Rubicon Trail Master Plan - March 2006 version

[Simple Man]

Hot off the presses! I mean...Hot off the hard drive!

This came out today, this afternoon. I haven't yet read through it but I suggest we all should.

The Notice of Preparation has all of the details about where to send comments and suggestions. It is on the same page as the RTMP.

There is a thiry day window for comments. It starts today. Comments are due by April 24th.



http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Rubicon/MasterPlanDraftMarch2006.html



RUBICON TRAIL MASTER PLAN DRAFT - MARCH 2006

The report is available in .pdf format. If you are having problems reading or printing a pdf, please consider updating your Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It's FREE! Get Acrobat Reader

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the El Dorado County Rubicon Trail Master Plan


Note: Links labeled as *TC (Tracked Changes) show the document revisions (strikeouts and insertions) since the March 2005 draft document.

Cover Page [1.78 MB]
Table of Contents *TC
Chapter 1 Introduction *TC
Chapter 2 Planning Area and Legal Authorities *TC
Chapter 3 RTMP Goals *TC
Chapter 4 RTMP Elements *TC
Element 1: Trail Management *TC
Element 2: Facilities *TC
Element 3: Law Enforcement Programs *TC
Element 4: Educational Programs *TC
Element 5: Transportation Programs *TC
Element 6: Trail Maintenance and Resource Protection *TC
Element 7: Agency and Community Coordination Programs *TC
Element 8: Carrying Capacity and Trail Use Limits *TC
Element 9: Trail Use Agreements and Requirements *TC
Element 10: Monitoring and Reporting Programs *TC
Element 11: Regulations and Ordinances *TC
Element 12: Funding *TC
Chapter 5 RTMP Element Implementation *TC
Chapter 6 RTMP Revision Process *TC
Chapter 7 References *TC
Chapter 8 List of Preparers *TC
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 4
Figure 5 [1.31 MB]
Figure 6
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Setting
Appendix B Memorandum Regarding Rubicon Trail Law Enforcement
Appendix C Trail Restoration Guidelines And Supporting Information
Appendix D Relevant County Resolutions
Appendix E RTMP Funding Requirements and Potential Sources
Appendix F Correspondence from the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division
Appendix G Public Workshop Summaries



Happy Reading, sleep well.

 

[Jes]

If you intend on using the Rubicon in the future i hope you've taken the time to start reading the giberish in the RTMP.
There is a lot of dumb stuff in there that was obviously written by buricrats who have no real world experience with the Rubicon Trail or any other OHV trail for that matter. Some of the stuff in there is O.K. however, but it's tough figuring out what is good and bad in such a long booring read.
Please take the time to mull it over.

A couple that jump out and grab ya.

Element 6: Trail maintenence and resourceprotection

6.4.2.1 User groups participating in the "Adopt-A-Trail" program would be expected to perform maintenence activities/conduct work events at a minimum of four times per season.

That is just retarded. They're going to drive away people by requireing it four times a year. On the work weekends I've been to we've accomplised more in ONE DAY than the county does ALL YEAR.
Adopt-A-Trail requirements should be once a year.

Element 9: Trail Use Agreements and Requirements.

9.1.16 All monies collected through the TUA system will be intended for use by the County in Rubicon Trail management-related activities.

"Intended" huh? So the money may or may not go to Rubicon management-related activities. Nice.

I've skimmed though it and have read about half of it. I'll post more of my thoughts later.

 

[Simple Man]

Jes,

Nice catch on the word "intended". I missed that one.



The 30-day NOP review and comment period begins March 24, 2006 and ends April 24, 2006. Your comments can be sent anytime during the NOP review period. All written public and agency comments should be directed to: El Dorado County Airports, Parks and Grounds Division; Attention: Mr.
Dan Bolster, Park Project Coordinator, 3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1, Placerville, CA 95667.



Please send in your comments.

 

[CRASH]

Here's an offer I'll probably regret. If you post your comments on the RTMP in this thread, I will assemble and edit them into a coherent document, slap it on letterhead and send them as collective comments. Don't worry about proper grammar/spelling, etc, just give specific comments like Jes just did, and I can work with them.

I author, edit and comment on EIRs/EISs for a living, so I own a gibberish translator.

I'll need the comments by MONDAY, APRIL 17th to have adequate time for assembly. I'll post the letter before sending it, of course.

CRASH

Jes,

Nice catch on the word "intended". I missed that one.



The 30-day NOP review and comment period begins March 24, 2006 and ends April 24, 2006. Your comments can be sent anytime during the NOP review period. All written public and agency comments should be directed to: El Dorado County Airports, Parks and Grounds Division; Attention: Mr.
Dan Bolster, Park Project Coordinator, 3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1, Placerville, CA 95667.



Please send in your comments.

