(esp) rubicon trail workshop (content)

[break it in]

Edit by cruzila: I have added the link to the pdf file that has the full text and results of the polling from the work shop.

Many thank you's to break it in for typing all this stuff in the below posts, YOU ARE THE MAN


below are the topics and strategies they had open to debate and vote on.this is the first of 5 topics the rest are below this post .the results should influence the master plan recomendation workshop -dec-04. Management Strategies
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Permitting Currently, no user permits are required specifically for the Rubicon Trail. A variety of types of user permit systems may be considered and implemented to manage use of the Trail,
o Permit Fees • • Each of the following permits could be issued with a user fee established.
o Permit Required (no limits) • Would include a signed user agreement committing the user to the rules of the Trail (rules would be summarized on permit).
o Permit-Based on Carrying Capacity Limits • • A designated number of permits available to users based on a maximum 300-vehicle capacity within the Rubicon Trail area.
o Overnight Permit Includes Designated Campsite Assignment • A pre-assigned campsite(s) would be designated by permit to enable management and dispersal of overnight use.
o Special Events Fee Permits (Vehicle Limits to be Determined by Rubicon Springs Infrastructure) • • Fee permit would be required to hold special events on the Rubicon Trail. Fee would include maintenance, law enforcement, monitoring, and usage costs.
Monitoring Resource monitoring would be conducted along the Trail on a periodic and regular basis to determine the effectiveness of implemented management measures.
o Annual Spring and Fall Reviews of Trail Conditions • • County staff would perform pre-season and post-season reviews of trail conditions and prepare a report of observed conditions and applicable recommendations
o Restoration Projects Review/List • • A list of restoration projects proposed for trail maintenance would be compiled and updated on an annual basis. Management Strategies (continued)
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Monitoring (continued) Resource monitoring would be conducted along the Trail on a periodic and regular basis to determine the effectiveness of Implemented management measures.
o Adaptive Permit Strategies/ Performance Standards • • The Management Plan would contain requirements that certain performance standards or thresholds for Trail conditions (as measured by annual monitoring) be met. If established threshold were exceeded, more stringent regulations would be implemented.
o Water Quality Monitoring at Spider Lake, Buck Island Lake and Ellis Creek • • • Water quality monitoring would be implemented to ensure that health and safety standards are met.
o Water Quality Monitoring Well(s) at Rubicon Springs • • Water quality monitoring wells at Rubicon Springs would be installed and monitored to identify the potential for and to prevent contamination of the Rubicon River.
o County Health Department Monitoring of Food Service and Potable Water Supplies at Rubicon Springs • • County Health Department officials would monitor food service and potable water supplies at Rubicon Springs to ensure compliance with health and safety standards.
o Post-Special Event Monitoring • • Monitoring would be conducted following special events to assess Trail and campsite conditions and document any associated resource damage.
o County Geographic Information System Incident and Facility Management Tracking • • GPS technology would be used to track incidents along the Trail as well as identify facility locations.
Management Strategies (continued)
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Agency Coordination Measures would be implemented to facilitate coordination among all responsible agencies.
o Interagency Cross-Training Program • • Law enforcement personnel would be 'cross trained' in local, state and federal code enforcement to ensure that all applicable regulations are enforced on the Trail.
o Agency Reporting • • • Monitoring reports would be distributed to responsible agencies as required or according to MOAs.
Vehicle Limits Limitations would be placed as to vehicle type, size, or model.
o Minimally Enforced Limits • Vehicle registration restrictions generally not enforced.
o Maximum Width Limits • • Limits would be placed on the maximum width of a vehicle permitted on the Rubicon Trail. Vehicle width limits could prevent resource damage to areas within the Trail alignment where vehicle width exceeds trail width.
o "Green Sticker" and/or "Street Legal" Only • Only vehicles certified as "Green Sticker" or "Street Legal" would be permitted on the Trail, as those vehicles are required to meet certain emission standards.
o "Street Legal" Only • Only vehicles designated as "Street Legal" would be permitted on the Trail.
o Reduce Number of Helicopter Trips • • A phased approach would be implemented to reduce the number of helicopter trips for special events. Management Strategies (continued)
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
County Governance Measures would be implemented to define how the County will govern/manage the Rubicon trail.
o ROC Committee Becomes Advisory Committee to Board of Supervisors • • • Rubicon Oversight Committee (ROC) would serve as a formal advisory committee to the County Board of Supervisors.
o El Dorado/Placer County Boundary Adjustment • • The County would seek a boundary adjustment agreement between Placer County and El Dorado County, whereby Placer County would cede a 650-foot segment of the Rubicon Trail to El Dorado County.
o County Trail Coordinator • • A Trail Coordinator position would be created within the County. Te Trail Coordinator would be responsible for overseeing management of the Rubicon Trail.
o County DOT Trail Monitor • • A Trail Monitor position would be created within the County Department of Transportation. The Trail Monitor would be responsible for monitoring and reporting trail conditions twice a year.
o County Environmental Management Monitor • • An Environmental Monitor position would be created within the County Environmental Management Department. The Environmental Monitor would be responsible for monitoring and reporting health, safety and water quality conditions on the Trail.
o County Sheriff Designated Seasonal Trail Officer • • A Designated Seasonal Officer would be assigned to oversee law enforcement on the Rubicon Trail during peak season.
o County CIS Support • • The County would use G1S technology for tracking events/ incidents/ management of the Trail.

