Little Sluice 2012

[cjcraig7]

Loosing an Icon (and not the tree). Ironic isn't it - the year the tree falls, so goes Little Sluice.

I have had many trail users discussions, off line, regarding the destruction of the Little Sluice Box. There really appears to be no public consensus on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Obviously, everyone knows, or should know, the history available to the general public that played out in the decision to "reduce" the technical difficultly of the section but, my question, was it a well thought through decision or something else?

Here is a link to the FOTR/RTF Press Release that covered the issues:

http://www.rubiconfriends.com/index....ail-foundation

Here is the relevant Little Sluice comments from that Press Release:

In a frustrating last-minute twist which caught the public by surprise, the Board of Supervisors also voted to reduce the size of the largest rocks in the iconic Little Sluice Box, a signature section of Rubicon Trail near Spider Lake with high technical difficulty. This controversial proposal, was put forth by Supervisor Jack Sweeney after the public comments session was closed. “I and other members of our volunteer community were blind-sided by the discussion/decision to alter Little Sluice”, said Jacquelyne Bebe Theisen, Trail Boss for the Friends of the Rubicon (FOTR). “Our volunteers deserved the opportunity to discuss the alteration of Little Sluice with the Board of Supervisors – and we will. This is not over.”

RTF and FOTR will work together to push the County Department of Transportation, to lead organizations, and agencies together to identify and employ non-explosive management techniques to minimize impacts at Little Sluice and still comply with the Board of Supervisors’ instructions. In the meantime, FOTR and RTF will continue to work with the County to mitigate concerns in the area by distributing WAG bags (for collecting human waste) and spill kits (for cleaning up fluids spilled by damaged vehicles); reaching out with education from the kiosks, providing roving trail patrol and mid-trail staff; and delivering internet-based education.


I have some concerns for the loss of this icon (not the tree), and henceforth, the opportunity of the county to market the trail in the future. My thoughts:

Everyone, I am sure, must be aware of the emotions that were swirling at the time of the decision by the county BOS but, conditions have changed. At some point, trail gods willing, the county may get their arms around this animal and be clearly in the position to market the trail (recreational tourism). Because of the widespread notoriety of the Little Sluice, it is my belief that it may pay for the county to take a second look at their decision to reduce the size of the boulders in Little Sluice.

What does reduce the size of the boulders really mean? What criteria was/is in play? Who is advising the county related to technical difficultly? What trail interests, public or private, are being served? What specifically, is the county attempting to mitigate at this time? Has RTF or FOTR taken the action outlined in the Press Release above? What were the specific instructions given by the BOS to DOT regarding the limits of reduction?

Does anyone have answers to the above questions?

What if the county continues on the other work on the trail and monitors the activity at the Little Sluice Box. In the event that clear trail functionality criteria is not met, the county then takes selective and concise reduction actions, year over year, until such time as the criteria is met. Would this have not have been a wise decision process for the Gatekeeper?

Summarily, DOT has changed the trail over two years in ways mother nature never could accomplish. As such, I believe any argument about returning the trail to its historical route or condition, specific to Little Sluice is simply a smoke-screen. I believe the public is entitled to know precisely what the goal is, and more precisely, how the County expects to achieve success.

[atvobsession]

El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Placerville Office
330 Fair Lane
Placerville, CA 95667
Local Number:
(530) 621-5390
From El Dorado Hills:
(916) 358-3555 x5390
From South Lake Tahoe:
(530) 573-7955 x5390
Toll Free:
1-(800) 491-6642

http://eldorado.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

[motownscrambler]

and so the next domino falls.....

[centsless]

I haven't been up there in a couple of months. I understand that there is some large equiptment on the trail "altering" areas. Can anyone confirm this? Any pics of changes would be great.

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Placerville Office
330 Fair Lane
Placerville, CA 95667
Local Number:
(530) 621-5390
From El Dorado Hills:
(916) 358-3555 x5390
From South Lake Tahoe:
(530) 573-7955 x5390
Toll Free:
1-(800) 491-6642

http://eldorado.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

I think the point was, if FOTR or RTF had pursued any course(s) of action, as outlined in the Press Release, it would be my interest in avoiding redundant work prior to my conversation.

[1uglyranger]

Originally Posted by cjcraig7

I think the point was, if FOTR or RTF had pursued any course(s) of action, as outlined in the Press Release, it would be my interest in avoiding redundant work prior to my conversation.

