Inyo County Moving to Mobile Relay Associates NEXEDGE System?
- Thread starter mcjones2013
- Start date
- Status
you have forgotton the grants that SO fire and ems are entitled to as well, really big one right now both counties have taken full advantage of is the Rural telecommunications grant that has allowed for upgrading of radio and computer systems
still trying to wrap my head around why or how a Rec officer was handling special use permits for communication sites on the forest when i first started working at the Inyo a short pretty lady "cant remember her name" was in charge of that and she shortly left the forest leaving her position open long after i left in 2007, not sure whom is handling it now, as for Mt Warren being this small donut hole you say and deemed as such of being invisible, are you saying that the forest service can place a communications site deem it as invisible and not call it what it is?? yes it provides vital communication to the forest and the back county, but its still a communications site like it or not, i don't think the Forest service does what it pleases and with Mt Warren being a communications site for the Forest is no difference then Silver or Mazurka Pk
from what I have read thus far here USDA Forest Service - Caring for the land and serving people. the fact that Mt Warren is designated as a communications site, where as one has to believe all of the necessary actions had taken place at some point in time in the past and the fact that its still being used as a communications site, leaves that door open for discussion. I for one am for any means possible to provide our first responders with good reliable communications and to just settle for anything less is irresponsible because of bureaucratic BS stating otherize. if Mt Warren or any Mountain can provide life saving communications coverage better than what is currently available then why not, why stand in the way, why make noise????? if its the view that ones worried about, then Mammoth Mountain ski area should have never come to be in existence ive seen pictures of what it use to look like before and now.. and it wasn't built to save life,,,, again just merely my opinion and nothing else
Silver and Mazourka are not inside the boundaries of a wilderness area. That fact alone makes a Silver/Mazourka comparison to Warren invalid. Many USFS comm sites are located in places where additional users are not allowed. The USFS denied the use of Glass Mountain for a few decades. It did allow LADWP up there, but turned down all others. I'm not sure how DWP got permission and a special use permit up there, but I think it went all the way back to the development of their low band VHF system. DWP completely vacated the site and the USFS facility there looks smaller on Google Earth than it did in the 1990's when I last visited the site. There is a license for Glass Mtn issued to MRA, however, a FCC license does not guarantee that a special use permit will be issued.
The Forest Service has to use the forest plan process to identify electronic sites. Since these plans are written by forests, the Regional Forester has to sign approval for them. The Forest Service is bound by a number of policies and laws when issuing any special use permit. They don't do what they please, unilaterally. They have to follow the law. They have to follow the forest plan or revise same using a prescribed process. The forest plans I helped write (Toiyabe and Cibola) had a section for electronic site management. Each comm site can have specific direction that varies from other sites. Sometimes legislation such as wilderness designation bills, bills establishing National Recreation Areas, National Forest Scenic Areas. Wild and Scenic Rivers and similar might have specific language for special use permits of all types. The 2018 Land Management Plan for the Inyo NF is rather specific in its direction for wilderness and additional structures are not allowed and permanent commercial uses are also prohibited.
The FCC has licensed White Mtn. Peak, Silver and Mazourka to MRA. I'm not sure if special use permits have been issued for all of these. The White Mtn. building is part of the U. of California research organization and maintained by them. They would have to agree to the use of the building prior to MRA occupying it. There is a "cherry stem" of non wilderness from the Barcroft Lab all the way along the road and around the building on top of White Mountain Peak.
When I was on the Inyo, in recreation management, I did not administer special use permits for communications sites. I did administer them when I was the Recreation and Lands Officer on the Bridgeport Ranger District. I also administered them when I was the Assistant Rec and Lands Officer on the Cibola NF in New Mexico. Electronic sites with permittees have to be authorized by the Regional Forester and the process to do so is rather involved. After a site is surveyed and lots platted, permits for the site are issued by the District Ranger, the lowest level of line officer. I worked with the Wilderness Act quite a bit on the Toiyabe and Cibola.
I know who the pretty and short woman that worked on the Inyo in special uses after I left. Her first name was Sheila. I will forgo giving her last name. Nice woman. She used to be the support services supervisor on the White Mtn. RD. Most ranger districts have a Rec and Lands staff officer, forester or manager, however they are titled, depending on what USFS region they are in. Lands includes special use permits so the R & L person administers communications sites with special use permits. There was a lot of change going on in the early 2000's so positions were established in ways they had not been in the past. When I worked on the forest, the districts had lands officers, so the rec officers did not administer special use permits unless they were recreation special uses, like the lodges, resorts, ski areas, recreation residences and outfitter/guides.