Management Strategies (continued)
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Funding Several revenue sources may be available for the management of the Rubicon Trail.
o State OHV Grant Funding (limited) • • • • State OHV Commission has indicated that future grant funds available for management of the Rubicon Trail may be limited.
o The Rubicon Foundation (Education and Facilities) • • • • The newly formed Rubicon Trail Foundation would fundraise and solicit donors to provide for education and facilities on the Trail. Potential revenue that may be available via this source is unknown.
o Rubicon Atlas • • • The Rubicon Atlas is a work in progress that would be available for purchase by the public.
o Rubicon Cultural-Natural History Book • Rubicon Cultural-Natural History book would be written and published to be available for purchase by the public.
o Permit Fees • • Permit fees would be the main source of revenue for Rubicon Trail management and facilities development.
o The Rubicon Academy • The for-profit Rubicon Academy would be formed to provide a public 4WD school and training for law enforcement officers. Profits from the Rubicon Academy would supplement revenue needed for management and facilities for the Rubicon Trail.

[break it in]

Resource Protection Strategies
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Define Trail Boundaries Trail currently lacks definition of boundaries along various segments.
o Trail Markers • • • • Markers (e.g., logo markers, carbonite or PVC posts) would be posted to define trail boundaries.
o Trail Surface Signage • • • Trail route and boundaries would be identified using stenciling, blazing and/or reflective signs.
o Physical Barriers (snagging/boulders) • • • Physical barriers such as snags and/or boulders would be placed to mark trail boundaries.
Trail/Drainage Improvements Currently, unimproved drainage on the Trail, multiple bypasses and human Induced trail alterations are significant sources of erosion and resource damage.
o Volunteer Work Projects • • • • Volunteers would continue to participate in work projects to improve conditions on the Trail.
o Water Bars/ Rolling Dips • • • These features would be implemented to divert water away from the Trail, thus minimizing ponding on the Trail, erosion, gully formation, and water quality problems.
o Cobble Fill • • • Rock would be placed in trouble spots to help stabilize currently eroding areas and minimize ponding.
o Remove Boulders Moved into Trail (e.g., at Little Sluice) • • Obstacles moved into the Trail to create driving challenges would be removed.
o Trail Realignments/ New Bypass Development • • Trail realignments would be established and bypass routes would be designated to reduce future resource damage and restore sensitive areas.
Resource Protection Strategies (continued)

Alternative C
Alternative A
Alternative D
Alternative B
Components under Consideration
Notes


Creek Crossing Improvements
Creek crossings present challenges for maintenance of water quality and habitat. Creek crossing improvement options will be dependent upon the amount of funding available.

o Bridge Crossings
Properly designed bridge crossings provide maximum protection for stream resources. Provided funding could be acquired, bridge crossings would be constructed at Ellis and certain other creek crossings.

o Bank Stabilization
Stream banks adjacent to the Trail would be stabilized to prevent erosion and restore habitat values.

o Ford Crossings
Ford crossings provide a 'hardening' of stream bed and banks to reduce erosion and water quality impacts associated with vehicle use. Ford crossing is a less expensive alternative to bridge construction.

o Relocation of Crossing Sites
Portions of the Trail would be relocated to areas more suitable for vehicle crossings in order to minimize resource damage.

