Pirate 4x4 banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Notice should go out soon, I just got this in an email so mark your calendars!!

Open House
For
The Rubicon Trail Easement and Resource Improvement Project
Where: Eldorado National Forest Supervisors’ Office at 100 Forni Road, Placerville CA 95667 in the Large Conference Room
When: September 28, 2011 from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm
The Eldorado National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to issue an easement to El Dorado County for a right-of-way for the Rubicon Trail, where it crosses National Forest System lands within the Eldorado National Forest, which will allow the County to conduct ongoing maintenance within the right-of-way and ensure County responsibility for actions within the easement. The EIS will allow the Forest Service to issue other authorizations to El Dorado County as necessary for the following actions; the construction of a new bridge at Ellis Creek, replacement of the FOTR bridge, construction and installation of vault toilets, construction of erosion control features as described in the Rubicon Trail Saturated Soil Water Quality Protection Plan (El Dorado County Department of Transportation, December 14, 2010) from Little Sluice to the County line, rehabilitate and close specified unauthorized routes, and install a vault toilet.* The proposal will also analyze the construction of a new bridge at Buck Island Reservoir Outlet, the designation of parking areas and the addition of unauthorized routes in proximity to the Rubicon Trail to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) to provide permanent access to important dispersed recreation areas.
The Open House is an opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the proposed project as well as provide feedback to the Eldorado National Forest concerning the project.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Your tax doll hairs at work!! This is from the County record.

“Approved to Proceed” Letters
In an attempt to comply with the Water Board order to provide a decision on a CE for the maintenance BMPs by August 24th, on Sunday August 21, 2011, at 2:45 p.m., the ENF District Ranger issued a letter entitled “Road Maintenance Approved to Proceed.” It noted that the County and ENF engineers had visited the Rubicon Trail on August 18th as planned. The engineers reviewed the Trail from Ellis Creek to Walker Hill, where maintenance BMPs had been installed in 2010, and from Walker Hill to Little Sluice, where similar work was planned during this summer. The letter recites that after the review, all three engineers concurred that the BMPs in the SSWQPP “are consistent with the definition of road maintenance used by both the County DOT and the Forest Service.” The letter recites that a similar review had been made by County and USFS engineers of the proposed work on the Airport Flat segment of Wentworth Springs Road, and once again all engineers agreed the proposed work “also meets the definition of road maintenance.” The letter also recites that in 2010, the ENF engineer had reviewed the Trail and determined that the work planned from Wentworth Springs Campground to Ellis Creek “also meets the definition of road maintenance,” including work on the variants included in the preferred route.
Four special items of work that the County was proposing, but which had not been listed in the BMP Toollbox or the SSWQPP, were determined to be road maintenance. These 4 special items are: (1) pulling side cast back onto the road surface, (2) using previously disturbed areas adjacent to the travelled way for stockpiles of material (i.e., crushed rock) to be used for maintenance, (3) installing rock check crossings and rock outlet protection in areas where water naturally flows (specifically at a location called Winter Camp which presents a unique drainage problem), and (4) replacement of the FOTR bridge (a short wooden bridge over a seasonal drainage). Finally the letter said that there were no “extraordinary circumstances” that might prevent a categorical exclusion from being issued. The letter concluded that “[m]aintenance as planned on Wentworth Springs Road (ELD-63) from Airport Flat to the intersection of 14N07 and on the Rubicon Trail from Wentworth Springs Campground to Little Sluice are approved for immediate implementation.” Also, approval was given to maintain the BMPs previously installed in the summers of 2009 and 2010 from Wentworth Springs Campground to Walker Hill.


This letter meant that, at last, the County could perform the work it had been planning on doing in the summer of 2011, even though the bulk of the summer work season had already been lost. However, the next day on Monday August 22, 2011 at 5:38, the County received a second letter which said that it was replacing the letter from the day before. This new letter of August 22 repeated the previous letter, except that it added a significant new limitation: all work had to be within the “traveled way,” defined in a diagram attached to the letter as the smallest possible part of the road surface, essentially in between the wheel ruts. This limitation to the “traveled way” eliminated any work on the road shoulders, or berms, or ditches, or cut slopes or fill slopes. This essentially meant that the County could not install any BMPs as listed in the SSWQPP, and could not do any work on the Trail that would control erosion or sedimentation.
Four minutes later, on August 22, 2011 at 5:42 p.m., the County received a third letter, which said that it replaced the first two letters. It repeated the approvals and restrictions of the second letter, but added an additional limitation. Not only could the County not work outside the “traveled way” as defined, but it also could not install the 4 separately listed items of work described above (sidecast, stockpiles, rock check crossings, and FOTR bridge).
Thus in the space of 27 hours, the County received three different letters constituting authority to proceed, each replacing its predecessor, and each adding a new restriction, so that the final letter prevents any substantial remedial work from being accomplished at all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
more from the County