You are using a very general document to justify your own opinion. Warren is not a designated electronic site, it is an administrative site for forest infrastructure. As I pointed out there are some non wilderness land alternatives for providing communications for first responders. You might have the opinion that a wilderness designation and a prohibition of developing further structures is "bureaucratic BS," but it is the law. The Forest Service is obligated to uphold the law, most especially when land uses are concerned. Mammoth Mountain does exist and MRA has a FCC license for the site. The decision to allow development of Mammoth Mountain as a ski area was made per the laws in existence at the time. We now have to comply with the laws that exist now. All applications for a special use permit for a communications facility must show why existing and designated (by the Regional Forester) electronic sites can't provide the desired communications. I dealt with this exact scenario on the Bridgeport Ranger District in regards to the Sweetwater Electronic Site. The CHP and Caltrans were prepared to apply for another location on the rim of the West Walker River canyon. That site would have been turned down if they applied. However, I steered them to the Sweetwater Electronic Site, which was better than the one they identified. Given the number of users at that site now, it shows that the USFS planning for this use was valid and not "bureaucratic BS." Land management, environmental issues, land use, public lands and government are exceedingly complex topics. I'm not sure I can explain everything in writing. I could do better face to face.
By the way, I was the Frontcountry Recreation Supervisor on the Mammoth Ranger District, not a Rec officer. The title "Recreation Officer" is given to the District Ranger's primary staff assistant for recreation management. Same goes for "Lands Officer," "Winter Sports Officer," Resource Officer," "Timber Officer," "Fire Management Officer," etc. depending on the workload and resources a ranger district has. Supervisor's Office personnel have the same or similar titles.
The "donut hole" is speculation, I don't know and I don't have access to plans, maps and lists of sufficient detail that would list if one exists at the topo of Mt. Warren. I've read about similar donut holes in wilderness designations in other regions and just listed this as a possibility. It might just be one of those grandfathered administrative uses.
You are on another page. Are you trying to say that there aren't any agencies with interoperability issues in California? The agencies that will subscribe with MRA will have it on UHF. It is all the other agencies that will remain on VHF high that will not. Example, and I could have used this when I was working, Caltrans cannot communicate with the U.S. Forest Service. I could and needed to, communicate with the Mammoth Community Water District, but not with Caltrans and not with the CHP at the time.
As for your last paragraph, unless repeater bridges between disparate radio bands are established at each repeater site, similar to the Arizona AIRS or Arizona Interagency Radio System is provided that type then interoperability is not possible. I'm not pushing a panic button, I am merely pointing out what has happened in other areas when new systems are installed. For example, not every Caltrans truck can speak with CHP officers, this after Caltrans went to 800 MHz from low band. Only supervisors have low band radios and the rest of their equipment, snow plows, blowers, graders, etc. only have an 800 MHz radio.
Just a reminder - there are multiple agencies all over CA (both Fire and LE) that operate on digital systems like these and have done so for MANY years.
Obviously, but when they did agencies on other bands stopped being able to communicate with them. Example, Law Enforcement Officers on the Cleveland National Forest cannot communicate on Orange County's countywide trunked system to talk with county S.O. deputies. This, unless the USFS can afford to put Orange County radios in each LE vehicle. Given the budget cuts the USFS is living with this can be a major impediment.
Of course, the old method of communicating using scanners might work, for all its disadvantages. I used to call Mono County deputies on the USFS frequency, then the deputy would copy that on his scanner and I would copy his reply on his frequency on my scanner. This prior to having multiple channel radios, even though both of us were on the same band. In recreation management I could not afford or justify the purchase of a scanner, so I bought one myself and installed it in my vehicle. I only had to pay for the cost of another antenna, which was the same as the one for my 160 channel Midland mobile. It came in quite handy on the Angeles NF on a large wildland fire when I copied some traffic on Caltrans frequencies regarding a lane closure on I-5 that was to support a burnout operation that we were going to do from the shoulder of the interstate to secure a line around a subdivision. It turned out that they had changed the plan from what was agreed upon that morning at briefing. No one else on the fire heard what I heard and I contacted the ICP immediately and we had to shut off our planned burn because of it and some other reasons. No interoperability between Caltrans and the USFS existed and still doesn't.