Closures/ Legal Protection
Multiple bypasses, off-Trail vehicle use and camping near sensitive resources are sources of resource damage and health and safety concerns, and threaten the continued use of the Trail by OHVs. Measures listed below would be implemented to protect and restore sensitive resources and to reduce the likelihood of future agency actions to close all or portions of the Trail to vehicle use.

o Closure of Unauthorized Bypasses
Unauthorized, user-created bypasses would be closed and restored.

o "No Vehicle" Boundaries around Lakes/Watercourses
Boundary areas within which vehicle access would be restricted would be established around sensitive resource areas.Resource Protection Strategies (continued)
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Closures/ Legal Protection (continued) Multiple bypasses, off-Trail vehicle use and camping near sensitive resources are sources of resource damage and health and safety concerns, and threaten the continued use of the Trail by OHVs. Measures listed below would be implemented to protect and restore sensitive resources and to reduce the likelihood of future agency actions to close all or portions of the Trail to vehicle use.
o Designate Little Sluice Area and Juniper Tree as County Historic Site • • The Little Sluice area, characterized by two ancient juniper trees, has been a landmark for years and a symbol of the Rubicon Trail. This area would be protected by a County ordinance that outlaws modification of the Little Sluice and its northern rock face.
o Prohibition of Dispersed Camping • • Camping would only be allowed in designated zones.
Monitoring Conditions on the Rubicon frail would be monitored in order to gauge the effectiveness of Management Plan components and to prescribe on-going Trail maintenance and restoration efforts.
o Annual Spring and Fall Reviews of Trail Conditions • • County staff would perform pre-season and post-season reviews of trail conditions and prepare a report of observed conditions and applicable recommendations.
o Restoration Project Review/List • • A list of restoration projects proposed for trail maintenance would be compiled and updated on an annual basis.
o Adaptive Permit Strategies/Performanc e Standards • • The Management Plan would contain requirements that certain performance standards or thresholds for Trail conditions (as measured by annual monitoring) be met. If established threshold were exceeded, more stringent regulations would be implemented.
Resource Protection Strategies (continued)
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Monitoring (continued) Conditions on the Rubicon Trail would be monitored in order to gauge the effectiveness of Management Plan components and to prescribe on-going Trail maintenance and restoration efforts.
o Water Quality/Health and Safety Monitoring • • Water quality monitoring would be implemented to ensure that health and safety standards are met.
o County GIS Tracking of Trail Improvements and Restoration • • GPS technology would be used to track Trail improvements and restoration sites.
OHV Training OHV operation training would provide opportunities for Trail users to be educated on operation as well as rules/regulations of the Trail.
o Support Establishment of "The Rubicon Academy" • A concessionaire would operate this for-profit entity to provide training on OHV operation.

[break it in]

Law Enforcement Strategies

Alternative D
Alternative
B
Components under Consideration
Alternative A
Alternative C
Notes


Law Enforcement Presence on Trail
Law enforcement officials would be available to patrol the Rubicon Trail during the peak season (May through October).

o As Available (existing)
Law enforcement officials would continue to patrol the Rubicon Trail during the peak season, as available.

o Designated Seasonal Officer
A seasonal officer would be assigned to the Rubicon Trail during the peak season. This officer would be knowledgeable in OHV operation and maintenance as well as code enforcement. Patrols would be supplemented with other enforcement agencies, as available.

o Designated Seasonal Deputies
A group of designated seasonal deputies knowledgeable in Off-Highway vehicle operation and maintenance as well as code enforcement to be placed under the direction of a designated Seasonal Officer.


Law Enforcement Substation (Specific locations to be determined)
Facilities would be developed on the Rubicon Trail for law enforcement purposes.

o Corporate Yard
A corporate yard would be developed for storage and maintenance of law enforcement vehicles and equipment.


o Loon Lake-Area Bunk House
A bunkhouse for law enforcement officials would include sleeping, living, and working quarters at Loon Lake.


A bunkhouse for law enforcement officials would include sleeping, living, and working quarters at Spider Lake.
o Spider Lake-Area Bunk House
Law Enforcement Strategies (continued)

Alternative A
Components under Consideration
Alternative D
Alternative B
Alternative C
Notes


Law Enforcement Substation (Specific locations to be determined) (continued)
Facilities would be developed on the Rubicon Trail for law enforcement
'purposes. ' • • . ' .•: ' ; -. • :, ' j.:-;,! .''.

o Detention Facility
An on-Trail facility would be developed for detainment of trail violators apprehended by law enforcement officers.

Law Enforcement Training
Training may include a combination OHV operation and maintenance training as well as code enforcement and/or violation reporting for both law enforcement officials and volunteers.

o Volunteer Trail Patrol
Ongoing volunteer trail patrols would be trained- on how to recognize and report resource damage and other law enforcement violations on the trail.

Rubicon Training Program
A program based on collaboration of El Dorado County Sheriffs Department, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Forest Service would be implemented to cross-educate agency personnel about enforcement and particular elements of applicable local, state and federal codes.

