Hey, actually someplace I have been. I went on the Jeepers Jamboree with my
dad back in 1981. The Rubicon area is unbelievable. Even more unbelievable
is the places where the jeeps could go.
And yes Bernd, it does suck!!!
-- Miles Harris III Simi Valley, CA 01 Silver Dakota CC Sport, 2.5L, 5speed 01 Gold Saturn SC1 (3 door coupe) 1.9L SOC, 4speed auto http://www.spikesautos.homestead.com/Dak1.html Profile: http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/PfCA4R1zO470w"Bernd D. Ratsch" <bernd@texas.net> wrote in article <GGEILDJAAAEBOABJIJLLOEDFFKAA.bernd@texas.net>... > > Oh man...we used to go fishing, wheelin', and camping at Loon and Spider > Lake! That sucks!!! > > - Bernd > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Will > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:50 PM > To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net > Subject: DML: For all Cali off roaders! > > > This is long but important! Rubicon is legendary! > > Hey all, > Here's some more information regarding the Rubicon trail problems. > Just trying to keep everyone up to date. Feel free to pass this along > to anyone else. > This is from the California Assn. of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs Natural > Resources Consultant Don Klusman. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > CLARIFICATION OF THE RUBICON ISSUE > > HISTORY > The California Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs (CA4WDC) has been > working closely with the U.S. Forest Service, Placer County, and the Lahontan > Water Control Board since the late 1970's on issues surrounding the > McKinney-Rubicon Road in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The goal of this > collaborative effort has always been to insure recreational access and to protect the water quality of Lake Tahoe. > > Planning in the early 1980's for a basin-wide effort to improve the > water quality entering Lake Tahoe included water shed improvements along the > McKinney-Rubicon Road. These improvements were funded by State of > California Bond Acts, OHV Trust Fund dollars (Greensticker funds as some of us > refer to it) as well as Placer County. The improvements along this route included > the construction of rolling dips, water bars, rock-lined ditches, sediment > basins, hardened water crossings, and rockwork structures as well as the > bridge over McKinney Creek just below the staging area. These > improvements remove sediment and decrease vehicle interaction with watercourses. As a provision of receiving the funding, Placer County agreed to maintain these improvements for a minimum twenty-year period (1986-2006). > > In the mid 1990's the Lahontan Water Quality Control Board (who have > authority over all water quality issues in the Tahoe Basin) became > concerned with the deterioration and lack of maintenance of these water quality > improvements. Funded by the OHV Trust Fund, Placer County, and federal > monies applied for and received by CA4WDC, the county embarked on the > maintenance of these improvements. Additionally there were concerns from private property owners about tow vehicle parking, and people doing "highway readiness" activities in the Homewood subdivision. There were also concerns from > the OHV community about the accessibility and safety of the staging area located > one mile in on the route. It was determined that the best course of action > was to pave the route from the subdivision to the staging area and handle all > run-off using culverts under the roadway. This process took two years > which included the maintenance and/or reconstruction of all the improvements > between the staging area and the rim of the basin. > > The Lahontan Water Quality Control Board still had great concerns about > two issues along the route. They were travel during high run-off periods and > the overflow through the flood plane just east of the McKinney Creek bridge. > CA4WDC again applied for and received a federal grant to fund improvements > constructed by Placer County in this short section of the route. To minimize > route travel during high run-off periods, Lahontan and the Forest Service > felt a gate was the best management option. Placer County disagreed with > a gate and, instead, an agreement was reached to pile snow from the > snowplowing of the Homewood subdivision at the entrance/exit at the Homewood end. > This snowpile concept has been a successful management tool for seven > winters. As part of this agreement, CA4WDC and the OHV Division of State Parks have publicized and developed educational material to inform area users to please > keep vehicles off this route during high run-off periods. > > Lahontan Water Quality Control Board has called the paving and flood plane > improvement projects "the most significant water quality projects in the last > ten years for the Tahoe Basin". > > It is extremely difficult to traverse the Rubicon Trail above Cadillac Hill > until the main spring thaw and run-off has occurred. Access to the trail > is usually blocked at the west end by snow between Ellis Creek and Spider > Lake until such time as the snow has melted above Cadillac Hill. The section > of the McKinney Road in the