Pirate 4x4 banner

Rubicon Trail Master Plan Draft - March 2006

3K views 44 replies 19 participants last post by  KiGrind 
#1 ·
Hot off the presses! I mean...Hot off the hard drive!

This came out today, this afternoon. I haven't yet read through it but I suggest we all should.

The Notice of Preparation has all of the details about where to send comments and suggestions. It is on the same page as the RTMP.

There is a thiry day window for comments. It starts today. Comments are due by April 24th.



http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Rubicon/MasterPlanDraftMarch2006.html



RUBICON TRAIL MASTER PLAN DRAFT - MARCH 2006

The report is available in .pdf format. If you are having problems reading or printing a pdf, please consider updating your Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It's FREE! Get Acrobat Reader

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the El Dorado County Rubicon Trail Master Plan


Note: Links labeled as *TC (Tracked Changes) show the document revisions (strikeouts and insertions) since the March 2005 draft document.

Cover Page [1.78 MB]
Table of Contents *TC
Chapter 1 Introduction *TC
Chapter 2 Planning Area and Legal Authorities *TC
Chapter 3 RTMP Goals *TC
Chapter 4 RTMP Elements *TC
Element 1: Trail Management *TC
Element 2: Facilities *TC
Element 3: Law Enforcement Programs *TC
Element 4: Educational Programs *TC
Element 5: Transportation Programs *TC
Element 6: Trail Maintenance and Resource Protection *TC
Element 7: Agency and Community Coordination Programs *TC
Element 8: Carrying Capacity and Trail Use Limits *TC
Element 9: Trail Use Agreements and Requirements *TC
Element 10: Monitoring and Reporting Programs *TC
Element 11: Regulations and Ordinances *TC
Element 12: Funding *TC
Chapter 5 RTMP Element Implementation *TC
Chapter 6 RTMP Revision Process *TC
Chapter 7 References *TC
Chapter 8 List of Preparers *TC
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 4
Figure 5 [1.31 MB]
Figure 6
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Setting
Appendix B Memorandum Regarding Rubicon Trail Law Enforcement
Appendix C Trail Restoration Guidelines And Supporting Information
Appendix D Relevant County Resolutions
Appendix E RTMP Funding Requirements and Potential Sources
Appendix F Correspondence from the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division
Appendix G Public Workshop Summaries
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Time to get to work! Even though this is as exciting as watching paint dry, please write something up and submit it.

Its no big deal....really...just the future of the Rubicon...for...decades...
 
#5 ·
I read through a pretty good bulk of the plan earlier tonight. It looks as though the price of a TUA will be based off the cost to implement the plan. (In a very short explanation) How they will set the TUA cost in phase 1 is a unknown to me.

I didn't really see anything that really jumped out at me. It all seemed pretty much inline with what we have been seeing with this thing over the past year.

However, the one piece that kinda bothers me above & beyond anything else is the way they set up the tiered approach to TUA's and what it means for user limits, etc. It seems awfully ambiguous. No real concrete statements as to what would cause them to move to phase 2....just really generalized statements. Seems to me that we need to push for them to at least set some sort of publicized expectations so we dont get to year 2 and then they just decide for whatever reason that yup its time for phase 2.

Another thing that seemed odd to me in the TUA section was the list of items that each rig would be required to carry. As a club we carry all of the listed items (toilets, spill kits, etc.) but the way its written it seems like every user would need to have this stuff on board....seems a little ridiculous that a group of 5 people would need to carry 5 toilets. (Hopefully I read this piece wrong)

Need to really dig into it this week and get my letter written.
 
#6 ·
I am reading it now. So far I am on Chapter 3. The one thing that jumps out at me here is the line

"Rubicon trail Law enforcment program Responsiblities of this postion will include, but not limited to developing the Laws of the Rubicon"

That concerns me because who has input on these laws, Will they just be based on the General DOT rules or are there going to be custom laws only governed on the rubicon.
 
#7 ·
This is not good. "The County will establish an ordinance that designates the ‘Little Sluice’ as a County Historic Site and outlaws modification of the Little Sluice and its northern rock face." I agree with not being allowed to pull boulders off the north face but this will allow the county to close this section of the trail. Potentially any one driving through the little sluice is altering the trail. Furthermore making it a "historical site” would make it an eyes only display. If they do that it could also lead to making the entire Rubicon a Historical Trail only allowing hikers to transverse it. No more rigs.
 
