Pirate 4x4 banner

281 - 300 of 355 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Oil

Its what the water board sees. It's not what makes any sense to you or I. That was demonstrated very well by the revoked Sediment Study. There are no receptors for oil contaminated groundwater anywhere near Little Sluice. But the Board will never let facts get in the way of their agenda.

Baggy, I never told you what to do with your money. I am pointing out the irony in the distribution of money. The other side can swipe a charge card and send $$ to La La land, and the La Las can get the attorneys rolling. And we have screamers. Having a $40,000 rig and a closed trail is a bummer.

Screaming Faggottry is plain stupid. And I never said you screamed it.

It is the expressed opinion of many here there is no "problem" at little Sluice. I have stated myself that I haven't seen any poo on my one walk through this year. That makes me the leading expert on BS. :bender: That leaves erosion and oil. The erosion can be identified and quantitated. It has been located by the CGS and that makes a fix a definable solution. The smart qualified guys have done their work. Now, our turn and it's gonna cost us a ton in blood and sweat. Bring it on.

-That leaves the oil. It makes no difference what you and I and bebe feel. Its what the Board decides. From the CAO.

Following a sampling effort in the summer of 2005,
low levels of oil and grease were identified in water and soil samples collected along the Rubicon Trail, and low levels of copper and cadmium were identified in soil samples. This contamination is likely due to motor oil, grease, and other petroleum-based fluids spilling and leaking from OHVs that have overturned or have damaged mechanical components while traversing rocky segments of the trail.
If the board sees spilled oil, they can pursue enforcement. Does everyone understand that ? It's that simple.

FYI - Crankcase motor oil can and does contain a number of contaminants either generated by combustion blow by and the ensuing heat, and material from the engine components themselves. Thats why oil spill sites are always tested for PCBs, (poly chlorinated biPhenyls), and a suite of metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Throwing some cleaning stuff on the soil surface won't touch the daughter products at all. Remember the Railyard excavation visible from Rte 5 in North Sacramento ? The 20 acre pit in prime financial real estate that is still open after 15 years. Thats what can happen to an "oil site". It aint just the oil. However, consider this regarding the use of "clean oil".

A show case comp buggy should have fresh, clean, low or no mileage green oil and fluids. And it's buttoned up tighter than Baggys Behind :flipoff2: It aint leakin. This guy carries his spill kit. Probably won't even need it. Message received and understood.

The other guys are not in this program. They are there by the multitudes. If the rocks are gone, they are not leaking and spilling. Yeah, I know, rigs leak and spill anyways. But they concentrate at the box,they are damaged at the box, they leak in greater volume at the Box. Worst spot on the trail. Thats a fact. It's like moths flying into the bug zapper. Why don't they go around ?

All I can say is that I had to walk around oil Sunday, July 19, 2009. If the sluice remains a closure point for the agencies involved, then it's gotta get fixed. And I am in disagreement in the effectiveness of the fixes illustrated here. There is another thread on selfishness. I am in it for my son. That is all.

Edit: Missed this......
Another thing that dawned on me was all the small cobble that filled the Box is still there at the approach. Why destroy whats there when all that is needed is to back fill from below.
I don't think there is enough material at the base to fill the sluice to reduce the carnage. But that is an ider. fill it instead of blowing it. From what I have seen in the past, the cobbles are there because they were spun there by tires seeking traction. Over the years the smaller grain sizes have been selectively moved by mechanical action, and sorted top to bottom. The cobbles are at the bottom of the "screen", the sluice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
AFAIAK, the oil issue is bull. Plain and simple.

Any of you folks cut your own firewood? Own a chainsaw? I cut in the neighborhood of 20 cords of firewood per year. I am a atom on a whales ass in the world of firewood cutters. I can burn through several gallons of Bar Oil in a season. Where do you think that stuff ends up? Concentration my $#^.
Does it really matter where the oil is dumped, spilled, poured, or sprayed? It is still collectively spread around the forest and moves through the forest stream system. We cut lodgepole up here. That type of tree likes water. It mainly grows adjacent to streams, marshes, and meadows. Well, the FS will sell you a $10/cord permit here and let you sling bar oil all you want. No problem, just pay up. :shaking: Water Board is not running through the woods taking samples.

