LBHA INFO ON FOLSOM LAKE GENERAL PLAN

CA State Parks Extends the Public Comment Period  for the
Folsom Lake SRA Preliminary General Plan and
 Draft EIR/EIS to April 30, 2008 and will Hold Another Public Meeting

LBHA  Letter  Sent to State Parks

LBHA is working on a letter that will be sent to State Parks, it is not complete and 
other information  can and will be added.  It is a start of what will be submitted by the new dead line date of  April 30, 2008.  Remember, this is still in draft form and as stated before items can be added or revised.  LBHA LETTER

Additional Contacts for Comments about the Folsom Lake Recreation Preliminary Draft Plan

 

ALERT-ATTENTION EQUESTRIANS

March 7, 2008

If you don’t have any opportunity to support our vast, and wonderful trail system any time this year, then, NOW IS THE TIME! It is imperative you do two things. One, Read thru the document listed in the Link Below.

Second, you submit comments. The public review and comment
period will end on March 24, 2008.

This Folsom Lake State Recreation General Update Plan will guide the development and general nature of recreation for the next 20 to 30 years or so. The acceptance of these plans will have a significant impact on our recreation.

You can view the document on-line@ http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22322

Note: In particular, Read Chapter III, pages 76-87, 131,136,172,173,175,176,180,181,183,186,188,191,192,and 195. See you at the meeting this TUESDAY.

SEND COMMENTS or E-Mail to
Jim MichaelsGold Fields
DistrictCalifornia State Parks
7806 Folsom-Auburn Road
Folsom. CA 95630
jmiche@parks.ca.gov

FOLSOM LAKE PLANNING NEXT STEPS   Click to read PDF file

Items below have been submitted by LBHA members, LBHA and the Board of Directors will be submitting a letter to State Parks.  It will appear after it is approved.

General letters and comments on State Parks   from  LBHA members

Comments from another LBHA member:

 

Personally, these are the points I will be making on this Plan that took SIX YEARS to create and will be in force for 20 to 30 years:

 The survey used to create the SRA Plan, according to the Plan's Project Manager, Jim Micheaels, "is not statistically valid."

 Hikers and equestrians are the people who most use the park on a 365-day a year basis. Yet, we have been marginalized and deliberately ignored in the Plan. 

The existing Folsom Lake SRA plan is filled with errors and omissions, is based on a survey that is not statistically valid, ignores demographics, is deliberately vague, and was created in a vacuum without public input for over four years. 

ALL equestrian staging areas and trails need to be listed in the plan, not just a few. 

Hiking and equestrian trails need to be maintained and expanded. 

Mountain bike users need more of their own speed and technical trails. 

Street bike users need more paved paths. 

I am firmly against more multi-use trails in the Folsom Lake SRA. The current management admits they cannot maintain multi-use trails to safe standards, cannot enforce bike speed limits, and agree they have no budget to do so in the future. Currently there are unsafe trails and constant conflict. This will only increase if multi-use trails are expanded.

IF there are to be some multi-use trails, they need to be built to safe multi-use standards and a 5 MPH speed limit must be enforced.

 The baby boomer population who hike, bird watch, ride and want a quiet natural experience in the state parks is DOUBLING in the next ten years.

There was no mention of this important demographic who are the largest users of the park.

The horse industry in California generates a direct economic impact of

$6.1 billion annually, and is growing every year. 

It is my position that we retain the 1979 Plan for now, fire Jim Micheaels who was responsible for this mess, contract a new statistically valid survey, and then, with constant public input and oversight CREATE A PLAN THAT SERVES ALL USERS. 

THIS IS YOUR PARK!

Make yourself heard now.

 -Jaede

=============================================================================

Mr. Michaeals,

We have discussed some of the issues I have with the above mentioned plan. I am formalizing these concerns  in writing at your request.  In brief, my focus is on the equestrian experience in the Folsom SRA. As this plan will replace the existing 1979 plan and it’s amendments, it is critical to equestrian users that our voice be heard.

