Pirate 4x4 banner

What I heard at the ROC meeting

2K views 18 replies 9 participants last post by  JoshC 
#1 ·
I decided to start a separate thread for this because the other ROC thread has a lot of opinions (that's good!), but I'm not seeing a lot of specific reporting about what was said. Now, it should be noted that I missed the first 45 minutes of the meeting and also that I didn't completely understand every single thing that was said, so these comments may not be complete. That being said, here's what I observed being heard:

Tom Celio, the Deputy Director of Maintenance for El Dorado County Department of Transportation said regarding the demoliton of Gatekeeper that, "We felt that the decision needed to be made at the agency level", meaning that he felt that the DOT had the right to make a decision like Gatekeeper without specific review and that because it was within their mandate, that it was appropriate. I disagree with this, and feel that in the absence of a completed and approved RTMP, the DOT should tread very lightly when it comes to "trail maintenance".

On the other hand, he (Tom) also said, "We're not going to run roughshod over anybody" and "We should use less explosives, if we use them in the future". Regarding the use of explosives, he also said we (the County) should do "smaller, incremental, work". He did defend Gatekeeper, saying, "What we did worked well".

Another ROC member, a representative from one of the Jeep clubs (Dennis Mayer, maybe, not sure?) said of the Gatekeeper work, "At the time of the (last) ROC meeting there was no definition as to what and how much work was going to be done" and, "we were misled".

I stood up and made the point that the minutes of the meeting where the decision to dynamite Gatekeeper was discussed and made were not posted to the EDC Parks and Recreation website in a timely manner and that they were, in fact, still not posted. I was told by Dan Bolster of Parks and Rec that, "there is simply not enough time between meetings to get the minutes up". I contend that he has to take the time to do the work eventually, why not take it within a few days of the meeting instead of waiting until after the information is effective? Rich Platt, a resource officer for the El Dorado National Forest told me on this subject, "If you had been at the meetings like the rest of us, you would have known about it". He is right about that, for sure, and I plan not to let that mistake happen again.

A member of the audience who didn't really identify himself said that he, "felt that some members didn't fully appreciate the value of Gatekeeper as a filter", so that point of view was out there. I actually don't think anyone replied to that, but I am not sure. It was pointed out that on the day the demolition was done that two rigs came out of the Rubicon through gatekeeper and took an hour to do so. It was pointed out that some members felt that if it takes two rigs an hour to get through, it is too MUCH of a filter. As you might imagine, there were plenty of under the breath laughter in the room at the thought of taking an hour to put two rigs through GK.

OK, enough about GK...there was also specific reference to mitigaton work at Little Sluice and at Walker to be undertaken "very soon", and there was some discussion of the user groups coming up with an inventory of areas they considered "problem spots" for erosion and surface water contamination.

Regarding law enforcement presence in the Con, Dennis Cullen, a LEO from ENF stood up and made the folowing comments, among others: 1)The quads didn't belong to the EDSO and were being returned to the state for use elsewhere and considered a failed experiment, 2) the EDSO has had such difficulty hiring and lost so many officers by attrition and retirement that the EDSO undersherriff could not commit to any level of enforcement in the Con at all except for the three big weekends (4th of July, Memorial Day, and Labor Day). He also had a discussion of some other possible alternatives such as Forest Protection Officer (a no gun technician with the ability to write citations for some violations, hired on a seasonal basis). He said that the EDSO Cherokee would continue to be seen in the Con because it is an important "presence", but that all agencies were clear that foot patrols create the most effective enforcement. He also discussed the possibility of getting a grant to provide enforcement, but that had some potential downside as well.

There was a short discussion of Adopt-a-Trail programs for sections of the Con, but that the County DOT wasn't ready to implement a program because of legal or liability issues. The program is a year away from being implemented.

THe RTMP sections 6, 8, and 9 were not approved by the ROC this meeting, but members are pushing for progress and it sounded like those sections will be in process as of next meeting. These are important sections as they cover topics such as trail maintenance standards, trail carrying capacity (limitng the number of users), and Trail Use Agreements or TUA's (permits to run in the Con).

I made the mistake of not attending these meetings in the past. That won't happen again. Let's see if we can force the meeting into a larger room for next month.

NEXT MEETING---February 9th at 8:30 AM!!
 
See less See more
#2 ·
resqme said:
A member of the audience who didn't really identify himself ..................SNIP
That was me and we did the introductions at the beginning of the meeting.

Do not be tardy next time! :flipoff2: :laughing:
 
#3 ·
Good summary, John! :cool2:

Completion of the RTMP should really improve accountability -- after that happens, there won't be room for 'agency actions' outside of public review. Formalizing the RTMP should define process and budget, going forward.