They can't afford to keep the existing repeaters and mobile radios maintained, that is why they are choosing to go with MRA. If they could afford it, we are talking about tactical use or car to car only, they could not longer get on command frequencies. When they are staffing roadblocks on large fires and other type incidents they were capable of bringing up the NIFC command frequencies, just like the rest of the fire is using. Given how the SO in Inyo County reported to the Board of Supervisors, they can't afford to continue maintaining their repeaters and the UHF linking system in place.
Thanks for this picture of you! I think I remember your face from meeting you at a BARC meeting around 2000-2007. Either that or my memory is slipping again. I've been on top of Warren, but never Olancha. My knees no longer allow me the mobility to climb peaks like I used to.
I'm not a ham radio operator haven't been in years after the second time i allowed my license to lapse i just threw in the towel besides having worked with radio and such everyday of my life i needed a break when i went home and going home to work on radio equipment etc would have left me burnt out years ago,, no i kept radio strictly a 40 hour a week job. helped me keep my sanity all those years the last time i attended a BARC meeting was in the early 90s think around 90 91 the picture of me atop of Olancha Pk was taken back in 2000 according to the file name i gave it
i was referring to the section under NEWS Please read it and report, cause i saw it as i had stated and its a start in the right direction as per allowing of sites on NFS lands and if there is an existing site available that has the coverage that's needed,, then why not.. i also clearly stated that it was of my opinion only..
after The short lady left and her position stay vacant, the special use permits that had anything to do with radio site's fell to Mike after Mike had retired then it fell into my lap.. unwantedly i should add. i think i even made the comment to the acting forest supervisor about added pay for taking on yet another persons job..
i was referring to the section under NEWS Please read it and report, cause i saw it as i had stated and its a start in the right direction as per allowing of sites on NFS lands and if there is an existing site available that has the coverage that's needed,, then why not.. i also clearly stated that it was of my opinion only..
NEWS On October 13, 2020, the Forest Service amended its directive, Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Chapter 90, to implement the part of the 2018 Farm Bill for streamlining the procedures for evaluating applications to locate or modify communications facilities on lands managed by the Agency. On April 8, 2020, the Forest Service issued a final rule to implement the part of Title VIII, Subtitle G, section 8705, of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, providing for streamlining the Agency's procedures for evaluating applications to locate or modify communications facilities on National Forest System lands. L |
I'm not aware that DWP has completely abandoned the GLASS MTN site nor has the forest service, as i had just spoke with a tech from DWP a few days ago and Glass Mtn came up several times in our conversation, not 100 percent but GLASS is still a very important data site that covers the dam. but next time I'm on the phone with him ill ask?? i have been out of the picture about this area since 2007 and still am doing a lot of catch up
It still costs MRA $$ to maintain radios and sites so does it really save money? I think its just a paperwork shuffle and it could be that going with MRA costs more than city or county employees doing similar work. The city or county does maintenance work to keep running. MRA is in business to make a profit.
MAPRAD.IO map for MRA
Licensee begins with: Mobile Relay Associates
https://maprad.io/au/search/advance...vYmlsZSBSZWxheSBBc3NvY2lhdGVzIl0%3D&source=US
Licensee begins with: Mobile Relay Associates
https://maprad.io/au/search/advance...vYmlsZSBSZWxheSBBc3NvY2lhdGVzIl0%3D&source=US
from a techs stand point on offering service for a new system such as NXDN
Now that I'm Simi retired and somewhat disabled physically, I'm unable to hoof it around high altitude sites to upgrade and PM said equipment and that's just the first part of it.
the upgraded test equipment alone would run me in excess of $200.000 in order to be able to work on any of the new radio systems not to mention the upkeep on said equipment every year to two years for calibration. and there's the constant education one has to keep up with to stay up to date on what's rolling out of the assembly line.