FOTR/RTF have been working on this for years, but there is no such thing as redundant work. The more time their phone rings, or mailbox fills up, the more they will listen. It has to be more than the same 10 guys and gals calling and writing over and over.

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by 1uglyranger

FOTR/RTF have been working on this for years, but there is no such thing as redundant work. The more time their phone rings, or mailbox fills up, the more they will listen. It has to be more than the same 10 guys and gals calling and writing over and over.

The Press Release is dated January 26, 2010. My question was not what the FOTR/RTF have done before that date, but, what lines of defense, if any, have been drawn since that date. Further, what ideas or suggestions were previously rejected.

Respectfully, I disagree with mass emailing and letters. I would prefer to engage the BOS directly, employing more politically persuasive terms.

I agree though, change takes time and consistent pressure, and even those conditions don't always solve the problem.

[stoneyxj]

Bullshit.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by stoneyxj

Bullshit.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Which part?

[Unregistered]

Originally Posted by centsless

I haven't been up there in a couple of months. I understand that there is some large equiptment on the trail "altering" areas. Can anyone confirm this? Any pics of changes would be great.

This rock that is under the passenger side tire in this picture is now moved aside.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...1_706607_n.jpg

Thousand Dollar hill is closed off and another good hill climb leaving Spider on the way to Soup Bowl is blocked off as well. Every trip up there I notice more change.

[R290]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This rock that is under the passenger side tire in this picture is now moved aside.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...1_706607_n.jpg

Thousand Dollar hill is closed off and another good hill climb leaving Spider on the way to Soup Bowl is blocked off as well. Every trip up there I notice more change.

Off topic to his request, I don't want the post to get off topic with typical irate4x4 posts.
But your correct.

The meeting (I was there) did not go into the details your asking. I "ASSUME" those details would be between the board and the DOT engineers.
From there, others that go to the monthly meetings would give input when the topic comes up. I'm sure the engineers walked the section of trail too.

Now as for the goal?
The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) outlined what needs to take place on the trail.
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_li...?forest=110503
all projects in the ENF.

The trail will have a long by pass and the original route.
Part of the that process was to block off Soup bowl access. NEPA is the process of what needs to take place to make all parity's involved happy ( or should I say unhappy) as no interest group got what they wanted 100%.

CJcraig7. You bring marketing and what the changes could bring.
You are correct they (county) wants to market the trail to get bring business to the communities.

From what I understand they ( county) wanted to reduce the rocks to make the area, less inviting and encourage dispersed camping.

"What does reduce the size of the boulders really mean? What criteria was/is in play? Who is advising the county related to technical difficultly? What trail interests, public or private, are being served? What specifically, is the county attempting to mitigate at this time? Has RTF or FOTR taken the action outlined in the Press Release above? What were the specific instructions given by the BOS to DOT regarding the limits of reduction? "

Good questions. Maybe somebody has a more up-to-date info and has talked with the DOT engineers knows what size they are looking for.

The NEPA process was about the easement/s and does not mention Little Sluice rock sizes.

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by R290

Off topic to his request, I don't want the post to get off topic with typical irate4x4 posts.
But your correct.

The meeting (I was there) did not go into the details your asking. I "ASSUME" those details would be between the board and the DOT engineers.
From there, others that go to the monthly meetings would give input when the topic comes up. I'm sure the engineers walked the section of trail too.

Now as for the goal?
The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) outlined what needs to take place on the trail.
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_li...?forest=110503
all projects in the ENF.

The trail will have a long by pass and the original route.
Part of the that process was to block off Soup bowl access. NEPA is the process of what needs to take place to make all parity's involved happy ( or should I say unhappy) as no interest group got what they wanted 100%.

CJcraig7. You bring marketing and what the changes could bring.
You are correct they (county) wants to market the trail to get bring business to the communities.

From what I understand they ( county) wanted to reduce the rocks to make the area, less inviting and encourage dispersed camping.

"What does reduce the size of the boulders really mean? What criteria was/is in play? Who is advising the county related to technical difficultly? What trail interests, public or private, are being served? What specifically, is the county attempting to mitigate at this time? Has RTF or FOTR taken the action outlined in the Press Release above? What were the specific instructions given by the BOS to DOT regarding the limits of reduction? "

Good questions. Maybe somebody has a more up-to-date info and has talked with the DOT engineers knows what size they are looking for.

The NEPA process was about the easement/s and does not mention Little Sluice rock sizes.

Actually, I was hoping for your reply. Because really I am more focused on what aspects of the changing trail conditions may get their positive attention. I am in favor of slowing down on this issue and getting more user input. I believe the trail should have a little something for everyone.