Uzzi, the majority of the oil based products that are spilled are not from oils contaminated by combustion. Don't you think so?

The CAO is so full of could's, may be possible's, has the potential's, etc.
I did not read anything in it that specifically contained factual findings that were conclusive to oil contamination any where in the area, or that it was related to off road use. Just assumptions that there could possibly, maybe ,just might be a chance, for a potential water quality issue. Counting pebbles......Meh! Silt.....Meh! From dust.... Meh! If they were so worried about dust, then they would chip the hundred miles of logging and forest service roads in Lassen and Plumas counties. Trucks and cars zipping along at 30mph on dirt roads through the forest creates gobs of dust. It's dirt, it has been moving down hill since the earth was born, and has been filling lakes and ponds turning them into meadows as well. Lake Tahoe will be a meadow one day, and I hope my future grandkids in the year 45,856,948 will be able to ride windsurfers on that sucker!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
AFAIAK, the oil issue is bull. Plain and simple.
The point that Mark is making is THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW INSIGNIFICANT THE ACTUAL ISSUE IS, JUST HOW THE WATER BOARD VIEWS IT! If they view that it is an issue, it is, and all the oil spilled elsewhere makes no difference. The complainers buried the Water Board in complaints, and then put some political muscle to them to ensure that it was on their radar. LIKE IT OR NOT, FAIR OR NOT, WE ARE ON THEIR RADAR.

They don't NEED facts -- they don't haveto govern on ACTUAL ISSUES, because a bunchof well-intentioned Californians knee-jerked their way to laws that enable the Water Boards to act on anything that they deem to be a potential problem, with no facts required and no actual problem captured.

Believe me, Keith, I feel the same way you do about dust, silt, pebble-counts and etc. but we've been pushed on to THEIR home turf, and we'd best start caring about stuff like this, because THEY do. IMHO, we took the anti-recreationists by surprise with how well organized our response was. RTF hit a friggin' home run preventing full closure or even seasonal closure, getting the CAO re-written, and helping get the Sediment Study yanked... but it is early innings, and we need to make sure that we walk the talk we talked.

Little Sluice is not mentioned in the final CAO, but you can be certain that it is on the Water Quality Board's radar. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card for this issue, we will have to address Little Sluice one way or another. I am newly hopeful that it can be addressed with non-destructive methods, but we're gonna have to WORK for it HARD.

Randii (water's too cold to windsurf Tahoe)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
The point that Mark is making is THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW INSIGNIFICANT THE ACTUAL ISSUE IS, JUST HOW THE WATER BOARD VIEWS IT! If they view that it is an issue, it is, and all the oil spilled elsewhere makes no difference. The complainers buried the Water Board in complaints, and then put some political muscle to them to ensure that it was on their radar. LIKE IT OR NOT, FAIR OR NOT, WE ARE ON THEIR RADAR.

They don't NEED facts -- they don't haveto govern on ACTUAL ISSUES, because a bunchof well-intentioned Californians knee-jerked their way to laws that enable the Water Boards to act on anything that they deem to be a potential problem, with no facts required and no actual problem captured.

Believe me, Keith, I feel the same way you do about dust, silt, pebble-counts and etc. but we've been pushed on to THEIR home turf, and we'd best start caring about stuff like this, because THEY do. IMHO, we took the anti-recreationists by surprise with how well organized our response was. RTF hit a friggin' home run preventing full closure or even seasonal closure, getting the CAO re-written, and helping get the Sediment Study yanked... but it is early innings, and we need to make sure that we walk the talk we talked.

Little Sluice is not mentioned in the final CAO, but you can be certain that it is on the Water Quality Board's radar. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card for this issue, we will have to address Little Sluice one way or another. I am newly hopeful that it can be addressed with non-destructive methods, but we're gonna have to WORK for it HARD.