The Rubicon Academy Public OHV Driving School
A County concessionaire would provide training on how to operate OHVs and would provide volunteer training on how to recognize and report law enforcement violations on the Trail.

Permanent Training Facility
Legislation to Create Special Management Zone County would support/pursue state and/or federal legislation that would Identify a special Management Zone encompassing the Rubicon Trail and surrounding areas to allow for unified management on the Rubicon Trail and its associated recreation areas.
o State Legislation • • County would support/pursue state legislation to create a Special Management Zone.
o Federal Legislation • • County would support/pursue federal legislation to create a Special Management Zone.
Monitoring and Data Collection Tracking Annual law enforcement reporting would be undertaken to document activities and incident locations and to inform Trail management considerations. - ' ' ' ' ' ' • ,•'.:•'''.. . ' .
o Annual Monitoring Report • • A report of law enforcement activities and the locations of infractions on the Rubicon Trail would be prepared annually.
o Geographic Information System Tracking of Infractions • • GPS technology would be used to track and record infractions on the Trail.

[break it in]

Educational Strategies
Components under Consideration Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Volunteer Outreach and Training Programs Volunteers continue to be a major force in educating users on trail etiquette and providing patrols during the peak season to report trail violations.
o Kiosk volunteers • • • • Volunteers from the 4-wheel drive community would distribute information and Trail updates, dispense RubiKits, Oil Spill Kits, and spread Tread Lightly! trail etiquette information.
o Volunteer Patrol • • • • Volunteers from the 4-wheel drive community would patrol the trail and report resource damage issues and other law enforcement violations.
o Volunteer Training • • • El Dorado County and California Department of Fish and Game staff would provide training on how to recognize and report resource damage and other law enforcement violations on the Trail.
o Law Enforcement Training • • El Dorado County would provide trail driving skill training and vehicle operation and maintenance instruction to El Dorado County law enforcement officers on the Trail.
o Interagency Cross-Training • • El Dorado County Sheriffs Department, California Department of Fish and Game wardens, and U.S. Forest Service officers would collaborate to educate each other how to enforce applicable elements of each agency's code on the Trail.
o The Rubicon Academy Public OHV Driving School • This for-profit County concessionaire would provide OHV driving skill training and vehicle operation and maintenance instruction to the general public, as well as teach participants how to recognize and report trail violations.
Text Resources Maps and atlases with natural and cultural history of the Rubicon Trail area would be produced and made available for purchase by Trail users and the general public.
o Rubicon Trail Atlas • • • The Rubicon Atlas is a work in progress that would be available for purchase by the public.
o Rubicon Cultural-Natural History Book • Rubicon Cultural-Natural History book would be written and published to be available for purchase by the public.
Educational Signage Educational signage on the Rubicon Trail could range from directional signs to educational signs that may include historical information, biological information, "Tread Lightly!" etiquette and other trail information.
o Georgetown to Wentworth Springs Road • • Rubicon Trail signage would originate at Georgetown and continue to the Wentworth Springs Trailhead.
o Wentworth Springs Trailhead • • Educational signs may include historical information, biological information, Tread Lightly! etiquette and other trail information.
o Loon Lake Kiosk • • • Educational signs may include directions to the Historic Rubicon Trail, Tread Lightly! etiquette and other trail information.
o Ellis Creek Intertie/ Rubicon Trail Intersect • • Directional sign would be placed at the intersection between the Ellis Creek Intertie and the Historic Rubicon Trail.
o Spider Lake • • Educational signs may include historical information, information on the Little Sluice juniper trees, protecting water quality in the Lake, Tread Lightly! etiquette and other trail information.
Educational Signage (continued) Educational signage on the Rubicon Trail could range from directional signs to educational signs that may include historical information, biological information, "Tread Lightly!" etiquette and other trail information.
o Buck Island • • Educational signs may include historical information, biological information, Tread Lightly! etiquette and other trail information.
o Rubicon Springs • Educational signs may include historical information on Rubicon Springs, the Rubicon Flyer and other cultural resources, biological information, Tread Lightly! etiquette and other trail information.
o Road Signs • • Directional signs along Ice House Road, U.S. 50, and Wentworth Springs Road.
Cultural/Natural History Information Rubicon Trail guidebook with historic cultural and natural history information.
o Visitor Center/Museum • Museum/ Visitor's Center would include trail information and cultural and natural history information.
The Rubi-Kit Rubi-Kit would include a Rubi-Can (portable sanitation unit), oil spill kit, and other trail information.
o Available for Purchase • • Rubi-Kit would be available to the public for purchase.
o Discounted with Permit • • Rubi-Kit would be available to the public for purchase and discounted to those individuals who obtain a Rubicon Trail permit.
Website Information • • • • Rubicon Trail information would be available on the El Dorado County website.
Annual Monitoring Report • • Annual monitoring reports of the Rubicon Trail would be available to the public.