I'm not alone on this dilemma as most of the local techs here have either passed away or are ready to retire all together, The State of California had been taking care of the blunt of the radio problems that the Inyo SO has in operation presently and from what i can gather are having issues of the same with old worn out systems that desperately need upgrading, also the fact that mostly every one i know in the business up here are unfamiliar with the new systems as they have exclusively worked with conventional analog most of their careers and the no where to be found new talent in our area " these kids today just don't want to work". so for Inyo or Mono counties to get local support for any type of new system they would purchase would come with a costly travel expense to get any work performed, i think it was real smart of the counties to go the route that they went with MRA. especially on a untested system in this area.
Now that I'm Simi retired and somewhat disabled physically, I'm unable to hoof it around high altitude sites to upgrade and PM said equipment and that's just the first part of it.
the upgraded test equipment alone would run me in excess of $200.000 in order to be able to work on any of the new radio systems not to mention the upkeep on said equipment every year to two years for calibration. and there's the constant education one has to keep up with to stay up to date on what's rolling out of the assembly line.
I'm not alone on this dilemma as most of the local techs here have either passed away or are ready to retire all together, The State of California had been taking care of the blunt of the radio problems that the Inyo SO has in operation presently and from what i can gather are having issues of the same with old worn out systems that desperately need upgrading, also the fact that mostly every one i know in the business up here are unfamiliar with the new systems as they have exclusively worked with conventional analog most of their careers and the no where to be found new talent in our area " these kids today just don't want to work". so for Inyo or Mono counties to get local support for any type of new system they would purchase would come with a costly travel expense to get any work performed, i think it was real smart of the counties to go the route that they went with MRA. especially on a untested system in this area.
this is where you need to do a bit more home work SIR, the plan is to keep some of the existing radio system and use as back up or what you been complaining about interagency operations i believe silver, mazurka and rogers will all stay the same as well as keeping the existing vhf radios that are currently installed in their vehicles, this has been the plan all along and that's why i made the statement of interoperability being void. as per Mono county I'm not sure of what their plans are at the moment
Warren is not a designated electronic site, it is an administrative site for forest infrastructure. As I pointed out there are some non wilderness land alternatives for providing communications for first responders. You might have the opinion that a wilderness designation and a prohibition of developing further structures is "bureaucratic BS," but it is the law. The Forest Service is obligated to uphold the law, most especially when land uses are concerned.
YOUR WORDS
This is the bureaucratic BS I'm talking about. and the directive sent down by the president to amend such. yes Mt Warren is an administrative site used solely for the purposes of providing vital communications within the Forest structure and yes its a COMMUNICATIONS site deemed as such by professionals like myself that were hired on to perform such duties that know of its coverage capability's or there wouldn't be anything up there to look at. I'm merely saying its there, follow the directives of what is needed by or first responders, in your very words provide interoperability with it that structure. i really think you should update yourself of how things are working these days before you go off the wall to try and convince everyone of interoperability when you at the helm are trying to throw a monkey wrench in the works, lastly your claim to fame in all the time you were involved in the Forest service is of all the citations you had issued i believe you stated to hold some sort of record,, well this is very disturbing as its NOT the goal or mission of the Forest service i was involved in that goal was protecting the Forest and the public with education NOT discipline
For reference, site info for NorCal on MRA's website (mostly not their sites – Mark was nice enough to make this stuff available publicly).
I can see my breath in this room...Can I suggest everyone take a deep breath and leave their egos at the door please? Radio people already tend to have issues "reading the room" and now let's take the room/faces/vocal tones away and dump everyone into an anonymous internet forum, and then add the amplified us vs. them mentality growing over the last 5 years, and the passion some here have towards RF energy. I always joke amongst the industry that radio communications technicians or enthusiasts are often the worse communicators. We all are going to step on toes. Forgive. There is some amazing talent, skills, history and experience in this very thread alone; the very kind that can literally die off and never be seen again unless transferred to books, notes, forums. Some are more elder than others, some have more hands-on time with N connector barrels, others more PTT time, some have PTSD and health issues that directly affect effective communication on a forum like this. Some here also recognize this isn't a two-way conversation and word things as such to be an educational/historical reference for future generations to come across this thread on page 3 of google. Some here also recognize nuance, and/or the bigger picture and tend to ignore some of the more literal statements, or let non-important slip-ups be slip-ups.
Patience, forgiveness, one does not always have to be right (woah, if my wife knew I just typed that...) but kindness always matters.
Patience, forgiveness, one does not always have to be right (woah, if my wife knew I just typed that...) but kindness always matters.
- Status