 

[Simple Man]

Hello everyone,

Here is a quick down and dirty overview of some of MY concerns with El Dorado County's Rubicon Trail Master Plan. Remember that someday this plan will probably be applied to the Tahoe side of the trail by Placer County as well.


This is a SHORT version of what I have already submitted to the county.


The Notice of Preparation and the complete RTMP can be viewed at http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Rubicon/MasterPlanDraftMarch2006.html


The plan lists a set of goals. Nowhere in the list is the goal of keeping the trail open. The very first goal should be to keep the trail open and healthy to all users.


Goal 4 refers to equity to all users. I believe that all users should be able to use the trail but that the views of an equestrian should not carry the same weight as the views of an OHV users. It is and has always been an OHV trail. The decisions made regarding the trail should be based primarily on OHV use.


Money is to be spent on dumpsters for human waste and for bunkhouses for Law Enforcement. I think the money could be spent better elsewhere. Human waste needs to be removed from the area. Pack-it-in Pack-it-out means all the way out not just to the trailhead. LE is important but lets not spend money on a bunk house. Let them stay in the chalet if they need to.


No kiosk is planned for the entrances on the Tahoe side. El Dorado should work with Placer County to develop better information areas at the entrances to the trail.


There is a great deal of red tape in terms of trail maintenance. Upon the discovery of a trail maintenance need, there is a 30-45 day process to get anything done. This needs to be reduced to immediately being able to repair the trail or within two days.


Capacities: The county is looking to put a limit on the number of vehicles allowed in to the Rubicon Trail System at any one time. I don't think this is necessary. If it must be implemented, start it out on the big holiday weekends only.


Permits: The county plans to have every Rubicon Trail user fill out and pay for a permit to access the trail. (Remember this will someday be applied to the Tahoe side of the trail.) The county plans to cover the cost of the plan with the sale of permits. The permits would be very expensive.


The county will require a permit to camp in the area of the Rubicon Trail.
This in addition to the permit to access the trail.


The is no provision for buying permits on the Tahoe side of the trail.


From the NOP:

"The 30-day NOP review and comment period begins March 24, 2006 and ends April 24, 2006. Your comments can be sent anytime during the NOP review period. All written public and agency comments should be directed to: El Dorado County Airports, Parks and Grounds Division; Attention: Mr.
Dan Bolster, Park Project Coordinator, 3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1, Placerville, CA 95667. Please include the name of a contact person for your agency, if applicable. Oral comments may be provided at an EIR scoping meeting that will be held on April 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Marshall Building of the El Dorado County Fairgrounds at 100 Placerville Drive, Placerville, CA. Persons with disabilities that may require special accommodations at the scoping meeting should contact Dan Bolster at the above address or by phone at: (530) 621-5349."




Bottom line, send comments to:

Mr. Dan Bolster
Park Project Coordinator
3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1
Placerville, CA 95667



Please send in your comments no matter how vague or detailed. Give the county a feeling for how you want the trail managed. I am always open to questions. "[email protected]"

The deadline is April 24th.

Feel free to forward this to any and all trail users.



Doug Barr
Friends of the Rubicon

 

[CRASH]

Get your thoughts in on the RTMP, I'm composing a draft comment letter at lunch today.......

 

[Bryan C.]

10.1.6

In the event that water quality monitoring indicates an exceedance of any
water quality standard defined by the Basin Plan, the County will investigate
and report the correlation between exceedance of standards and special event activities.

Just reading through some sections. I saw this and it made me wonder. Are the jamboree's thought to be the main source of problems regarding water quality and not packing out human waste? I have never been to the Rubicon after a large jamboree went through, but I have read many accounts of the "brown flowres" being worse after these commercial events go through. Will the money collected from the commercial user permits to have some agency come through and clean up after they go through? How much responsibility do these large commercial events have in keeping the trail clean and maintained? The organizers seem to be making a good living running these events, so I think they should be the ones who should bear the brunt of the responsibilities to care for the trail.

 

[CRASH]

Just reading through some sections. I saw this and it made me wonder. Are the jamboree's thought to be the main source of problems regarding water quality and not packing out human waste? I have never been to the Rubicon after a large jamboree went through, but I have read many accounts of the "brown flowres" being worse after these commercial events go through. Will the money collected from the commercial user permits to have some agency come through and clean up after they go through? How much responsibility do these large commercial events have in keeping the trail clean and maintained? The organizers seem to be making a good living running these events, so I think they should be the ones who should bear the brunt of the responsibilities to care for the trail.

Good point BC. I can address that.....stand-by for draft comments......

 

[CRASH]

El Dorado County Airports, Parks and Grounds Division
Attention: Mr. Dan Bolster, Park Project Coordinator
3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1
Placerville, CA 95667.

