These roads
and trails are shown on the 1866 General Land Offi ce
Map.
All of the lands in the area once belonged
to the Federal Government. Land came into private
hands through various means. Mining claims were
patented, land was purchased for cash or scrip, and
the railroads received numerous grants of land. Lost
Camp Mine was patented in 1872. Timberlands in
the area now owned by Siller Brothers were originally
railroad grants. The parcel with the gate, APN# 062-
252-040, was a portion of a larger parcel originally
patented as a scrip entry in 1874. This larger parcel
was subdivided sometime prior to 1972.
1972 was the year California passed the
Subdivision Map Act. This law required, among other
things, that subdivisions show road and utility easements
to each parcel created. Since parcels along
Lost Camp Road were created prior to 1972, there
are no recorded easements for any of them. Legal access
to every parcel out there depends on that public
road.
Lost Camp Road is a public road even though
Placer County and the Forest Service don’t claim it
or maintain it. The road has been used by the public
for 150 years. It can be documented that there has
been continuous public use of the road for the last 70
years. One argument made by those blocking access
is that the current road is not the original public road
but a road created by the private land owners where
the public has no rights. Research of old maps and
interviews with users show this not to be the case.
Except for a recent re-route just past the gate, the
road follows the historic alignment. One woman who
learned to drive on LCR in the 1940s, says the road is
where it’s always been.
A meeting was held in August at Blue Canyon
with locals, NFARA Board members and other users
of LCR. This meeting resulted in the formation of
an unoffi cial group, the Lost Camp Road Crew. The
Crew decided to put up a sign stating that Lost Camp
Road is public. They also decided a coordinator for
incoming and outgoing information was needed, and
provided my name and phone number as a contact. In
September a large sign was erected at the beginning
of the road. It states that Lost Camp Road is public
and if anyone is harassed or wants more information
to contact me. I’ve received numerous phone calls
since September, which underscore how popular and
important this road is to the public.
NFARA has been in contact with the California
Attorney General’s Offi ce. In October, two AG
lawyers toured the site and discussed the issue with
us. They indicated that Revised Statute (RS)2477
may apply to the road. RS2477 is a Federal Statute
passed in 1866 and applies to rights of way across
public land. As mentioned earlier, LCR and the various
trails date to the 1850’s when the land was all
public.
NFARA does not want to be forced into court
to prove LCR is public. However, the way the laws
read and the way the existing parcels were created,
there may be no choice. NFARA plans to meet with
the land owner blocking the road to try to resolve the
issue. We also plan to meet with our County Supervisor,
Bruce Kranz, and hope to convince the county to
get involved with this issue.
Donner Summit/Royal Gorge Real Estate Development
The Donner Summit Area Association, DSAA,
will host the Second Annual Summit on the Summit on
December 15 at 10:00 a.m. at the Donner Trail School
in Kingvale. This is a follow-up to last year’s Summit
Summit and the area-wide survey which resulted. The
survey outcome is at http://www.donnersummitareaassociation.
org.
Response to the survey was outstanding; of
the 1500 households contacted, 582 replied. Some
survey results: 88% are part time residents. 92% are
satisfi ed with their quality of life. 55% said the natural
environment is their favorite feature. 63% said regulating
growth and development is most important issue
with another 19% said protection of environment is
most important.
The goal of the 2nd Summit Summit will be to
create a draft set of planning principles for the Summit
area, from Cisco Grove to Rainbow Bridge. Meeting
planners hope to build subsequently on this set
of principles and develop a community vision for the
area. The long-term goal is to get Nevada and Placer
Counties to create a Community Plan for the Summit.
Recently, Sierra Watch and the Sierra Club
released a joint report, Donner Summit Conservation
Assessment and Planning Principles. The report is at
http://www.sierrawatch.org. Two major fi ndings are: 1)
Donner Summit is a treasured Sierra landscape of immense
value, and 2) Donner Summit lacks adequate
infrastructure and community support for large-scale
development. The report offers a set of planning principles
to guide future decisions on conservation and
development on the Summit.
Royal Gorge owners have yet to fi le a development
plan with Placer County. According to their
website, http://www.royalgorgefuture.com, a formal
development plan will be submitted after January
1st. It will be interesting to see if the plan is the same
as the Conceptual Plan unveiled in March or if it has
been amended to refl ect the concerns of conservationists
and the Summit community.
|
Updated 3/6/11 |
|
|
|