I couldn't get away from work for the ROC meeting yesterday. Can someone give us a brief update, especially progress on the ROC resolution?
thank you Randii for your time and effort on these issues - also for taking the time to post all of that- that's a lot of stuff to remember and type ( for me anyway , :smokin: ) .randii said:, upcoming August FOTR Walker Hill work project, review of Miller Creek 2005 project, early-season field trip for 2007 during melt.
Randii
I'm not buying you any more beers if you keep asking these tough questions about running vehicles!Rockhugger said:also - from what Ive read of your recent posts , I can ask, will you have a running rig by then ?
As was mentioned in another thread, we need to demand that SMUD step up and fullfill their promisses. I have no problem with FOTR providing the labor, that way we know it will be done correctly. But SMUD needs to step up: fund the materials, feed the workers (lunches and dinner), make a dontation to RTF/FOTR for doing their job.Suggestions for FOTR:
* schedule a work project for the 10-year-old section of trail that was rerouted up the hill from Buck when SMUD raised the water level. Multiple rollovers there this year.
The main purposes is to improve drainage from the trail and help harden the trail to travel.resqme said:Can you educate me as to the intent of the upcoming FOTR Walker Hill project? What will be the scope of the project?
I am not really in favor of the bridge, either, but consider that this is the main county road, and the true Rubicon access... and that the current road is a Forest Service road that they have generously allowed us to use since '86. I'd feel much more confident with the County retaining full claim to access than trusting different agencies. If the bridge is not repaired/replaced, IMHO, we are at risk to loosing access to the old county road (used to go across the bridge) between Airport Flat and Lawyers Cow Camp.BEAR said:I still am strongly against a bridge at Gerle creek.
99% of the people have no idea where this is or have ever used it. (total waist of money)
Agreed, violently. Any long-term solution needs to be thrashed through or around SMUD -- this wait-and-see business can't continue forever.Simple Man said:As was mentioned in another thread, we need to demand that SMUD step up and fullfill their promisses.
Miscommunication, I think we are talking about the same thing -- probably because Walker Hill is different things to different people (start vs. finish). The new water bar / rolling dip will be just uphill of the decomposed granite section where there is a small clearing on the south side of the trail... there used to be a spur trail leading southwest to a campsite.resqme said:Thanks for the Walker update. In addition is it possible to try to divert water flowing down the trail so that it doesn't flow through the decomposed granite section? Maybe a water bar just above the DG section?