I am convinced from those who I have talked to off-line, no one on the BOS could squarely answer my questions regarding re-sizing criteria. And unless, the County Engineer is an enthusiast, how is that going to work out?

Truly, in the big picture, I think the destruction of Little Sluice is like blowing up Mount Rushmore because the area is to busy. I understand the emotions at the time of the vote but, there must be more logical ways to address trail issues in the future.

The bigger issue, who stole the sign? Laughable. Who didn't think it was going to get stolen?

[Brandon]

Although playing in the box is entertaining I don't think anyone can say the sluice is natural or maintained. I would imagine Mt Rushmore is maintained to stay in the same condition but who knows, maybe not. I don't really care but I laugh at people that call the box natural.

[cruzila]

I see the deal as open for opportunity. The BOS gave specific authority to the Deputy Director to do as he saw fit when resizing the rocks. That is in those minutes from the Jan 2010 meeting and I remember VERY clearly. Since then, the DD has retired and there is a temporary DD. I am not sure what any of that means and by all accounts may make it harder to get any idea of what the plan is.

The DD did at the time make a commitment to involve the public in the process. What that really meant is also hard to determine now or even if it would happen. The phrase I kept hearing was "crack 5-7 of the biggest rocks"

There was a huge work party done in the summer of 2010 to clean the area up and the hay bales were installed, but I can't remember if it was that year or not right now.

RTF worked within the NEPA process that the easement brought on to expand the parking area officially and was marginally successful. We got 75 feet instead of 175.

I have personally lobbied some of the folks that use the Little Sluice on a more regular basis to develop a project to do work to mitigate the issue so the resizing is not needed. I have not been successful so far. Probably because it is me?

I have also done the same with County officials prior to Jan 2010, but not since then. If there is a bus driver that can fill the bus with people willing to make a difference, I am sure we can prevail.

[Crash440]

Originally Posted by cruzila

I have personally lobbied some of the folks that use the Little Sluice on a more regular basis to develop a project to do work to mitigate the issue so the resizing is not needed. I have not been successful so far. Probably because it is me?

I have also done the same with County officials prior to Jan 2010, but not since then. If there is a bus driver that can fill the bus with people willing to make a difference, I am sure we can prevail.

so, what WILL it take to UNITE and go forward?? we are a LARGE group, but divided at the moment...or maybe that's just how it looks to me looking in

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by cruzila

The BOS gave specific authority to the Deputy Director

Thanks for your reply.

Deputy Director: "Name Please"

EDIT: What do you see as the conditions requiring mitigating (that you have spoke to users about).

[DB_1]

Originally Posted by cjcraig7

Which part?

I'm thinking the situation in general.

[stoneyxj]

Originally Posted by DB_1

I'm thinking the situation in general.

This

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by Crash440

so, what WILL it take to UNITE and go forward?? we are a LARGE group, but divided at the moment...or maybe that's just how it looks to me looking in

I would like to believe that 98% of the issues unite Rubicon Trail users. The 2% is the egocentric and really f-ing divisive BS that usually takes a personal handshake to solve, and more importantly, maintain.

The so-called paving is what it is. IMO, Little Sluice isn't a part of that scope, therefore, shouldn't be given away to County Brass like some sort of trophy or gold watch.

[neverdun]

"The so-called paving is what it is. IMO, Little Sluice isn't a part of that scope, therefore, shouldn't be given away to County Brass like some sort of trophy or gold watch."

I agree 100%. Little Sluice is not a part of the scope, or is it???

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by neverdun

or is it???

IMO, that issue has been pretty well covered. And though this thread may go any which direction, based upon individual opinions, resizing the boulders in Little Sluice has been a separate issue for a very long time. Paving (I really don't agree with that characterization either) is a legal matter for the county, to which they have few choices. I am sure that winter closure will bear the same spoiled fruit.

[cruzila]

Name is retired, so it does not matter.

I proposed a couple times in a couple venues to develop and propose a plan to migrate many of the smaller rocks back up between the bigger rocks after I heard a few people say they would rather do it themselves than have it done to them. When push came to shove, there was no shove.

There is plenty of chatter on the intard net however.


Sent from my cool iPad I won at the Rock Zombie rig wash!

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by cruzila

Name is retired, so it does not matter.

I proposed a couple times in a couple venues to develop and propose a plan to migrate many of the smaller rocks back up between the bigger rocks after I heard a few people say they would rather do it themselves than have it done to them. When push came to shove, there was no shove.