Dear Mr. Bolster,

The following constitute the comments of the North American XJ Association (), Sierra Chapter, on the Rubicon Trail Master Plan. is a national organization committed to the responsible OHV use of public and private lands throughout the country. The Sierra Chapter, specifically, is concerned with OHV use throughout the Sierra-Nevada range. These comments do not preclude individual members of from commenting individually on the RTMP.

The comments below relate to Chapter 4 of the RTMP, and are related to the elements highlighted.

_______________________________________________________

1.3.3 A goal of ROC composition will be to include residents of El Dorado County, owners of property within areas proximate to the Rubicon Trail, OHV users and other recreation interests. The ROC will include a minimum of two individuals who are active participants in OHV use and are considered by the Board to generally represent OHV user-group interests.

OHV users, the primary targets of ROC management, should have a majority presence on the ROC.

6.4.2.1 User groups participating in the “Adopt-A-Trail” program would be
expected to perform maintenance activities/conduct work events at a
minimum of four times per season.

In a year with a long snow season and an early fall, this may mean a volunteer group will have perform activities once a month. This level of effort is extremely taxing to volunteer clubs. If this element is kept, than Adopt-a-Trail volunteer organizations should be compensated for their time and effort with complimentary trail use passes, and first right of refusal to trail travel during second and third tier management restrictions.

The future RTMP implementation should identify the number of trail sections eligible for adoption by volunteer groups and solicit volunteer organizations to adopt these sections.

Objective 8.1: To define a tiered management approach for developing and implementing management actions, including use limitations based on
estimated and observed trail carrying capacity, for the protection of environmental resources, human health and safety, and social conditions.

In general, objective 8 deals only with trail users accessing the Rubicon trail area with vehicles. The RTMP needs to identify equestrian, pedestrian and bicycling trail users and in assessing impacts for first, second and third tier management strategies. These users should be required to obtain the same permits, and be subject to the same restrictions as vehicular users.

Objective 9.1: To implement a Trail Use Agreement system and require all motor vehicle operators to obtain and sign a Trail Use Agreement prior to operating on the Rubicon Trail.

All users, including equestrian and pedestrian users contribute to impacts on the Rubicon, and therefore should also be required to obtain TUA’s.


9.1.10 The fee charged for TUAs will be waived for the following:
El Dorado and Placer County staff performing functions associated
with management of the Rubicon Trail;
State and federal agency staff performing functions associated with
management of the Rubicon Trail or other activities within the
surrounding area which require motorized vehicle operation on the
Rubicon Trail; and
Owners of private lands for which the Rubicon Trail provides a route
of access (one TUA sticker will be available for each property owner).
Private property owners will be required to agree to the terms of, and
sign, the TUA prior to obtaining a free TUA sticker from the Trail
Supervisor.

As per comment related to Section 6.4.2.1, volunteer groups should have their fees waived, as they are performing similar and important tasks of trail maintenance to the exempted users listed in section 9.1.10.

9.1.15 The TUA fee will be determined annually by the Trail Supervisor and will be based on the actual costs associated with Rubicon Trail management activities and projects.

The TUA fee should be calculated by examining other roads in El Dorado County of similar length. Law enforcement, maintenance, permitting costs should be calculated on an average per-mile basis, and any expenses above and beyond that baseline should then be covered by the TUA fee. If the Rubicon does not cost any more to maintain and police than any other road within El Dorado County, than the TUA should be without cost. This is entirely within the realm of possibility, given the level of volunteer work contemplated within the RTMP.

9.1.16 All monies collected through the TUA system will be intended for use by the County in Rubicon Trail management-related activities.

Money garnered from the TUA process should be earmarked and GUARANTEED to be used by the County for Rubicon trail activities. Intent is not a guarantee.

Objective 9.2: To establish and implement a Special Closure TUA and Commercial TUA system.

How will the County notify other TUA holders that the trail is closed? Will each individual party member in a Commercial or Special Use party also be required to obtain an individual TUA? If not, then they are not aware of the activities that are prohibited and/or allowed. One responsible party cannot be expected to police a group of up to 600 vehicles.

9.2.1 The County Parks Department will sell Special Closure TUAs to Trail user groups wishing to have sole use of the Trail for a period of no more than five consecutive days, in accordance with County Ordinance Code Chapter 12.37, Parades.

How will the county deal with back-to-back events? In other words, if there are several consecutive large events, such as occur by private parties in August of every year, the trail could conceivably be closed for weeks to months at a time to private TUA holders.

This system is also subject to gerrymandering. Several OHV areas in the state have similar use restrictions, such as Oceano State Dunes. In that area, groups that have an interest in limiting OHV use have purchased a block of use permits in order to restrict OHV use during certain times of the year. Will a system be put into place to validate that an actual OHV use will take place when a Special Closure or Commercial permit is issued?

In our opinion, the trail should NEVER be closed to private TUA holders as a result of commercial operators or large groups operating on the trails. If the County feels that a commercial use is to the County’s benefit, the users in the special group should be in addition to 600 private users allowed in the second tier management level.