[break it in]

Facilities Planning
Proposed Facilities Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Sanitation Measures would be implemented to ensure that acceptable levels of sanitation are maintained on the trail and to minimize potential water quality Impacts.
o RubiCan/Portable Toilet Required • • • Trail users would be required to supply their own portable toilet while on the Rubicon Trail.
o RubiCan Disposal Facilities • • • Disposal facilities would d be developed at trail access points to accept for RubiCan wastes. Such facilities must be accessible by disposal service vehicles.
o Toilets • • Pit or composting toilets would be developed at locations along the trail.
Campsites Designated camping areas may be developed on the Rubicon Trail to reduce dispersed resource damage and provide camping opportunities in appropriate (less resource sensitive) areas.
o Wentworth Springs • • A designated camping area would be developed at Wentworth Springs.
o Ellis Creek • • A designated camping area would be developed at Ellis Creek.
o Spider Lake • • A designated camping area would be developed at Spider Lake.
o Buck Island Group Camp • A group camping area would be developed for groups of 25-50 people at Buck Island Lake.
o Buck Island Individual Camps • • A designated camping area would be developed at Buck Island Lake.
o Rubicon Springs (private) • • • • Proposed Facilities Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Notes
Developed Day Use Areas Suitable areas would be developed for day use activities such as picnicking.
o Ellis Creek • • A designated day use area would be developed at Ellis Creek.
o Spider Lake • • A designated day use area would be developed at Spider Lake.
Parking Designated parking for vehicles and trailers to ensure that emergency access roads are not blocked.
o Loon Lake • • Parking facilities would be developed at the kiosk area and interim parking at the heliport/chalet site.
o Wentworth Springs • Parking facilities would be developed in the vicinity of Wentworth Springs.
Law Enforcement Substation Facilities may be developed on the Rubicon Trail to provide support for law enforcement activities.
o Corporate Yard • • A corporate yard would be developed for storage and maintenance of law enforcement vehicles and equipment.
o Loon Lake-Area Bunk House • A bunkhouse for law enforcement officials would include sleeping, living, and working quarters at Loon Lake.
o Spider Lake-Area Bunk House • • A bunkhouse for law enforcement officials would include sleeping, living, and working quarters at Spider Lake.
o First Aid Station • • A first Aid station equipped to handle emergency responses would be developed.
o Detention Facility • • An on-Trail facility would be developed for detainment of trail violators apprehended by law enforcement officers.
Fee camping would be available at Rubicon Springs.
Designated Helicopter Landing Zones • • • Designated Helicopter Landing Zones would be developed.
Vehicle Repair Pads • • Repair areas would be developed to allow users to perform vehicle maintenance without causing spills of harmful contaminants.
Extreme Rock Pile Park (Project Goal -Not Proposed as Part of this Project) • A rock quarry would be developed to allow extreme vehicles to "play" without accessing the Rubicon Trial. Such a facility would incorporate spectator seating/amphitheater to accommodate spectators.

[BEAR]

Very cool, thanks again!

[cruzila]

[break it in]

did you get all that

[Chopperman]

That is a huge list Some of that stuff I never even dreamed of. ( like a jail on the con )..I can tell you this, if it gets to the point that the state has to create a jail and facilitites for law enforcement on the con, my son will never get to see it. Sending E-mail to mike Gray re : my thoughts on all of the above ( specifically "Street only" )

[Jeepndel]

Yes, it's quite a list....but that's all. It's up to us to determine the fate of our trail. YOUR comments are essential. Let folks know where you stand. Read the stuff on the Rubicon Trail Home Page about what FOTR is all about if you haven't done that. Read the 10-Point Plan....see what options we've come up with. REad about the Rubicon Trail Foundation and get in the game.

We are going to control the future of our trail. WE have to work with our partners to do that...USFS, County, control agencies, environmentalists, cross county skiers, general public, and every one else who has an interest.

