El Dorado County
Rubicon Oversight Committee
El Dorado County Main Library
Placerville, CA 95667
February 8, 2007
8:30 AM
DRAFT MINUTES

ATTENDEES PRESENT: Jordan Postlewait, George Sanders, Steve Morris, Dan Bolster, Bob Smart, Tom Celio, Monte Hendricks, Randy Burleson, Dennis Mayer, Don Spuhler, Rich Platt, Richard Hill, Karen Schambach, Bryan Brown, Lester Lubetkin, Todd White

I. CALL TO ORDER: 8:39 AM

II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Adopted as presented.

III. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES: The January 11, 2007 minutes were approved as drafted.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Dick Hill asked about the need to have the Gerle Bridge be engineered to allow logging trucks to drive across it and if that was the case would funds from logging be contributed to construction of the bridge. It was discussed that if the bridge was designed to handle logging trucks and emergency vehicles then proceeds from a timber sale could possibly be used to help construct the bridge.

V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

A. RTMP / CEQA Update: Dan Bolster said that the unified set of County comments would be submitted to ESP in the next week. ESP would then provide the County with a revised Administrative Draft EIR which would be reviewed by the County. Following County review and approval of the revised Admin DEIR the Draft EIR would be released for the 45-day public comment period. During the 45-day public comment period the County would host a public meeting for comment on the Draft EIR. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at the Marshall Room on the County Fairgrounds at a time and date to be determined.

B. OHMVR Grant Update: Dan Bolster said that the OHV Commission awarded the County $93,301 for the Ellis Creek Planning Project and $93,301 for the Gerle Creek Planning Project.

C. In-Lieu Fees: Dan Bolster told the ROC that recent legislation (AB 2666, approved in 2004) had changed the way in-lieu fees were allocated beginning January 1, 2006. While the County received only $5,395.82 in in-lieu funds, based on the new allocation formula in January the County received two checks totaling $132,753.08 for 2006 in-lieu fees that by state law are mandated to be spent on OHV programs. Karen Schambach asked if a special revenue fund had been set up to insure that the funds did not go into the County General Fund. Dan Bolster said that he follow-up on her request to set-up a special revenue fund.

D. Loon Lake Chalet / Ice House Road Winter Access: After the January ROC meeting the County and Forest Service put up signs at the berm by the Chalet stating that there is no OHV winter access beyond that point on Ice House Road. The only names appearing on the sign were El Dorado County and the Forest Service. A discussion was held regarding the merits of a County ordinance restricting motorized access in winter and following the discussion it was agreed to continue the item to the March 2007 ROC meeting. At that time Tom Celio will bring forward a draft language for restricting winter use and Randy Burleson will provide a report to the ROC on FOTR’s response to the issue at their annual meeting to be held in late February.

E. RTM Grant: Dan Bolster said that a request for bids for sanitation products (PETT toilets, WAG bags, and cardboard toilets) would be sent out to vendors in the next few days by the County. The status of the remaining projects under the grant: Funding for trail maintenance would be used to repair the Wentworth section of the trail in summer 2007; easement acquisitions were being handled by County Counsel; language for kiosk signs needed to be drafted by Dan Bolster; Rubicon Trail Maps would be reviewed by the ROC with comments / suggested revisions returned at the March 2007 ROC meeting. New maps would then be ordered in time for the start of the 2007 season.

F. Maintenance Sites / Work Plan Review: Dan Bolster reviewed the 2007 maintenance projects that were discussed at the January 2007 ROC meeting: Big Sluice, the Buck Island by-pass, Little Sluice, Walker Hill, ponding in the Wentworth Springs area, and clearly marking the trail between the Loon Lake trailhead and Gatekeeper. Bolster said that the Wentworth Springs project would be done by DOT and would be funded through grant funds (RTM-04-003). The Little Sluice project may be funded by a grant from Tread Lightly! and would include: (1) resizing the rocks in the Little Sluice to address environmental impacts associated with leakage of petroleum products and to provide access to 80 to 90% of vehicles; (2) address erosion in a section of trail approximately 100 yards to the west of the Little Sluice; (3) close off illegal by-pass and restore vegetation in area approximately 150 yards to the west of the Little Sluice. If Tread Lightly! decides not to accept the Little Sluice proposal then it was agreed to submit the Walker Hill erosion control project and the Buck Island By-Pass as an alternative project.