II. WHERE ARE WE NOW?
As of September 1, 2011, the situation is as follows:
1.
The Programmatic Agreement has not been signed. The most recent version includes 2 items that it shouldn’t: the Area of Potential Effect (APE) should not include Wentworth Springs Road, which is a county maintained road that leads to the Rubicon Trail, and the PA should not include two private organizations (Rubicon Trail Foundation and Jeepers Jamboree, Inc.), who have not even been contacted about their inclusion. The currently proposed version of the PA appears to prevent construction of the Gerle Creek and Ellis Creek bridges until a final determination is made concerning the eligibility of the Rubicon Trail for the National Register of Historic Places, which may take years, and will surely cause the loss of the funding obtained for these bridges. It is not clear at this point what the effect of the PA will be, whether positive or negative, for any particular portion of the Rubicon Trail work. Unless and until this is clarified, the County is not inclined to sign the PA.
2.
It has been established that the ENF can issue approval to proceed documents without the PA having been signed. It has issued four such letters already.
3.
It has been established, and the ENF has agreed, that all BMPs described in the BMP toolbox, and delineated in the SSWQPP, constitute road maintenance as defined in the applicable federal laws and regulations, and are not road construction or reconstruction.

The work proposed for Wentworth Springs Road from Airport Flat to Wentworth Springs Campground is also road maintenance and is not road construction or reconstruction.
4.
The ENF has determined that there are no “extraordinary circumstances” that would prevent a Categorical Exemption from being used for the BMPs described in the SSWQPP on (a) Wentworth Springs Road from Airport Flat to Wentworth Springs Campground, or on (b) the Rubicon Trail from Walker Hill to Little Sluice, or in regard to (c) the maintenance of the existing BMPs installed in the summers of 2009 and 2010 on the Rubicon Trail from Wentworth Springs Campground to Walker Hill.
5.
The County’s planned road maintenance work on (a) Wentworth Springs Road from Airport Flat to Wentworth Springs Campground, and on (b) the Rubicon Trail from Walker Hill to Little Sluice, and (c) the maintenance of the existing BMPs installed in the summers of 2009 and 2010 on the Rubicon Trail from Wentworth Springs Campground to Walker Hill, are categorically exempt under NEPA, and do not involve any extraordinary circumstances, and therefore may proceed independent of the EIS for the FRTA easement.
6.
The County is currently approved to proceed with (a) its planned maintenance work in 2011 on Wentworth Springs Road from Airport Flat to the Wentworth Springs Campground, and with (b) its planned work installing BMPs in accord with the SSWQPP on the Rubicon Trail from Walker Hill to Little Sluice, and with (c) its planned maintenance of the BMPs installed last year on the Rubicon Trail from Wentworth Springs Campground to Walker Hill. The restriction to work only within the “traveled way” contained in the letters of August 22, 2011, is eliminated, and the County’s work is authorized within the “roadway” as defined in the diagram attached to those letters, which in a road section is from original ground on one side to original ground on the other, and includes the full road surface plus any berms, ditches, cut slopes or fill slopes. The ENF has also approved special item number 1 (sidecast work) and the one stockpile in special item 2 on Wentworth Springs Road.
7.
The County engineer provided a complete Operations and Maintenance Plans to the ENF engineer on August 31, 2011. ENF engineers will complete their analysis and finalize the O&M plans by September 1, 2011.
8.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) which the ENF indicated would be issued on August 26th, and which the Water Board ordered to be issued on that day, was completed on August 29, 2012, and has been sent for publication in the Federal Register. It is not known what effect this delay will have on all of the subsequent dates in the ENF schedule for its EIS.
9.
The ENF should adhere to the schedule for its NEPA analysis for the FRTA easement that it gave the Water Board on August 17, 2011. The County will request that any potential delay in adhering to that schedule will be immediately reported in writing to the County and to the Water Board.
10.
In regard to special item number 2, stockpiles, the one stockpile on the Airport Flat segment of Wentworth Springs Road near Rocky Basin Creek was the subject of a field visit by County and ENF engineers on August 25th and was approved in the Forest Supervisor letter of August 31, 2011. The five proposed stockpiles along the Rubicon
- 12 -
11-1050.A.12
Trail between Winter Camp and Rubicon Springs will be the subject of field visits by engineers during the week of August 29th, plus field review and analysis by ENF resource specialists. The ENF will endeavor to complete the task of reviewing and flagging acceptable stockpile sites in sufficient time during the fall of 2011 so that a helicopter lift of rock onto those stockpile sites can be accomplished this season. The ENF previously said it would give approval to proceed with the 5 stockpiles by September 2, 2011.
11.
