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!!
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!!