Pirate 4x4 banner

ROC meeting update?

1K views 13 replies 6 participants last post by  resqme 
#1 ·
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?
 
#2 ·
What, you don't want to wait 29 more days until the minutes are published? :p

It was a short meeting yesterday; no Eldorado National Forest staff were present (the story is that all were in a meeting with the new Forest Supervisor).

The admin draft of the EIR is in review at the county -- their goal is to have the Draft EIR formally released by 08/21/06, which will mark the formal start of the 45-day public review and comment period. I did comment on the interesting difference between NEPA, where agencies are obliged to submit a range of alternatives, and the County's CEQA EIR, which will essentially present either the county's recommended alternative or a no-change alternative (no range -- just two alternatives).

The resolution to formalize the ROC was pushed to next meeting -- Don and I will work this around in email to try to facilitate that approval. It does us little good to just review the draft at the meeting -- realistically, folks need time to consider it in advance, and tougher still, the priority to actually do so.

Merlin Scott and Lt. Marty Hackett were in attendance representing the EDC Sheriffs Office, and gave a pretty good report on trail contacts and tickets written. Their priority to focus on education more than enforcement is clear: no tickets have been written by the County this summer, even though they have booked many more hours on the trail than any past year (i.e. all tickets have been written by Forest Service). Merlin will be working to extend this educational approachg by leading two training sessions with Rubicon Trail Patrol over the next few weekends. :cool2:

The County is proceeding forward with discussions of repairing the Gerle Creek bridge that was washed out in 86 and adding a new bridge at Ellis Creek. They've submitted a grant request to OHMVR for planning these bridges, and are in discussions with vendors with the current direction set for identifying cost for pre-fab structures, as opposed to on-site builds. I expectthat there will be much more info released about this in 2007.

Suggestions for FOTR:
* continue to mark the trail better (signs, reflectors, and etc.) - suggestion was made to set reflectors at halfway points between existing reflectors through the bowl
* 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.

There were many side discussions, as usual, but those were the big issues. Other discussions: Fox-Wheldon (sp?) property, closed 'Low Road' to slabs, open 'High Road' through the Loon Bowl, successful FOTR July Tahoe-side project, upcoming August FOTR Walker Hill work project, review of Miller Creek 2005 project, early-season field trip for 2007 during melt.

Randii
 
#4 ·
randii said:
, upcoming August FOTR Walker Hill work project, review of Miller Creek 2005 project, early-season field trip for 2007 during melt.

Randii
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: ) .

also - from what Ive read of your recent posts , I can ask , will you have a running rig by then :D ?
 
#5 ·
Rockhugger said:
also - from what Ive read of your recent posts , I can ask, will you have a running rig by then :D ?
I'm not buying you any more beers if you keep asking these tough questions about running vehicles! :p

Randii (who parks a MEAN Amigo!)
 
#6 ·
Exactly what I was hoping for, Randi, thanks.

Can you educate me as to the intent of the upcoming FOTR Walker Hill project? What will be the scope of the project?

Thanks.
 
#7 ·
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)

And mostly because I enjoy water crossings.(just add another strike to the look but dont touch theory):( :mad3:
 
#8 ·
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.
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.

I know Jack Sweeney is on our side but I'd like to see him push a little harder on SMUD. At one point I thought I heard that the funds to move the road there were already in the Countys control. Maybe we need to follow up on that.






.
 
#9 ·
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?
The main purposes is to improve drainage from the trail and help harden the trail to travel.
* rebuilding/lengthening log ramp at the bottom of the hill (FOTR installed this a few years back and it has worked pretty well to prevent further lowering of the trail surface
* small drainage feature just around the corner from the log ramp before Walker's Rock (FOTR did this a few years ago, as well, but without major excavation, this is a seasonal measure that will need rework each year, likely)
* major rolling dip at the top of Walker Hill, just past the decomposed granite section that requires major articulation (much digging required here, but this should really help minimize further waterflow along the trail and help make the ramp last longer)

Actual changes to the trail for vehicles will be fairly minimal -- but much different for drops of water. :p

Randii
 
#10 ·
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)
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.

The agencies consider Gerle to be a bridge REPAIR and not a new bridge, so it is pretty simple for them... even though you are correct, Ryan, that most users on the trail have no idea where the bridge was, or no recollection that a bridge was there.

As far as the Gerle bridge repair goes, they aren't asking for our help or support really -- they are just doing it. The part that affects us most is that we're likely to get an engineered crossing at Ellis Creek out of it, and we need that to help keep continued access to the Rubicon. These seem like separate issues to me, but they are linked as the agencies look at them.

Randii
 
#11 ·
Simple Man said:
As was mentioned in another thread, we need to demand that SMUD step up and fullfill their promisses.
Agreed, violently. Any long-term solution needs to be thrashed through or around SMUD -- this wait-and-see business can't continue forever.

THAT SAID, this section of the trail needs a band-aid sooner rather than later, and I back Merlin's suggestion that FOTR do this as a minor work project for fall, focusing on just the 10' or so of trail that is the biggest problem. A small crew could knock out a repair that would hold for a few years, and in that time, the politicking and finagling should be done (leverage from FERC relicensing, EDC RTMP, and etc.)

Long-term, IMHO, the right solution is to cut the trail deeper into the hill-side, but we need SMUD to step up to the commitments they made YEARS ago to accomplish that, as it will require significant effort.

Randii
 
#12 ·
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? This seems like a major cause of the accelerated erosion in the area.
 
#13 ·
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?
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.
Agreed that this is a major cause of the accelerated erosion in the area. Look at the dirt lines the next time you drive through this section of the trail to see how fair below the forest floor the trail has gone... and most of that is done by water, which comes onto the trail up by the treeline further up the trail, and stays on the trail until that log ramp.
Randii
 
#14 ·
I think you're right, we are talking about the same thing. I also remember when the upper mud section was 2 to 3 feet higher, then it had twin ruts in it for a while, and now the whole width of the trail it has dropped. Reminds me of the twenty year deterioration of Dollar Hole before the meadow rehabilitation. We might do well to try a similar solution up there (water bar or diversion ditch across the trail by the big tree?). Just some thoughts.

I am firming up getting that Saturday off (I am scheduled to work that day)...if I can I will be there. Thanks again for the info.
 
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