This is our time...
Del

[randii]

The County had preliminary results of the ESP sticker-vote at the 10/14 ROC meeting. They expect the full details to be published within the week, but here's a highlight of the items I saw that were voted in big numbers of almost unanimous votes (i.e. nearly everyone felt strongly one way or another).
51 for -- designate seasonal deputies
37 for -- permit required for trail use, without cap limit or use fee
32 for -- add stationary outhouses to trail
25 for -- management through the least restrictive means (closure as LAST resort!)
22 for -- requiring all vehicles to have a Rubican (personal pooper)
19 for -- continued volunteer work projects
18 for -- continued volunteer trail patrol
39 against -- prohibit dispersed camping
21 against -- on-trail detention facility
20 against - Rubicon driving school

And there were a few split votes that also garnered a LOT of votes:
9 for, 19 against -- width limits for vehicles
12 for, 35 against -- require all vehicles to be street legal (no green sticker)
31 for, 15 against -- remove Little Sluice boulders

There were other items voted, but the items listed above had the biggest response. See the soon-to-be-published ESP results doc for more info...

Randii

[Ed A. Stevens]

Thanks Randii, this is good information to stand back and read, including an effort to read into the desires of the voters (and play Devils Advocate):

This analysis is what the BOS offices do after they get a report like this.

Even If I know this is not the intended message it's what your opposition will promote, and you need to see what they will read into the vote (even if it makes you mad). Use an analysis of the issues and vote to direct your position and efforts at the next meeting (fight what you don't like and promote what issues you wish were voted on with more participation).


51 for -- designate seasonal deputies:

You want enforcement as the #1 priority. You value enforcement more than education or Volunteer effort (you want someone else to clean up the mess). You (wheelers) are not mature enough to trust themselves without enforcement supervision (the radical environmental's point of view, and that of a concerned landowner).


And there were a few split votes that also garnered a LOT of votes:
9 for, 19 against -- width limits for vehicles
12 for, 35 against -- require all vehicles to be street legal (no green sticker)
31 for, 15 against -- remove Little Sluice boulders

Two split votes are priority concerns #2 & #3, with 47 and 46 votes respectively (with only slightly less participation than the enforcement desire) is to preserve the legal OHV designation of the trail and remove the attraction that seems to promote the problems on holidays and popular weekends.


37 for -- permit required for trail use, without cap limit or use fee

You want regulation and management of the traffic on the trail, but do not want to limit traffic to address density problems (you want to tie the hands of the managers to address the agreed density problem on holidays and popular weekends). No use fee reflects you are not willing to pay for the management. Considering the #1 enforcement priority (where you want someone else to clean up the mess) and #4 is a desire to restrict effective management of the density (that hampers effective enforcement of the identified problem on the out of control weekends and holidays) you dont leave much leeway to provide tools to the managers and enforcement.

The opposition to fees may not help users get the #1 priority: paid enforcement. Users want someone else to clean up the mess, but not to pay for the work?


32 for -- add stationary outhouses to trail

#5 is a solution that address the habitat concerns, but has a maintenance price tag. Again, where will the finding come from (even if the USFWS and USFS allow a system of structures to be built)?


25 for -- management through the least restrictive means (closure as LAST resort!)

#6 sends a clear message that you fear management and regulation of the traffic on the trail, and that you will agree to solutions that do not close the trail.


22 for -- requiring all vehicles to have a Rubican (personal pooper)

#7 is an alternative solution to #5 (stationary outhouses), as long as the wheelers agree to regulation and enforcement of the Rubican's use (this solution supports priorities #6 & #1).


19 for -- continued volunteer work projects

#8 is the priority voluntary user (wheeler) activity to address the conflicting issues on the Rubicon (although with vote support at 37% of those in favor of enforcement, the committment is undetermined).


18 for -- continued volunteer trail patrol

#9 priority is the second volunteer user effort (again only 35% of the workshop believe a volunteer self-help effort is effective).


39 against -- prohibit dispersed camping

#10 concern is to maintain dispersed camping opportunity, reflecting a priority for dispersed camping over developed campsites (indirectly supporting the closure of more congested camping locations on trouble weekends and holidays).


21 against -- on-trail detention facility

#11 concern is the opposition to provide a local holding jail on the trail.


20 against - Rubicon driving school

#12 concern is opposition to a skill achievement requirement for trail visitors.


This concludes the top 12 issues in order of workshop participants.

The concerns provide a conflicting message other than an agreement that enforcement is desired and the Little Sluice attraction is favored for removal.

A permit system is favored to facilitate management of the trail traffic, and enforcement of a permit is supported, although the management goals to achieve with the permit are undetermined. Is the permit to be a traffic regulation tool (a administrative gate to traffic), a fundraising tool (an economic gate to traffic), an educational tool (a notification gate) to users or ???.