 In the ‘Existing Conditions’( Section II) Table EC-5 ‘Day Use Facilities’ Rattlesnake Bar has been omitted. This must be added whether or not changes are to be made. Rattlesnake Bar does have a formal equestrian staging area as well as trail access. While improvements are necessary such as water and permanent restroom facilities, it should at minimum be noted. In the same section, Negro Bar does not list the present equestrian staging area. It indicates only ‘trail access’. Negro Bar is used for equestrian staging and accommodates the historic American River Ride. What makes these points important is that there are numerous places within the document that are inconsistent. As the General Plan is one we will have to live with for several decades, it is important that it be consistent throughout the documents.

 As indicated in Section II-60 prioritizing improvements to the Folsom SRA, developing non-motorized trails and camping facilities ranked at the top of the surveys. As stated in Section II-73-74, there are over 90 miles on trails in the Folsom SRA. Above Mile Marker 38.5 on the Pioneer Express Trail, steep topography limits opportunities for new trails. This trail is equestrian and pedestrian trail and must remain that way. Better signage and patrol is necessary  to insure its’ proper usage. A parallel path is not feasible.

Mountain bikers have destroyed any attempt by the Park to post appropriate signage ( ex: between MM 38 and MM38.5, 3 ‘no bikes’ signs have been vandalized/or removed). In Section II-74, it states the General Plan provides clear direction for the Trail Management Plan.  We need to insure that this plan is ‘clear’ and accurate.It cannot be accurate unless the inconsistencies have been corrected.

 In reference to the ‘Plan’, Chapter III, my focus is on ‘upland recreation’. Since 1958, the trails within Folsom SRA ( and Auburn SRA) have been enjoyed by equestrians. Due to urban sprawl, our riding options have diminished. We are dependent on parks in the Folsom area. Riding paved trail is not a safe option. Under Visit-41( III-82), Class I bike trails are paved. These cannot be described as ‘shared use’ unless , at minimum, a four to six foot easement or parallel dirt trial is developed. It is a bike trail. If the speed of bikers is not monitored, a dirt easement or parallel trail  would never be a safe option for equestrians.

 Visit-46 talks about alternate day/time option. Our lives are structured enough and most of us work fulltime and only have weekends to recreate. I would never support this option. I am especially concerned about the Pioneer Express Trail and maintaining its present use by pedestrian/equestrians only. The access points near Twin Rocks and Boulder Road have become tense between trail users. Bikers are utilizing the Pioneer Express Trail between MM 38 and 38.5 to access multi-use trails. The bikers are continuing to use the Pioneer Express Trail which creates a significant hazard for equestrians and pedestrians. The excessive speed on the trails leaves little reaction time to avoid incident. 

The multi-use access to the Folsom SRA trails on the easement between the Hoffman properties and State Park( Boulder Road) lead directly to the Pioneer Express Trail. This mistake has now encouraged the bikers to use the Pioneer Express Trail and must be rerouted for multi-use or changed to equestrian/pedestrian use only.  

Under NimbusDam-2( III-126), there is mention of a potential bridge for trails users across the American River below Nimbus Dam. Equestrians are trail users-will this bridge accommodate us? In Mississippi 25( III-136), it suggests enhancing trail access and public recreation at Shadow Glen equestrian facility however, in Mississippi 26 it indicates phasing out Shadow Glen. It would seem like a waste of public money to enhance the facility one minute and phase it out in the next. This is inconsistent. Please restate what the real intension of the Folsom SRA is for Shadow Glen and it’s concessionaire. 

Under Negro Bar 5 ( III-137), there is no mention of the equestrian staging area. This is vital to this area for access.  Negro Bar has long been used for equestrian staging. Regardless whether improvements are planned or not, it must be acknowledged. Section IV does indicate that some changes are necessary and warranted however, the equestrian need must be maintained. I have the feeling that the Folsom SRA is attempting to eliminate it from the ‘Plan’.