Randii (water's too cold to windsurf Tahoe)
I was talking about in the year 45,856,948 when it is finally a meadow :homer:

I gotcha. Basic arguement I was making about the tree in TN.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,230 Posts
I gotcha.
X2

Basically arguing about the actual IMPACT is useless at this point, all we can do is come up with other SOLUTIONS right?

So why can't this thread focus on THAT? :confused:

Kurt
(Who is wearing a chasity belt so no one can "BANG" his Box)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
I'll call REPOST on mysefl right here and now... I posted this message somewhere else, and am reposting it here so that it gets noticed.

A whole lot of assumptions have been made here, so I called Tom up directly and can set the record straight:
* he has only 5 emails from 4 people so far :(
* what's being discussed is "adjusting the boulders" not "blasting the boulders"
* public meeting will be scheduled soon to identify the problem
* "This is not going to be a 'Gatekeeper Event' where people are left out of the process"
* there is no project yet -- this is all just discussion and rampant rumors

When there *IS* a project, the project team will define the project (USFS, DOT, RTF) and develop a plan with public input. No other group in ROC has been formally recognized and lauded by the County Board of Supervisors, and no other non-agency group is included in the project team -- RTF has worked hard to have a seat at that table. We *will* take your opinions into that room...

This is a good place to brainstorm and explore solutions -- let's get back to that. The rumors of the Sluice getting blown up before Jamboree have been proven false -- the rocks sit there today, unchanged, and yesterday was the beginning of Jeepers Jamboree.
What are your suggestions for ways to mitigate issues in the Sluicebox, with no schedule for change, just a ROC discussion?

Randii
 

·
flamethrower
Joined
·
12,597 Posts
Cool :smokin:

On August 15th at the Lake Natoma Inn, we will have a SOLUTIONS Meeting.

But before that EVERYONE OF YOU MONITORING THIS THREAD NEED TO WRITE A LETTER TO TOM CELIO.

Some talking points;

  • Let him know you how you feel about "adjusting" the boulders in the box
  • Let him know what you are willing to do to mitigate the issues
  • Any identifiable issue with the area can be fixed with already in place management practices.
  • The conditions at the box have improved exponentially over the last 2-3 years as education and law enforcement have improved.
  • Let him know you will personally commit to improving the 'scene' at the box going forward. And that you will continue to work at peer policing and educating those you come into contact with.
  • Let him know we can put up signs for educational purposes
  • Let him know we can build defacto campgrounds so we can 'disperse' the camping concentration.
I know there is more out there, lets post 'em up and send them off.


Thanks, Bebe
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
Good talking points -- be sure to add your own details around them so that Tom doesn't get buried in 'form letters.' He's one of the best agency guys I've ever worked with, and I don't want to burn him out!

Randii
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
AFAIAK, the oil issue is bull. Plain and simple.

Any of you folks cut your own firewood? Own a chainsaw? I cut in the neighborhood of 20 cords of firewood per year. I am a atom on a whales ass in the world of firewood cutters. I can burn through several gallons of Bar Oil in a season. Where do you think that stuff ends up? Concentration my $#^.
Does it really matter where the oil is dumped, spilled, poured, or sprayed? It is still collectively spread around the forest and moves through the forest stream system. We cut lodgepole up here. That type of tree likes water. It mainly grows adjacent to streams, marshes, and meadows. Well, the FS will sell you a $10/cord permit here and let you sling bar oil all you want. No problem, just pay up. :shaking: Water Board is not running through the woods taking samples.

Uzzi, the majority of the oil based products that are spilled are not from oils contaminated by combustion. Don't you think so?

The CAO is so full of could's, may be possible's, has the potential's, etc.
I did not read anything in it that specifically contained factual findings that were conclusive to oil contamination any where in the area, or that it was related to off road use. Just assumptions that there could possibly, maybe ,just might be a chance, for a potential water quality issue. Counting pebbles......Meh! Silt.....Meh! From dust.... Meh! If they were so worried about dust, then they would chip the hundred miles of logging and forest service roads in Lassen and Plumas counties. Trucks and cars zipping along at 30mph on dirt roads through the forest creates gobs of dust. It's dirt, it has been moving down hill since the earth was born, and has been filling lakes and ponds turning them into meadows as well. Lake Tahoe will be a meadow one day, and I hope my future grandkids in the year 45,856,948 will be able to ride windsurfers on that sucker!