Tahoe Basin running from the subdivision just > below Miller Lake is considered by the 4-wheel drive community as ingress and > egress for the "true" Rubicon Trail. The trail between Wentworth Springs/Loon > Lake and Hundred Dollar Hole above Cadillac Hill lies completely outside > the Lake Tahoe water shed. There are many recreational demands along the > route within the Lake Tahoe Basin other than the 4-wheel drive community, i.e. > mountain bikers, hikers, hunters, fishermen, sightseers, as well as private > property owners whose accesses emanate from this route. > > THE CURRENT CONDITION > > Placer County received a letter in December 2000 from Lahontan Water > Control board of Notice of Violation of Cease and Desist Order Against Placer > County for Discharging and Threatening to Discharge Wastes From the McKinney > Springs Road to McKinney Creek. Placer County was thereby put on notice that > Lahontan Water Quality Control Board feels that Placer County has not performed > its duty as rendered to ease the run-off and sedimentation off the route and > has required Placer County to address these issues. > > This has brought a renewed call from Lahontan, the Forest Service, and several environmental groups to gate the route to stop traffic from accessing the route until the high run-off period is completed. Placer County has not agreed to a gate. > > WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? > > -The OHV community must continue to recognize the sensitivity of the > issue of clarity of Lake Tahoe. We must remain supportive of Placer County's > efforts to insure and enhance water quality through the ongoing maintenance > and/or improvements of the water quality projects along this route. > > -The entire OHV community must actively educate and enlighten the public > about the need to limit travel on this route during high run-off periods. > > -We must encourage Placer County to apply for maintenance grant funding > through the OHV Program. There are from time to time other funding > sources both state and federal available. We need to support such funding grants > when brought before bodies such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the > OHV Commission, the Board of Supervisors, as well as other elected > officials. > > -CA4WDC has and continues to oppose the construction of a gate on > several grounds. A gate would create a danger and safety issue for over the snow > travel as well as access for snow related activities. A gate would create a > "no man's" land for people who have traversed the trail from the west. > Without the ability to reach Highway 89 it would encourage people to > either pioneer a route around the gate or return uphill doubling the impact on > the route. The potential for arbitrary and contentious seasonal closures > would place a high level of uncertainty of the public's ability to use this > route. > > -Snow banks have been an effective management tool to keep travel to a > minimum on this route during high run-off periods. CA4WDC feels strongly > that Placer County should continue to use snow banks as a resource protection > management tool. > > -Common sense, the natural snow melt, and increased user education is > the answer to vehicle management along this route, not a gate. > > -There are two old log landings along the route near Miller Lake that > have come "unstitched". Research should be done to find out if there are long > term maintenance agreements on these areas. If not, Placer County should > develop a plan to address these areas including funding requirements. The OHV > community should work cooperatively with the County to seek funding for these > projects. > > -There have been some minor parallel route proliferation along this route > used primarily by mountain bikers and ATV's. These should be blocked and > posted to insure that additional erosion does not occur. > > -We would hope that all OHV groups heed the call to work on a pragmatic > solution to these issues and continue to work with the Placer County Public > Works Department and other agencies. Together we can manage this route > for the maximum public enjoyment as well as resource and environmental > protection. > > SUMMATION > > CA4WDC staff and volunteers have spent thousands of hours in meetings, > work groups, OHV Commission activities, and Forest Service workshops. Our > continued involvement in Rubicon related issues has helped insure public > access for more than forty years. We are by no means the only group > working these issues. This is but one of many pressing issues facing the Rubicon > Trail. It is time to put together a group comprised of various concerned > user groups to work on these issues. We will be far more effective as a > combined voice. CA4WDC would take whatever role, leader, facilitator, member, or advisor for such a group. > > The upcoming meetings are extremely important to set the tone for future > management. Placer County has in the past rejected the idea of gates and > seasonal closures by date. We need to encourage them to continue this > policy. > > I hope this has sheds some light on this important issue. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:00:29 EDT