Special item number 3, rock check crossings and rock outlet protection, particularly in the area of Winter Camp, will be the subject of field visits during September 12 - 16, 2011. All field work and analysis should be completed in a timely manner so that this work can be accomplished during the 2012 construction season. Approval to proceed must be received by the County by February, 2012.
12.
Special item number 4, replacement of the FOTR bridge, will be included in the EIS for the easement, which according to the ENF schedule is expected to be completed in April – August 2012. The individual grant for this bridge is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2012, so the current ENF schedule for the easement EIS potentially threatens the loss of funding for this project.
13.
ENF engineers will perform a field survey on September 22 and 23, 2011, of the Rubicon Trail from Little Sluice to Rubicon Springs for the BMP work delineated in the SSWQPP. ENF staff should then perform all other analyses necessary, and should give approval to proceed to the County in a timely manner so that the work can be accomplished during the 2012 construction season. Approval to proceed must be received by the County by February, 2012.
14.
The County’s maintenance work inside the Fawn Lake Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), if any, will be evaluated by the ENF in the EIS. The County’s maintenance work outside the IRA would be field reviewed by the ENF resource specialists in October 2011. All analyses will be completed during the winter of 2011. Approval to proceed should be issued in a timely manner so that the work can be accomplished during the 2012 construction season. Approval to proceed must be received by the County by February, 2012.
15.
The CEQA analysis for the proposed bridge at Ellis Creek was completed in February 2011. The NEPA analysis was not completed because of a concern raised by SHPO. The ENF says NEPA on the bridge will be analyzed in the EIS for the FRTA easement. According to the schedule the ENF gave the Water Board on August 17th, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the FRTA easement EIS will be issued on April 18, 2012. At the Water Board meeting of August 17, 2011, Regional Engineer Earl Applecamp noted that it would typically take up to a year after the ROD is issued for the ENF to actually record a conveyance of the easement, and suggested that some interim documentation could be executed immediately upon issuance of the ROD that would allow construction of the bridge to begin before the formal conveyance is eventually recorded. Perhaps a right-of-way certificate and a special use permit would suffice. The ENF should advise what documentation will be issued at the time of the ROD that would allow construction of the bridge to commence during the 2012 season so that the funding can be preserved. Another issue is that the currently proposed PA appears to prevent construction of the bridge until a final determination is made concerning the eligibility of the Rubicon Trail

for the National Register of Historic Places, which may take years. This delay also has the potential to cause the loss of the funding previously obtained for this bridge.
16.
The proposed Gerle Creek bridge is on a county-maintained road on private property. The NEPA/CEQA analysis was certified as complete in February, 2011. The ENF should confirm that no approval or permit of any kind is required from the ENF in order for the County to construct this bridge, which is currently planned for summer 2012. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently saying it will not issue a §404 permit on the ground that it must re-review the historic aspects of the bridge in relation to the Rubicon Trail. The currently proposed PA appears to prevent construction of this bridge until a final determination is made concerning the eligibility of the Rubicon Trail for the National Register of Historic Places, which may take years, and this delay appears likely to cause the loss of the funding obtained for this bridge.
17.
The ENF advised the County of its plan to acquire 166 acres of land along Wentworth Springs Road in the vicinity of Rocky Basin Creek. A concrete bridge built in 1937 crosses Rocky Basin Creek on this property. The County will request all documents concerning this proposal that currently exist, and will ask the ENF to keep the County apprised of all events related to this proposed acquisition and provide all documents generated in the future concerning this proposed acquisition. The ENF should confirm the preexisting road right of way held by the county, and confirm that this right of way will be preserved after the ENF takes title. 11-
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Records taken form here
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
Wow! Now that is a fine example of job creation and bureaucracy in it's purest form. I'll be at the meeting to watch the show/ Circus, whatever you want to call it.:mad3:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
668 Posts
This make my head hurt, With all the problems going on and this is how they are spending our money, the county was doing great just le them fix it for the water board so we can move on
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I understand Rusty about the head thing. I posted the individual letters on the thread I just started that links to the CAO documents. Just going through all those was a chore.