How does this analysis match up to how you prioritized the 10 Point Plan to Manage the Rubicon (and please do your own your analysis, do the exercise)? The contrast between the priority order (your's and the vote count's) reflects how successful you were to organize support for the desired priority of action (by communicating to participants before the meeting, or failing to communicate).

Wheelers have a chance at the next meeting (and with letters before the next meeting) to alter the priority the message sent to the BOS offices (by writing letters on the topics that are your priority). If you feel the vote counts posted do not reflect your priority action plan (what you believe the proper steps and order to address the trail problems should be), it's not too late to make your thoughts known.

If you get enough local clubs (and individuals) to send the same message of your favored priority of action (an action plan) it will be considered. This is the power of an organized effort to sway the management direction of the trail, but it demands organization and direction.

This analysis is what the more organized green groups do after a meeting like this, and it helps them organize to fight us. Maybe we can use the same cold analysis to help us? Does this help?

Happy Trails!

[Big Rich]

Ed, John Stewart has asked me to help establish/train/get the ball moving, on the United National Trail Partrol Program. I understand that you guys in the SBNF area are very well organized. We need to get many of the other keys areas around the state and nation wide involved with programs such what your doing. I would love to meet with you or your areas rep's sometime in Dec. Think we can make it happen.

Our goal is to have a Trail Patrol Program up and running in these areas by late spring of 2005:
Shaver Lake
Fordyce
High Lakes

These are the hot spots that users have asked for help in. Others will probably be identified before we are into spring.

Rich Klein
FOTR/CalROCS

[randii]

I appreciate the worst-case analysis, but I will note that it is the WORST CASE and does not synch with discussions we've had with the County, their contractors, or for that matter, the Forest Service.

Much rides on how ESP spins this data, and I don't think the questions can be compared or prioritized well against each other since every individual had ten votes positive or negative, and there was no limit to revotes -- i.e. I could have voted ten dots for just one issue, and ten dots against another issue. For instance, user commitment is high for volunteer efforts, but a big frustration is that law enforcement has not stepped up as they promised they would this year, so people voted multiple times on LE to underline this concern.

FOTR and RTF will definitely be considering the published results of the vote in a week, and working both the County and ESP to help make sure we get a good result for responsible recreation. Of course, any lobbying efforts will certainly refer to FOTR's pre-existing 10-point plan. We'll branch this message out and push it up through clubs, associations, and individual volunteers, as well.

And yes, I do want to manage the trail without capping traffic. We have great volunteer-based education and enforcement plans ramping up, paired with renewed commitment from the County and USFS... IMHO, let's work that first, before arbitrarily identifying a carrying capacity and maximum density based on a few big weekends.

Wheelers have a chance at the next meeting (and with letters before the next meeting) to alter the priority the message sent to the BOS offices (by writing letters on the topics that are your priority).

I do agree with this, and will support this through FOTR and RTF. That said, I do not agree that we now have a priority list either from the vote counts or from the rubicon plan. Neither were listed in priority order, IMHO... and I think our response needs to be to ESP's draft of the Master Plan, and not to bits of data now. We do need to summon our forces, but we can't launch effectively yet.

Thansk for the help, Ed -- I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with some, and the rest is good consideration for future response, after we see the Master Plan.

Randii

[cruzila]

see the top thread for the link to the pdf file on the workshop.

[Ed A. Stevens]

I'll cross post this here, for those who do not look at the Tech forum.

When you read the .pdf file please take care to note where the dots fall for each topic. The dots that reflect how the topic is related to each Alternative plan.

This is significant because some of the more favored topics (from a vote count) are not supported in every Alternative Plan. If you want your future use and activity on the trail to included the issues you voted to support, they not only have to be a favored topic, but they also have to be in the final Alternative Plan selected for the future management.

An easy example to use is the difference between Alternative A and the other Alternatives. Alternative A is the "keep the management the same as in the past" (the "do nothing) plan. Many of the recommendations (all the new recommendations) are not supported by Alternative A (they cannot be supported, because a "no change" Alternative cannot allow changes). The Stakeholders have already motivated a need for change, so you can guarantee that issues supported solely by dots in the Alternative A column (and not in the other columns) will not be in the future plan. The first one of these I read is "Minimally Enforced Limits" under Management Strategies. You can guarantee that the future selected Alternative Plan will not include minimally enforced limits (registrations and vehicle code requirements will be enforced in the future, in Alternatives B, C and D).

Be careful to note that Alternative A and Alternative C are the only dual use designation Alternatives (legal OHV and SLV use of the trail). We already know that Alternative A will not be the selected management plan, so if you want to keep the trail OHV/SLV legal you have only one favored Alternative to fight for: Alternative C.