#8 ·
MilTroy said:
This is not good. "The County will establish an ordinance that designates the ‘Little Sluice’ as a County Historic Site and outlaws modification of the Little Sluice and its northern rock face." I agree with not being allowed to pull boulders off the north face but this will allow the county to close this section of the trail. Potentially any one driving through the little sluice is altering the trail. Furthermore making it a "historical site” would make it an eyes only display. If they do that it could also lead to making the entire Rubicon a Historical Trail only allowing hikers to transverse it. No more rigs.

I don't think "eye only display" is the intent.


6.5.2 The Rubicon Trail Technician, working with representatives of the ROC and the ENF, will develop and execute plans to restore the Little Sluice area (see Figure 5) to conditions that approximate the conditions existing in the early 1990’s.


6.5.3 The two existing Little Sluice Bypass (see Figure 5) will be retained for the foreseeable future as authorized variants of the Trail.
 
#10 ·
atvobsession said:
6.5.2 The Rubicon Trail Technician, working with representatives of the ROC and the ENF, will develop and execute plans to restore the Little Sluice area (see Figure 5) to conditions that approximate the conditions existing in the early 1990’s.
Would be nice to see FOTR listed as a rep when these plans are being developed.
 
#11 ·
RCKRATZ said:
Would be nice to see FOTR listed as a rep when these plans are being developed.
Make that comment in writing, and perhaps the County will deliver. FOTR has repeatedly asked, cajoled, and reminded that words be included to address volunteer organizations, but it never sticks. We get acknowledged well at the time, but it never seems to make it into future documents.

Prep your comments in writing, and let's get this doc cleaned up. We've worked hard to get it where it is (better than it was), and there's still a ways to go.

Randii
 
#13 ·
RCKRATZ said:
Another thing that seemed odd to me in the TUA section was the list of items that each rig would be required to carry. As a club we carry all of the listed items (toilets, spill kits, etc.) but the way its written it seems like every user would need to have this stuff on board....seems a little ridiculous that a group of 5 people would need to carry 5 toilets. (Hopefully I read this piece wrong)

Yes....I see a very big difference between....every vehicle carrying a fire extinguisher....versus everyone vehicle carrying a TOILET! :shaking:
 
#14 ·
Here are some other things I noticed and plan on writing alternatives to.

1.3.2- ROC committee members will be appointed by the board of supervisors and will include a minimum of five persons and a maximum of seven......

1.3.3- ...... The ROC will include a minimum of two individuals who are active participants in OHV use and are considered by the board to generally represent OHV user-group interests.

In my opinion this sucks. I think we need a minimum of at least a 50/50 split between ohv users & others. It is an ohv trail after all. Board of supervisors have all say into who the members of the ROC will include so that potentially be problematic as well

2.2.1 Camping will be prohibited within an established buffer area surrounding waterbodies

Only reason I list this is because no where does it say what the buffer is going to be.

2.6.1 The county, through coordination with the ROC will install and maintain signage along the trail......

All fine and dandy, but why not use the user groups to assist with this. I can't see the county effectively signing the trail along its entire length. Loon Lake, maybe. Buck Island and beyond, highly doubtful

2.8.2 Maintenance and modification of trail signage will be perfomed by the groundsperson.

Again. Same as the last comment. Why not have the user groups assist?

4.4.5.2 The county, in conjunction with the ROC, will consider developing a museum/visitor center that would include cultural and natural history information concerning the Rubicon Trail and the surrounding areas.

All fine and dandy, but why is the cost of my TUA going to pay for this?

8.1.1.2 Repeated instances of illegal parking and/or vehicle operation

Other identified conditions which may indicate the need for resource protection action.


This is in regards to the escalation in regards to the TUA's. Only reason I list it is because they state that if any thresholds are exceeded then it is grounds to move to phase 2. I dont see anywhere in the plan where it lists what these thresholds are. Is 2 instances considered a repeated offense? What are other identified conditions? Pretty wide open to any interpretation imo.

Again we are leaving an awful lot up to the powers that be....

8.1.2.4 Use restrictions in phase 2- A number of vehicles equal to 80 percent of the maximum number of vehicles estimated by the trail supervisor to have been on the trail at any given time during the period within which threshold exceedance occurred or 600 vehicles, whichever is fewer.