The red tape is double wide at this point. Seems ridiculous to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
I understand Rusty about the head thing. I posted the individual letters on the thread I just started that links to the CAO documents. Just going through all those was a chore.

The red tape is double wide at this point. Seems ridiculous to me.
Seems to me, not only is the "Red Tape" double wide but also in my opinion, intentional. Anything and everything to slow down the process. Rusty hit the nail on the head. Point being The county is doing a great job, we better slow them down, they might actually get the job finished. This needs to be brought up at the meeting. There is a job to be done, why are you doing everything in your power to prevent that. I like that question:p

Tim
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Don't forget personal agendas.
 

·
Cranky Moderator
Joined
·
7,366 Posts
Used to be, people who aspired to work for the USFS actually were outdoors people, now, it seems they are indoors people, pounding away creating incomprehensible BS on a keyboard, and when they print out that stack of BS, it clearcuts a Section of the NF to feed the printer all the paper it takes. :mad3:

USFS needs to get back to the business of of working for the public, not the bureaucrats in Politics, and not just be an organization where people are more concerned with personal agendas and climbing the ladder.

Shame on the USDA for losing sight of the Mission of the USFS and the National Forest System. :shaking:
 

·
Team 261 - VP
Joined
·
4,870 Posts
Shame on the USDA for losing sight of the Mission of the USFS and the National Forest System. :shaking:
That says everything one would need to know. USFS is under the Dept of Agriculture, not the Dept of Public access. :shaking:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
X2. Nicely put!!!!!!

Used to be, people who aspired to work for the USFS actually were outdoors people, now, it seems they are indoors people, pounding away creating incomprehensible BS on a keyboard, and when they print out that stack of BS, it clearcuts a Section of the NF to feed the printer all the paper it takes. :mad3:

USFS needs to get back to the business of of working for the public, not the bureaucrats in Politics, and not just be an organization where people are more concerned with personal agendas and climbing the ladder.

Shame on the USDA for losing sight of the Mission of the USFS and the National Forest System. :shaking:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I changed the first post with the info that has just come out from the FS. I like how they give plenty of notice for these things. Where's that rolleyes button??

I hope as many of you can be there as possible!! I do not expect us to change anything they are doing very dramatically, but this is the opportunity to make our voice heard!!

The main point of contention that the public can bring is the "fact" that the only agency that needs to have an easement is the FS. The County has entered in to this very reluctantly and the Water Board does not require an easement to comply with the claen up and abatement order.

See you there, Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,843 Posts
Ok my head hurts too.

Since an easement is not required, why did the county stop working?

Being pissed off at a meeting sure does not seem like a productive event.

We're Americans and were opinionated ones at that! I get it!
But as Americans we like to get the job done. Right or wrong that's our culture. Lead or get the F'' out of the way.

So WTF are we to do. I'm thinking the head in the sand approach is better for my blood pressure at this point.:mad3:
 

·
flamethrower
Joined
·
12,605 Posts
How else should we respond when we are being "f"d with?

Mom always said....deal with it now or deal with it 20 years from now - either way you still have to deal with it.

I say "why kill your back pulling the weeds out by the root when you can use Roundup"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,843 Posts
How else should we respond when we are being "f"d with?

Mom always said....deal with it now or deal with it 20 years from now - either way you still have to deal with it.

I say "why kill your back pulling the weeds out by the root when you can use Roundup"?
Damn you know how to make a guy laugh. I get some 2,4-D if that will help.

We really need a vote card on this site.
Ask the lawmakers one question. Whats your stance on OHV.
Then use your powers to get the right people in office.

Edit:

Found this site

http://thetrailpac.blogspot.com/

They just launch a website, hopefully it will get update here soon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
Let's fill the parking lot:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
The main point of contention that the public can bring is the "fact" that the only agency that needs to have an easement is the FS. The County has entered in to this very reluctantly and the Water Board does not require an easement to comply with the claen up and abatement order.
Random thought -- if ENF requires EDC to have a travel easement, can EDC then ban ENF from use of their road? :evil:

Randii
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top