I totally agree with you smurf, but how can we make this a visible point does any one go on those state funded logging roads enough that they might get some pics of this, to show the water board and maybe hold them off for a bit. We can talk back and fourth for ever but we need our own evedince hard proof,Any one have anything? I am sure there are some pretty important people in the right job settings on this board that could furbish somthing of this nature. Lets beat them at there own game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
Honestly Danny, what happens other places has nothing to do with the circumstances on the Rubicon. Two wrongs do not make a right. I was just blurping some stuff off my chest. Ever try to get out of a speeding ticket by pointing out to the officer that some other guy was speeding?
 

·
flamethrower
Joined
·
12,597 Posts
Cool :smokin:

On August 15th at the Lake Natoma Inn, we will have a SOLUTIONS Meeting.

But before that EVERYONE OF YOU MONITORING THIS THREAD NEED TO WRITE A LETTER TO TOM CELIO.

Some talking points;

  • Let him know you how you feel about "adjusting" the boulders in the box
  • Let him know what you are willing to do to mitigate the issues
  • Any identifiable issue with the area can be fixed with already in place management practices.
  • The conditions at the box have improved exponentially over the last 2-3 years as education and law enforcement have improved.
  • Let him know you will personally commit to improving the 'scene' at the box going forward. And that you will continue to work at peer policing and educating those you come into contact with.
  • Let him know we can put up signs for educational purposes
  • Let him know we can build defacto campgrounds so we can 'disperse' the camping concentration.
I know there is more out there, lets post 'em up and send them off.


Thanks, Bebe

btt write the letters! :flipoff2:

DO NOW :grinpimp:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
Myself and the majority of the Rubicon Trail users would once again be able to travel the entire trail.





Until the recent Route Designation process, by the Tahoe National Forest anyway, cross county travel was still legal. Anyone could drive anywhere they wanted. It's unclear how the resource damage card would have been played if someone had tried it. Not sure when the ENF ended cross county travel.





I was there July of '00. I thought I could make the LS but I wasn't about to try in front of a mob. Call me shy. I got up early the next morning and while most everyone else was still sleeping I walked over the the LS to get a look from above before trying to drive it. I was upset to see a fresh boulder, larger than the others, in the middle of the box. There was no way I was going to make it without damaging my rig. There was no earthquake, no heavy rains, no act of god. It was human.

That was just one of many boulders that have found their way in to the LS. Don't you think it's interesting that this phenomenon happens so frequently in the LS? How many boulders have "fallen" in to the LS? But it's not the only place.

Just this past weekend, an individual (or group) pulled a boulder off the uphill side of the trail on Cadillac Hill and on to the trail. There was no earthquake, no heavy rains, no act of god. It was human. And it virtually blocked the trail. The boulder was soon removed from the trail the way those in the LS should have been dealt with years ago.
Just wanted to pull this to the top...not as an attempt to drag Doug through the mud or anything, but just wanted to use his comments as a rebuttal of sorts.

A few years ago I stood up at an RTMP meeting where they discussed the little sluice....my main contention against the destruction then, and I still hold the same conviction today was....where does it all move to? Does it go to Buck Island? I think we have seen in a small way that it does... Does it move to Rubicon Springs? Does it move to Fordyce? Etc...

I understand that you want to drive the entire trail, but at what cost? Have you considered the impact beyond the little sluice if this were to happen?

Just as an fyi, I have run the box in its current form. BUT 90% of the time i couldnt care less and just cruise by using the same upper bypass as everyone else. To me the Rubicon is not challenging at all, and its a place to spend time with friends, camp, fish, boat, etc.