An estimate by the trail supervisor. Why not an accurate count? Why not use the 600 number? This scares me because lets just say for instance that its a weekday and 5 idiots drive off trail. There are only ~50 there. Now your number is going to be a max of 80% of 50. Not good.

8.1.3.1 Same as above but phase 3- 50 to 80% of phase 2

Same verbiage as the last one so I have the same response

9.1.10- The TUA fee is waived for the following:

El Dorado & Placer County Staff
State & Federal Agency Staff
Owners of Private Land

Why does this not include the members of adopt-a-trail clubs and other volunteers that the county will be using to drive some of this plan? Phase 1 it doesnt seem so bad since its a yearly TUA, but what happens when that goes to a monthly or weekly? You go up to a work party, doing work FOR the county and yet you still have to pay???? I call bs

9.1.15 The TUA fee will be determined annually by the trail supervisor and will be based on the actual costs associated with the Rubicon Trail management activities and projects.

OK. How do you set the fees for year one with no accurate count of people? Why isnt year one a fire permit style so they can work on getting a better count? If thats not viable the cost should be kept low until they get an accurate count.

9.1.16 All monies collected through the TUA system will be intended for use by the county in Rubicon Trail management-related activities

Should say will be used. Not intended. Leaves the possibility there for money to be bled off.

9.3.2 The trail supervisor may implement a daily or weekend TUA system with a limited number of TUA's issued on a daily or weekend basis to achieve use level reductions.

Just noting this because of my prior post noting having to pay to work.

11.1.2 ......Trail modification has to have the written approval of and authorization from the county DOT......Trail modifications include, but are not limited to, the felling of snags.....

So if I go on a snow run and there is a huge snag in the way and its illegal for me to go around it based on the new forest rules....and I can't cut the snag until DOT gives me notice. Awesome.

Figure 9- RTMP Update Process

I see nothing in there that allows for user input by way of any organized meetings or otherwise.
 
#15 ·
Another one that WheelingPiazza noticed.

The adopt a trail thing is interesting.

Key points are

1. User groups participating in the “Adopt-A-Trail” program would be expected to perform maintenance activities/conduct work events at a minimum of four times per season.

2. The Trail Supervisor will develop a manual for training of trail maintenance and a listing of potential environmental review and permitting requirements. The manual will include a listing of projects which may be
categorically exempt from CEQA (although certain environmental review

Those both concern me. To me its almost like we do not have any input as to what and how we see fit. ITs all up to the trail supervisor and were "EXPECTED" to do it 4 times a season.

FYI our club has an adopt-a-trail agreement at Fordyce and its for 1 work party a year. Requiring 4 seems excessive
 
#16 ·
Keith one quick thing. The definition of snag is a dead tree that has not fallen yet.

I'll tell you the reason why the user group is not in there. There is no user group. FOTR is a loose coalition and is the primary visible entity. There is noone to hold accountable. No organization, no real membership. Just guys willing to help. You won't see the county naming anyone in that regard. However, they could mention using volunteer, user labor. I know it was in there at one point.
 
#17 ·
ok same idea different verbiage on the user groups. I did notice that it was written into the plan in some other areas, and it just seemed strange to not see it more.

Thanks for the "snag" definition. I was thinking a 1/2 fallen tree not a standing dead one :D
 
#18 ·
RCKRATZ said:
I think we need a minimum of at least a 50/50 split between ohv users & others. It is an ohv trail after all. Board of supervisors have all say into who the members of the ROC will include so that potentially be problematic as well
Agreed on getting a better balance -- everyone is going to be looking to us for volunteer support, so realistically, they need to be willing to allow us a meaningful voice on trail issues. Especially given the sway that non-OHV users have already had in creating the RTMP framework itself.

I may make a separate alternative that does nothing other than run through the document and flag out where ESP could/should have put FOTR, 'user group,' or 'county-approved volunteer group.' We have addressed this time and time again, and it amazes me that ESP won't PUT IT IN WRITING... especially considering their claimed sensitivity to things that cost the county money.

Anybody ever seen the museum/visitor center discussed before? Whose whim was this? Anybody else amused that it is scoped to include "cultural and natural history information concerning the Rubicon Trail and the surrounding areas," but there's nothing about actual OHV use? :rolleyes: I'd be a lot more willing to support such an idea if the first item listed were about OHV use becase the Rubicon is, after all, an OHV Trail!