We need to keep the heat on the County to post minutes of the ROC in a timely fashion -- this is even more important absent an approved RTMP, as it is the only real public notice that currently exists. I get pretty tired of the "if you'd only cared enough to go to the meetings, you'd be informed" line of reasoning, as these meetings are scheduled at a time and place that pretty much means I can't get to work until 2pm. :(

Randii
 
#5 ·
randii said:
Good summary, John! :cool2:
We need to keep the heat on the County to post minutes of the ROC in a timely fashion -- this is even more important absent an approved RTMP, as it is the only real public notice that currently exists. I get pretty tired of the "if you'd only cared enough to go to the meetings, you'd be informed" line of reasoning, as these meetings are scheduled at a time and place that pretty much means I can't get to work until 2pm. :(
Randii
At least you can go to work, the travel time to and from the bay area makes it so I take a whole day off...
 
#8 ·
CrazyHorse said:
At least you can go to work, the travel time to and from the bay area makes it so I take a whole day off...
Yeah, but I heard you went to the bar afterwards, and I'm thinking I should have joined ya! Thanks for making the time, regardless... :cool2:

Randii
 
#9 · (Edited)
resqme said:
Guilty as charged, Scout, and sorry about that. Did anybody actually answer your remark about GK being a filter?
The short guy from the USFS said it was too good of a filter and there was resource damage on private property from dickheads** finding a route around the GK.


**My words not his.
 
#10 ·
Bob, that was Rich Platte (sp?). He's more nervous about damage to archaelogical sites and waterway downhill and North of Gatekeeper.

Thanks, all who made time to attend! :grinpimp:

Randii
 
#11 ·
Great, then he wont mind if I oficially invite one of the States RWQMD SWPPPs Hydraulogists to the next meeting.
Tom Celio is either behind in his reading of the States Mandates to the counties regarding SWPPPs. or he is trying to justify that seperation of individual projects, keeps them excempt of a larger encompassing project. The problem is that they have already laid out an overall plan that publicly lumps them together as a project that undeniably does not qualify as excempt trail or road maintenance. No RWQMD manager would have allowed them to blast in November without an NOI and approved BMPs.
Invite the States Regional Manager to party and see just how well his line of reasoning holds up, under the very clear current directives from the State.
I will have to keep in mind just how lax the county takes thier mandate to enforce the SWPPPs program, I can save thousands of $$$ in BMPs the next time I build there. Ill be sure to use thier current example as my deffense if they call me on it.

resqme said:
Tom Celio, the Deputy Director of Maintenance for El Dorado County Department of Transportation said regarding the demoliton of Gatekeeper that, "We felt that the decision needed to be made at the agency level", meaning that he felt that the DOT had the right to make a decision like Gatekeeper without specific review and that because it was within their mandate, that it was appropriate. I disagree with this, and feel that in the absence of a completed and approved RTMP, the DOT should tread very lightly when it comes to "trail maintenance".

NEXT MEETING---February 9th at 8:30 AM!!
 
#12 ·
Randii,
They are using this tact to try and bypass thier legall requirement to notify the State and to put in place a field manual of all planned activities and the BMP required to keep them compliant. Its the equivelant of a contractor trying to justify that he isnt moveing 50 yrds of dirt, because he is really only moving some spoonfulls of dirt, (like 10 million spoonfulls).
Its illegal and it is clearly out of compliance, and thier actions will affect many good people and organizations down the road who are complicant in their actions. Filing with the State is simple, only costs $750, and would only delay them as long as it takes them to put together and submit a comprensive plan of scope and BMPs. They are messing with an agency that does not like other agencies to act more omnipotent than they are. "This is my county and nobody tells me what to do in my county" attitude. runs rampant in rural counties, and is often dealt with harshly by the State or Feds to make an example. I was personally involved in an action of the State against the County of Madera regarding the removal of Oak trees non compliant with State mandates, and the States response affected funding to bike trails, local schools,etc,..... and affected the elections at the following cycle. I know many of the people that they will anwer to if they remain on this course and their ignorance is bliss gamble does not pan out.
A simple NOI (Notice of Intent) would quickly answer whether they are in or outside of the mandates, If they are excempt thier would be no action taken if they arent they would simplly need to comply and do their work legally.

randii said:
Good summary, John! :cool2:

Completion of the RTMP should really improve accountability -- after that happens, there won't be room for 'agency actions' outside of public review. Formalizing the RTMP should define process and budget, going forward.

We need to keep the heat on the County to post minutes of the ROC in a timely fashion -- this is even more important absent an approved RTMP, as it is the only real public notice that currently exists. I get pretty tired of the "if you'd only cared enough to go to the meetings, you'd be informed" line of reasoning, as these meetings are scheduled at a time and place that pretty much means I can't get to work until 2pm. :(

Randii
 
#15 ·
Jeff, I understand what you are saying, and if I believed there was any sort of full plan for the trail, I'd be lobbying hard for initiating a SWPPPs-related NOI. As problematic as the ROC finds it to identify which projects should be started, I'm certain that there is no such coherent plan.