There is plenty of chatter on the intard net however.


Sent from my cool iPad I won at the Rock Zombie rig wash!

I think your historical perspective is very important in this matter. As such, can you answer if someone at the County suggested the above-referenced mitigation that you proposed a couple of times at a couple of venues?

And further, in your mind, what specific conditions were you trying to achieve? i.e. user profile, trail blockage, over saturation of resources due to human pressure.

And for the record, obviously the DD was Tom Celio. I was just checking if you knew.

[cjcraig7]

resqme - thank you for coming into some of the conversation. I was wondering if you could add some clarity to this issue as well.

Obviously, there is an undertone here and out in the community regarding a real conflict, or a perceived conflict of interest regarding your interests in both RTP and RTF. Frankly, I can get my head around the issue and understand your position in both. That being said.

As a 501c3 company, RTF relies on both individual and commercial interests funding sources in order to function and grow. As such, most contributors, I would have to believe, consider the actions that the foundation takes and then asks the question, does this entity's actions and interests closely mirror those of my core interests and beliefs. As such, the contributor can then make a decision regarding their level of support. I think most reasoned trail users understand the pinch that the county is in, as such, unless RTF does something really objectionable, most users will probably just continue to buy tacos.

As an example though, the CBD isn't getting any funding contributions from OHV enthusiast, and members of CBD aren't buying tacos.

Being that the Rubicon Trail is such a special interest issue, the Rubicon Trail Foundation has a very small potential contribution pool. For those lurking, this is the reason RTF will likely never be able to be your lawsuit type go-to group. Back to that pool..... We are in the Little Sluice 2012 thread, so that is where I am coming from. If, those who enjoy running or spectating at the Little Sluice knew that members of RTF, a couple of them have already stepped forward with respect to this issue, were, or had collaborated directly with the County to reduce the Little Sluice, RTF does realize that whatever that block of total contributors/users were, or could be, it just got a bit smaller.

On the same track, in another thread, you stated your ownership interests in RTP pre-dated the user modification of the Little Sluice. If I got that wrong, feel free to correct me. As such, as a nearby property owner, it is understandable that your property interests were deeply injured by the activities at Spider directly associated with the use of the Little Sluice. We are on the same side of that issue. If that was going on in my back yard, I would work to eradicate the negative impact as well.

So, that being said, users know who you are, they know your property interests, should they be confused as to whether, as a director of a private foundation, who also works as a liaison to the county in these matters, may be in direct conflict between representing all forms of trail users and your private interests as a property owner? $1000 Hill is a separate matter, but runs a parallel track.

And, given those facts unanswered, should RTF, in the interest of the Rubicon Trail and its charter, not cleanse these potential conflicts or prepare to suffer a commensurate level in fundraising capabilities.

This is probably the toughest question that you have ever had to read here, let alone respond. I am not questioning all the good that you have brought to the trail, as it has been, in my opinion, without equal.

I really do want to believe in the RTF mission, but these, and other growing conflicts have me very concerned.

Monday morning quarterbacking is not nearly as easy as some people may think.

I look forward to your response.

[R290]

Originally Posted by cjcraig7

And, given those facts unanswered, should RTF, in the interest of the Rubicon Trail and its charter, not cleanse these potential conflicts or prepare to suffer a commensurate level in fundraising capabilities.

100% wrong. Just look at the EPA, who do they employ? Mostly people that have sued them What about the C B D No conflict there either. Sorry, but I feel your out in left field on this. Resume has done a good job in a difficult position.

But, if you need a second job, I'm sure you could get it. People have stepped up in the past and volunteered. Just so happens Resume is currently doing that job.

If your good at fundraising, step up now. It's take money to fight non science based propaganda. Or I'm sure there are other jobs that need to be filled.

Back to the thread topic!! How can the public help the county make good decisions.

Who: El dorado County
What: Changes to Little Sluice
How: Reduce the rocks. ( per board meeting in 2009)
When: 2012 I guess.

I don't like rock cracking as they can cut tires and cause other major damages, like if you slip and fall on them.

So what are the option?

1: Do nothing, put head in the sand and post later.
2: Hydro crack the 5-7 of the biggest boulders
3: Fill in between 5-7 of the biggest boulders
4: Work on recalling the decision. Are the issues of past solved?
5: Come up with a marketing video for the county showing how they can bring in more visitors by not reducing the rocks.

6: Feel free to add your ideas as that what it will take.

Something is going to happen, I'm sure of that.