10.2.4 Where soil sampling or monitoring reports have identified sources of pollution/contamination, the Environmental Monitor will propose means to prevent and control identified pollutants and contaminants.

When considering mitigation efforts for hydrocarbon contamination, the County needs to compare hydrocarbon contamination from other popular county roads, parking and recreation areas under the County’s control. Results from these other areas need to be taken into consideration when contemplating mitigation measures on the Rubicon Trail.

Objective 10.4: To regularly monitor trail use levels and activities.

No mention is made in Objective 10.4 of uses other than OHV. What is the County’s plan for counting, monitoring and evaluating non-OHV users?


Thanks you for addressing the comments above, we look forward to working with the county to resolve these issues in the future.

Andrew Fecko, for the Sierra Chapter.

 

[CRASH]

Note: In the Word doc, the RTMP elements are bolded and indented for easy identification.

If you would like a Word document copy, PM me with an Email address. I need to send these comments by the 19th or 20th, so please get me comments ASAP.

Also, I will check with BOD on submitting comments under the letterhead. I think this carries a bit more weight than just submitting them under my name, but I'd like to get some buy-in from SC members before sending this off.

 

[Jes]

Looks good, lots of points I didn't even think of in there. :thumbup:

 

[Capt. Nemo]

I've spent the last few night going over the RTMP, and it's exhausting. I have two main concerns, that are probably not noteworthy, but I'll state them anyway:

In the "Respondent Master Plan Elements" to the RTMP goals as listed in Table 3-1, "educational programs" is listed in all but two of the catagories. The main thrust behind "element 4" in the education of trail users is "educational signs". I'm not confident that this signage will do an adequate job of educating, particularly in the face of the amount of money that is involved in the production and placing of the signs.

Element 11.1.1 talks about the Rubicon Reservation System (RSS), providing three methods for available trail users to make reservations and will limit the number of vehicles permitted to access the trail. Under the assumption that the RSS could be put into affect on a year to year basis, and also under the assumption that permit holders under the RSS would have to obtain a new permit each year the RSS is in place - permit holders under the RSS from the previous year should have preference in obtaining a new/renewed permit for subsequent years that the RSS is in place. (Hope that makes sense)

Andy, the letter is very good. Thanks for taking the time.

Eric

 

[Simple Man]

The initial human waste problem surfaced at the Little Sluice and Spider Lake. This was from users camping in that area. The problem was not being able to bury your waste, too much granite. The county worried about human waste running off the granite and in to the lake with a good rain storm.

Spider Lake has never tested positive for human waste.

The commercial groups drive straight through to Rubicon Springs. I'm sure that some of the commercially lead users stop along the way and use the forest. There are outhouses in the Springs. The commercial groups have had water issues in Rubicon Springs but nothing consistent year to year.

 

[CRASH]

Nemo, I, too, am concerned about the effectiveness of the signage, but I'm not sure there is a good alternative. Signs are less expensive than Sheriff's patrols, which we are already going ot have.

I like the comment on element 11.1.1 I'll incorporate the comment.

Andy

 

[Bryan C.]

The initial human waste problem surfaced at the Little Sluice and Spider Lake. This was from users camping in that area. The problem was not being able to bury your waste, too much granite. The county worried about human waste running off the granite and in to the lake with a good rain storm.

Spider Lake has never tested positive for human waste.

The commercial groups drive straight through to Rubicon Springs. I'm sure that some of the commercially lead users stop along the way and use the forest. There are outhouses in the Springs. The commercial groups have had water issues in Rubicon Springs but nothing consistent year to year.

Thanks Doug, So how much do these commercial event organizers actually contribute to cleaning and maintaining the trail? Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this subject.

 

[Phil]

Andy, thanks for writing that up. Looks good.

 

[Simple Man]

Rich Mainwaring of JJ is on the Board of Directors of the Rubicon Trail Foundation, as is Mark Smith. Both have made cash contirbutions and have helped out clean-up efforts with eating and sleeping facilities.

They are on our side. If the trail gets closed, they are out of business.

We're a little off the thread topic with this but I'm more than willing to answer what questions I can.

Feel free to e-mail me anytime: [email protected]



FIVE MORE DAYS FOR COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RTMP! GET YOUR COMMENTS IN ASAP! They don't have to be fancy, call, email stop by the county office, just comment.






.

 

[CRASH]

FIVE MORE DAYS FOR COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RTMP! GET YOUR COMMENTS IN ASAP! They don't have to be fancy, call, email stop by the county office, just comment.






.

Or post them here, and I'll format and add them to the stack.

 

[Jes]

Does Dan Bolster have a direct e-mail address?
I tried to send one to [email protected] and it bounced back as a unknown user.

 

[CRASH]

From Google: [email protected]