Rolo
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
Edit. I should have said in my post that I do fully appreciate everything that Doug has done on the Tahoe side of the con, as well as all the hard work he has put in with the RTF....I just do not agree with him on the Little Sluice issue.

Rolo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Just as an fyi, I have run the box in its current form. BUT 90% of the time i couldnt care less and just cruise by using the same upper bypass as everyone else. To me the Rubicon is not challenging at all, and its a place to spend time with friends, camp, fish, boat, etc.

Rolo
Well, aren't you just the studliest of muffins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Yo !!

Thanks Keith. Same for you Baggy. As I said, I don't communicate that well that often. I think you see my point. Randii said it better than I.

In my prior career in environmental remediation, 10 years folks, my dime, my errors and omissions insurance, self employed, responsible charge of all that I touched, my house as collateral, oil, gasoline,diesel, soil and water contamination, sometimes the alternative approach is acceptable. It depends on the Agency.

It goes like this.

Establish that the SOURCE has been mitigated.

Monitor the "site" for a specified period of time.

Show the "threat" is contained and not getting worse and increasing.

Request "closure" after risk based corrective action is modeled.

We are way ahead of that curve.

There are no receptors. There is no "risk".

There are levels for frashwater carp, etc. but I digress.

We, and the County, don't want to be sampling Ellis Creek for Hydrocarbons for the next 3 years.

The Roadway and County haven't been completely tagged yet.

We are discussing containing and halting the "Source". The POTENTIAL source is LS. A source of hydrocarbon contamination, release into the environment.

Here is what a responsible agency ( El Do Co) might be faced with ( in addressing the CAO).

Fix the area so it is not a concentration of vehicles that leak, or
establish that the leakage isn't a harm to anything, and/or that measures are in place to stop that release and concentration.

Which is easier for the County ?

Can they trust us, you, I , him, her, to enact, adapt and enforce responsible behavior patterns that stop the release to the environment ?

You can have your say. Email Tom Celio or become background music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
What im saying is the state is 100 times more guilty of oil spillage then the everyday wheeler. They know this happens every day on there State and county funded jobs and its all swept under the carpet.
As a construction inspector for the state i can assure you oil spills are not just swept under the carpet... especially in the Tahoe water shed.... case in point, summer of 2002 caltrans was rebuilding 13 bridges in Truckee. one of my jobs was to make sure none of the contractors equipment was leaking ANY fluids cause most of the bridges spanned the Truckee river which is prized fish habitat and also provides drinking water...

Everyone on the job was required to take a 16 hour class on BMPs and SWPP (Best Management Practices and Storm Water Polution Prevention)... I was required to look under construction equipment everyday for any leaks or potential leaks, i took lots of pictures of drips, wrote up a lot of trucks, pissed off a lot of workers .. most the time drips just required a diaper and bailing wire... but it was part of my job to protect the CA drinking water/fish habitat and i took it as serious as any Civil Engineer could.. which is exactly what any of you ca. residents pays me to do...


Nobody enjoys partying in the box till 3am more than me, but there are problems associated with the party and the easiest solution would be to remove the circus from the box.. someone mentioned campsites to draw folks a way, that sounds like a win-win idea but making the sluice passable to 35s is prolly whats gonna happen.....


from what i have read the box is an El Dorodo County road with huge oil cover boulder sitting in it making it passable to only a very very select minority of the OHV public, i ask you, how fair is that to the majority of people of El Dorado county... I guess my question is who is paying for the maintenance, green stickers or Taxes...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
This has been talked about plenty. The FS is NOT against the idea of a toilet. Check my old thread on "bathroom".
Then why has Diane Rubiaco, the District Ranger of the Pacific said on multiple occasions in public meetings that NEPA is required for a toilet or any facility, that she and the forest are against toilets because they believe that they will create de-facto campgrounds, and that she WILL NOT issue a use permit even if NEPA is complete?

She is in charge of the district and believes that the answer to this problem is wag-bags and education. I believe we need to provide multiple solutions and alternatives so that people have choices in their poo planning.
 
281 - 300 of 355 Posts
Top