Now that you know Alternative C is the plan to work with (if you value OHV legal travel status), read if you can live with everything else written into Alternative C (review everything with a dot under the Alternative C column)?

Training (except Law Enforcement)?
Atlas Trail Guide (but no History Book)?
Signage (educational signs everywhere but Rubicon Springs)?
No Visitor Center?
Rubi-Kits (and Rubi-Cans)?
Annual Report Monitoring?
Possible Toilets?
Designated Campsites at Ellis Creek, Spider, and Buck Island (for individuals, but not groups). No designated campsites at Wentworth Springs (maybe the same as now, maybe no camping allowed).
Designated developed day use areas (check the list for Alternative C)?
Developed Parking areas (only at Loon Lake)?
Law Enforcement BunkHouse (only at Corporate Yard and Spider Lake)?
No extreme Rock Pile?
Permits with User Fees (it's in C & D)?
Permit limits will be based on Carrying Capacity? Again: C & D, ... if you want OHV legal travel, Alternative C, you are boxed to select an Alternative that demands a maximum 300 vehicle carrying capacity (unless you can sway an amendment to Alternative C to include the permits with no fee and no limits as voted on in the workshop).
Special Events Fee (it's in the Alt C plan)?
No maximum width limit (better than Alt D)?
Remove Boulders moved into Little Sluice (it's there in Alt C)?
Camping only allowed in designated zones (again, it's in C & D, unless you can amend Alternative C)?
Designated Seasonal Officer?
On Trail detention facility (yes, a Trail-Jail is on Alt C)?

I underlined the likely topics of contention in the current Alternative C, to identify the issues where you need to sway amendment of the future trail management plan.

This is the next step, a goal to modify the most favored existing plan Alternative (in this case Alternative C) into a workable plan you can live with. You need to look carefully at the demands of the current Alternative C plan and pick you battles.

Look for negotiation and compromise points:
(i.e. if you allow them to blast Little Sluice, can they guarantee toilet facilities?).
(i.e. if we allow permit fees, and/or the Special Use fee, can we eliminate the 300-vehicle carrying capacity limit?)
(i.e. if we agree to day use site limits, can we amend Alternative C to allow for more dispersed camping opportunity?)

Pick what you like, and fight for change in the final management strategy you want, from the best available Alternative.

Does this help?

Happy Trails!

[Simple Man]

Ed,

From the way I read your post, you assume that each of the four plans are the only plans considered. Actually, the A, B, C & D plans are only examples of how the different ideas could be grouped together. Nothing is set in stone.

ESP tried to group ideas in steps from "Do nothing" to a high governement involvement. Some of the ideas need to go together. For example, you can't build bathrooms and hire designated patrol offecers without some kind of user fee. There is no need to build a jail if there are no patrol officers. There would be no need for new trailer space if the trail became street legal only.

We, as Pirate4x4.com user group, could propose and promote our own "Plan" taking and leaving the ideas we want. I am hoping that ESP looks at the voting and builds a few new plans that reflect the votes and e-mails received after the workshop.

Keep December 4th open.

[Ed A. Stevens]

Originally Posted by Simple Man

Ed,

From the way I read your post, you assume that each of the four plans are the only plans considered. Actually, the A, B, C & D plans are only examples of how the different ideas could be grouped together. Nothing is set in stone.

- - - - -

We, as Pirate4x4.com user group, could propose and promote our own "Plan" taking and leaving the ideas we want. I am hoping that ESP looks at the voting and builds a few new plans that reflect the votes and e-mails received after the workshop.

Keep December 4th open.

Thanks (I am glad someone reads this forum).

I hope the shock value of getting stuck with only these four Alternatives will wake a few people up, and motivate them to make comments that group their choice of favored management strategies into a workable Alternative.

The options need to be grouped as you illustrated, and they can also be prioritized in stages to allow flexibility in management (i.e., "if approved strategy to have Volunteers monitor the Little Sluice is considered ineffective over the Memorial Day weekend, then action to reduce the challenge in the Little Sluice is agreed to in advance.")

The job is easier for the ESP if clubs and individuals present an (or a few) Alternative (leave no guesswork as to what you want). I would hope that clubs local to the trail would band together and author their favored Alternative, and then publish it to solicit support from forums like the PBB (have people from the 4x4 community write in support of the Alternative)?

Has any club taken the lead on an effort like this, and is there link to a copy of what has been assembled on the web (and I apologize if I failed to read an Alternative already published, that I should have known about)?

Happy Trails!