Sorry I didn't get this out on time, folks...
At the El Dorado County ROC meeting last Thursday, we evaluated potential projects by rating them from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important) based on the following categories:
* (PL) potential physical loss of trail (does loss of section, put trail at risk? does bypass exist?)
* (EI) environmental improvement (what's the environmental risk of NOT doing it?)
* (Sf) safety (does section pose threat to user safety, as it exists?)
* (US) user satisfaction upon completion (will users consense that the result is good?)
* (St) story (how attractive is this, in terms of headlines?)
The ROC brainstormed a list of the possible projects for 2008, and then we mailed the general ROC mail list a spreadsheet of that project list to rate on the above scales.
Here are the aggregated scores of the project rating exercise we did at the last meeting, highest priority to lowest priority:
1.) Big Sluice Drainage (perhaps 2009)
2.) Buck – Side Slope (check with SMUD, small improvements available sooner)
3.) Walker Hill – continue maintenance
4.) Rock Fill – Tahoe Side (1000 cubic yards of gravel) (RTP Grant)
5.) (HiLo’s) Water Bars – Tahoe Side (MAY – while it’s wet)
6.) Wentworth – Phase II
7.) Placer County: Close bypasses above Cadillac Hill
8.) Trailhead Signage
9.) Water @ WW campground (1/4 mile west)
This is not necessarily the order in which these will be addressed, but it sets a pretty clear priority for the order in which they will be requested, at the ROC level. There is risk that we may get a donor coming in with bucks, choosing from the menu out-of-priority, based on their own external values, but I don't see much that we can do about this.
Randii
At the El Dorado County ROC meeting last Thursday, we evaluated potential projects by rating them from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important) based on the following categories:
* (PL) potential physical loss of trail (does loss of section, put trail at risk? does bypass exist?)
* (EI) environmental improvement (what's the environmental risk of NOT doing it?)
* (Sf) safety (does section pose threat to user safety, as it exists?)
* (US) user satisfaction upon completion (will users consense that the result is good?)
* (St) story (how attractive is this, in terms of headlines?)
The ROC brainstormed a list of the possible projects for 2008, and then we mailed the general ROC mail list a spreadsheet of that project list to rate on the above scales.
Here are the aggregated scores of the project rating exercise we did at the last meeting, highest priority to lowest priority:
1.) Big Sluice Drainage (perhaps 2009)
2.) Buck – Side Slope (check with SMUD, small improvements available sooner)
3.) Walker Hill – continue maintenance
4.) Rock Fill – Tahoe Side (1000 cubic yards of gravel) (RTP Grant)
5.) (HiLo’s) Water Bars – Tahoe Side (MAY – while it’s wet)
6.) Wentworth – Phase II
7.) Placer County: Close bypasses above Cadillac Hill
8.) Trailhead Signage
9.) Water @ WW campground (1/4 mile west)
This is not necessarily the order in which these will be addressed, but it sets a pretty clear priority for the order in which they will be requested, at the ROC level. There is risk that we may get a donor coming in with bucks, choosing from the menu out-of-priority, based on their own external values, but I don't see much that we can do about this.
Randii