I. Committee Reports:
1. Friends of the Rubicon Trail: Annual FOTR meeting is Saturday, February 24, 2007.

2. Rubicon Trail Foundation: None.

V. NEXT MEETING /AGENDA ITEMS: The next ROC meeting was scheduled for 8:30 AM on Thursday, April 12, 2007 in the Main Library conference room.

Adjourn: 11:15 AM

Wow. Thanks for posting this Scott.

Here's an email in response to some emails circulating about the ROC Meeting Minutes published above. This email is from Jack Sweeney, a fellow four-wheeler and also an Eldorado County Supervisor..

To all RTF and users of the Rubicon Trail:

First, I hope this gets to all of you as it is the first time I have used the system! Please feel free to forward this to whomever!

I spoke with the new Supervisor for District 4 (the subject district) Ron Briggs. He believes I have a good handle on the trail issues and says for me to proceed!

What I told RTF at the meeting and what I told staff at a meeting with them is that I want to know how the users would evaluate the appropriate portion of the trail to fix first. The evaluation could include a point system, say from i(least important) to 5 (most important) and should cover the
categories: effect on users, environmental improvement, safety, potential physical loss of trail, public satisfaction on completion. The FOTR or RTF websites could easily be a good place to place such an evaluation system..
That way we are not just blowing but will have some good data.

As you know, I am a Land Surveyor and have done a lot of site surveys for damaged roadways. I spent ten years in construction with Cal-Trans and have done a lot of projects on my own. I truly believe the segement most susceptible to physical loss is the Big Sluice. Unless we do some significant drainage work there we might find it slipped out some spring!
However, Walker Hill is in need of fixing. As to the Buck Island mess it would be better from a financial standpoint to wait until we can either use SMUD money or money SMUD will be providing the County to fix that area. And then there is the Little Sluice issue; when that area is approached and work is done everbody needs to be on the same page. We must figure out the best solution for all users. Not today!

I have been reading all of your chatter and I think we leave TL alone until we get our own house in order and then we can spend their money on our project, thank you TL! By the way, I was in Washington DC last week and if you think our trail is a mess, go there. Doolittle is still hopeful that he can get our $400,000 out of the Feds but it is a mess.

Thanks for all of your efforts and I WILL talk to staff AGAIN.

--Jack Sweeney

I very much like the suggested 5-point system -- we can work to get a list from the FOTR annual meeting. It should be simple to brainstorm major projects, and then follow-up to assess the group's rating (1 to 5) on the following axis:
* effect on users
* environmental improvement
* safety
* potential physical loss of trail
* public satisfaction on completion

I think its pretty clear, with the lack of consensus on what needs to happen at Little Sluice, that it will rank poorly when assessed against "public satisfaction on completion" -- how can the wide range of public opinions be satisfied if we still can't agree on what the desired outcome is? Make no mistake, we can't put Little Sluice off forever, but I look forward to a more immediate success on Big Sluice, Walker Hill, and/or Buck Island before we tee off on the powder keg that is Little Sluice.

Randii

I have been reading all of your chatter and I think we leave TL alone until we get our own house in order and then we can spend their money on our project, thank you TL! By the way, I was in Washington DC last week and if you think our trail is a mess, go there. Doolittle is still hopeful that he can get our $400,000 out of the Feds but it is a mess.

Can someone tell me what "TL" is and explain this passage?

Can someone tell me what "TL" is and explain this passage?
TL! = Tread Lightly! -- they are considering funding El Dorado County on a major project (yet to be determined which project) on Rubicon in 2007. Jack is suggesting we work with the County directly, instead of workin through Tread Lightly!

The mess in Washington relates to monies that Doolittle 'earmarked' for El Dorado County. An earmark does not equal real dollars, but it certainly is potential...

Randii

Thanks Randy.

Is he suggesting that "we leave TL alone until we get our own house in order" so that there isn't an accountability issue to Tread Lightly?

I think it is simpler than that -- we should probably speak to TL! through one channel to minimize confusion and maximize our odds of funding a specific project this year through them.

If TL! fund El Dorado County through directed donation, accountability will be high, regardless.

The accountability challenges we have had in years past have mostly been with general grants, like the ones for LEO, that aren't designated to a specific project.

Randii