Blasting in November, without leaving adequate time for FOTR to get in and rip-rap the area was bad execution, but my focus is to get that rip-rap planned and completed sooner, and to sweat the process later. That may be short-sighted, but I think we're working on a project-to-project basis until the RTMP gets finalized.

I certainly lack the expertise and experience that you have with storm and surface waters, but I'm balancing that against FOTR's significant experience with these agencies and this trail, and going along with their advice to avoid locking us into an NOI and structured BMPs.

Let's keep this card in our hands for now, and not play it yet. IMHO, El Dorado County is not running wild, and just made a bad decision at Gatekeeper. With appropriate rip-rap work, we can minimize erosion -- and with some good equipment on hand, we can even place some larger rocks to make sure that Gatekeeper continues to be an effective trail filter.

Randii
 
#16 ·
resqme said:
...snip....

There was a short discussion of Adopt-a-Trail programs for sections of the Con, but that the County DOT wasn't ready to implement a program because of legal or liability issues. The program is a year away from being implemented.

....snip....

NEXT MEETING---February 9th at 8:30 AM!!

I beleive this is a smoke screen comment. Counties have Adopt-a-Trail type acitivites on-going without the legal or liability issues in many other areas.

Through UFWDA, we have an extensive collection of information in relation to requirements for Adopt-a-Trail programs.

If the infomration at www.ufwda.org does not answer your question, we have legal counsel available to address specific issues.
 
#17 · (Edited)
If I recall correctly, the Adopt-A-Trail issues had to do with it being County sponsored and approved. They are perfectly fine with an informal (i.e. user organized) program. Anything that officially has a county name on it has to go through the county. I don't think it's a smokescreen, I think the county was just recognizing that it will take them forever. Tom said they've had an adopt-a-road program that's been stuck in the county lawyer's office for months and months. Frankly, I don't think we need the county or FS for this, it can be organized effectively by FOTR in my opinion, using the UFWDA model as appropriate.
 
#18 ·
randii said:
Jeff, I understand what you are saying, and if I believed there was any sort of full plan for the trail, I'd be lobbying hard for initiating a SWPPPs-related NOI. As problematic as the ROC finds it to identify which projects should be started, I'm certain that there is no such coherent plan.

Blasting in November, without leaving adequate time for FOTR to get in and rip-rap the area was bad execution, but my focus is to get that rip-rap planned and completed sooner, and to sweat the process later. That may be short-sighted, but I think we're working on a project-to-project basis until the RTMP gets finalized.

I certainly lack the expertise and experience that you have with storm and surface waters, but I'm balancing that against FOTR's significant experience with these agencies and this trail, and going along with their advice to avoid locking us into an NOI and structured BMPs.

Let's keep this card in our hands for now, and not play it yet. IMHO, El Dorado County is not running wild, and just made a bad decision at Gatekeeper. With appropriate rip-rap work, we can minimize erosion -- and with some good equipment on hand, we can even place some larger rocks to make sure that Gatekeeper continues to be an effective trail filter.

Randii
Randii,
I only wish that there was an "I'll comply if its convenient", clause in the SWPPPs program, but there isnt. Just look at your last statement,"rip rap" "good equiptment", "larger Rocks", these are all activities that make the gatekeeper section of the county road alone, in need of submitting an NOI. And the fact that so far it appears that they are only concerned with projects beneficial to the JJ, could be mistaken as a construction for profit project at the county expense, in the hands of the right attorney.I dont trust the county any farther than I could throw them, they are gonna jump at the next oppurtunity to force thier agenda upon us the second the weather allows them.
The county needs to put toghter a comprehensive program, now that they have started down the path they have. And if they are claiming the excemption for municipalities serving populations of 100K or less, that statute has run out as of April 2004. Thier John Wayne attitude is gonna screw the pooch for everyone involved if they dont pull thier head out.
This would all be downright laughable if I was watching a competing Contractor bumble through with such incompetence, but the fact that its happening on a public trail is just pathetic.
 
#19 ·
H8monday said:
This would all be downright laughable if I was watching a competing Contractor bumble through with such incompetence, but the fact that its happening on a public trail is just pathetic.
I'm still pretty naive about all this and most of what you are saying is way over my head but I have a dumb naive question... ready... Is this something the Eldo County and its agencies as well as USFS can even claim they aren't aware of? Is it the responsibility of the stakeholders at each of these agencies to know they are complient with this program prior to making such decisions?

Just wondering. Not that it matters. I wonder though... with all this said is there something we can do? I mean, it sounds like you have something here.

Is there any negative impact pushing this issue might have on the trail and/or access to the trail?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top