Good analysis, Keith, especially with respect to defining the threshholds for escalation of restriction. If we can't nail down the actual thressholds, MUCH more needs to be defined with respect to the process of defining them.

Again we are leaving an awful lot up to the powers that be...
That's how they want it. We're re-assured to 'trust us' but that's a whole lot of trust to have... and even if we do trust whichever individuals sit in whichever office, the reality is that government jobs have a high rate of turnover, and we need a plan that defines the process well enough to keep it on track, even if all the folks currently in power move on to other gigs.

Randii
 
#19 ·
So many comments to make, so little time. Get your comments submitted to the County in writing, folks... they are obliged to respond this time around. Even if you have commented before, even if it is the same exact comments, get them submitted in writing.

Too many good comments have been dismissed too soon thus far, and this plan is fundamentally almost the same plan as was submitted and resoundingly rejected by the public before. They've moved some furniture around and repainted a bit, but the floorplan is pretty much the same.

Get your comments in!

Randii
 
#20 ·
Hey Randii quick question for you. Would it be more effective to make general comments like I was doing there, or just to take the exact writing in the plan and alter it to reflect how I feel it should be written? Or both?
 
#21 · (Edited)
I plan to put it in writing but I want to put this out there.

In funding, 12.1.2, it states that the ROC will review the TUA annually and make the necessary adjustments to the fee's so that they are in balance with the program costs. My question is what happens if incoming revenues drastically fall off making the "fee" unrealistically high? How will this potential shortcoming affect access to the trail?
 
#22 ·
5.1.3 The County will designate Ice House Road (from the Loon Lake Chalet to the
spillway) as a combined use road. Combined use will only be allowed during
daylight hours, and the vehicle operator must have a valid driver’s license.

For my rig this is not a problem as it is street legal. But for the non-street legal rigs, could be a problem.
This to me says that if any non-street legal rig arives after daylight hours you will have to wait till day break to drive from the parking lot to the trail head if you arrive after dark.:shaking:
I'm I wrong
 
#23 ·
RCKRATZ said:
Hey Randii quick question for you. Would it be more effective to make general comments like I was doing there, or just to take the exact writing in the plan and alter it to reflect how I feel it should be written? Or both?
Sorry, I missed responding to this earlier, Keith. IMHO, general comments are too easy to ignore... or they can claim that they didn't know how to implement them. I suggest proposing changes to their plan.

I'm going to try to break out individual alternatives so that they can pick and choose the good. If I give it to them too complex, they may just chuck the good with the bad... as I'm sure that some of my points will be deemed as 'bad.'

Theoretically, we should be able to just submit general comments and have them listened to and implemented... but IMHO, that has worked poorly thus far. :(

Randii
 
#24 ·
right on, thats kinda what I figured. For the some of the stuff its going to be difficult to just alter 1 particular piece of the pie though....oh well, you do what you can I guess.

I have a question that maybe someone can answer. There is a rule in the plan right now that says EVERY rig has to carry a toilet/wag bags/etc. Whats the point in spending a boat load of money on developed poopers along the con if this is the case? Loon I can see. Wentworth I can see. But there was mention of possible development in yet to be identified locations (don't remember the exact verbiage off hand)
 
#25 ·
RCKRATZ said:
right on, thats kinda what I figured. For the some of the stuff its going to be difficult to just alter 1 particular piece of the pie though....oh well, you do what you can I guess.

I have a question that maybe someone can answer. There is a rule in the plan right now that says EVERY rig has to carry a toilet/wag bags/etc. Whats the point in spending a boat load of money on developed poopers along the con if this is the case? Loon I can see. Wentworth I can see. But there was mention of possible development in yet to be identified locations (don't remember the exact verbiage off hand)
I do not see the point of building poop shacks along the trail, with the above rule in place I say it is either pack it all out or build them just do not do both I cannot see how these poopshacks will be maintained I would like to see the rules say that a group/club can have one portable pooper in the group

Rusty
 
#26 ·
Element 1.3.4
The County Trail Supervisor will serve as facilitator of the ROC and will
coordinate and participate in ROC meetings. The Trail Supervisor will not be
a ROC committee member.



Since we have been told that Dan will stay on as the ROC chairperson, does this mean that Dan Bolster will be the Trail Supervisor?!?!?!
 
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