During a El Dorado County ROC meeting in early 2007, 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?)

Here's how this worked out, based on general consensus and relative RATING by those in attendance:

* Big Sluice ...... 5(PL) 3(EI) 4(Sf) 4(US) 5(St) TOTAL: 21
* Little Sluice ... 3(PL) 4(EI) 3(Sf) 3(US) 5(St) TOTAL: 18
* West of L.S. .. 1(PL) 3(EI) 1(Sf) 3(US) 2(St) TOTAL: 10
* Walker Hill ..... 4(PL) 3(EI) 2(Sf) 4(US) 2(St) TOTAL: 15
* Buck Island .... 4(PL) 5(EI) 5(Sf) 4(US) 2(St) TOTAL: 20

So to RANK these out, highest priority to lowest priority (and flesh out descriptions a bit):

* Big Sluice: install/repair drainage features and repair trail slide-off
* Buck Island: repair trail slide-off
* Little Sluice: repair Little Sluice area, spill abatement on soils
* Walker Hill: install/repair drainage features
* West of L.S.: trail *is* the drainage path, address erosion concerns

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

See 2008 ROC Priorities