Under FolsomDam-5 (III-163) the tunnel  created due to the new Folsom Dam bridge is not appropriate for equestrian traffic. It no longer has a dirt( there previous underpass had a dirt trail side)or decomposed granite side to the paved bike trail. Since it would be considered multi-use, in other places within the ‘Plan’ it is recommended that at minimum a four foot direct easement be made. If that is not possible, an alternate route must be designated that meets equestrian/pedestrian safety standards.

 Under GranBay/So. ( III-168-172) there is no mention of the equestrian staging area. Again, this must be consistent with the exisiting conditions. It is possible that the writer has confused Beek’s Bight with Granite Bay South as there is mention of a non-existent equestrian staging areas ( as commented on above). At present ( 3/08) the water has been shut off for the water trough for horses or is not functioning. This requires immediate attention.

 Under GranBay North-17 ( III-172) there is mention of a Beek’s Bight equestrian staging area. There is no equestrian staging at Beek’s Bight and it needs correction. We would be pleased to have one built, however. Granite Bay No-1( III-172) talks about a trailhead to be established at Twin Rocks and Boulder Rd on the old Hoffman property. This seems an appropriate solution to the congestion at that corner. I would suggest that the Folsom SRA consider a separate area for horse trailer parking.

 Under RatBar-1(III-178), again there is no mention of equestrian staging area. This relates to the existing conditions as described above. This is a well used area by equestrians where the Pioneer Express Historic trail passes through.

Under Northfork-2-3( III-181) the long anticipated trail bridge to serve Auburn-Cool crossing through Cofer Dam area has yet to be completed. This is an important corridor between the three counties. As the Trail Master plan drags out, so does the plan for this bridge to accommodate the equestrian/pedestrian./biking linkage between  these areas.

It is noted in Appendix E that the Trail Master Plan has a high priority along with a trail coordinator and related mapping. I would like to see the Trail Coordinator meet with equestrian, pedestrian and hiking groups to better understand the positions of all in each area. This person must be an impartial party to the trail plans. It appears the proposed trail bridge (see NorthFork 2-3 III-181) has again taken a back seat with only medium priority. If trail connections are to be made, this is a critical link.

In summary, your efforts in making  this document consistent and workable to all segments of the public to enjoy Folsom SRA is appreciated. As an equestrian, I do not want to feel disenfranchised from the Park I love. I would also like to request that the 45 day window from public comment be extended from March 24, 2008 to 45 days from the last public meeting on March 11, 2008. The State and BOR have had six years to digest this material and it is important for the public to have adequate time to respond once the ‘Plan’ is presented.

 hank you for your time and consideration.

 Kind regards,

  Deborah Murphy
Equestrian/Daily Park user/Park event holder

 

ALTERNATE DAYS SO MOUNTAIN BIKES CAN USE THEM

 The CA State Parks Department has released a Draft General Plan for the Folsom State Recreation Area.   The plan will guide development for the next 30 years and becomes the final EIR/EIS for the Folsom SRA after April 8^th, the final deadline for public comment.  (see letter in EDETF’s April newsletter or www.edetf.net )

 Unfortunately, the plan drafters have described the primary recreation activities in the Auburn SRA as swimming, boating, fishing, camping, mountain biking, gold panning, off-highway motorcycle riding and white water rafting.  Horseback riders, hikers and runners are not mentioned.  

Your comments are needed before the April 8^th deadline. Your letters should go to:

 Jim Micheaels  California State Parks  Gold Fields District  7806 Folsom-auburn Road  Folsom, CA 95630

 (You can also send via email to jmiche@paks.ca.gov)

 Your should cover the following points:

 1. There is heavy trail use by equestrians, hikers, and runners, and on multi-use trails, mountain bikers 365 days a year.  There are many trails suitable for both such as the Olmstead loop.

 2. Given this heavy use, the plan should include additional facilities for equestrians. (None are contemplated in the plan)

 3. Single track trails are appropriate for runners, hikers and equestrians and not appropriate for mountain biking.  The solution to the problem is enforcement not closing trails. 

 Personalize your letters and emails with your own riding experience and background.  For more information on the plan go to the CA State Parks Website at:

http://www.parks.ca.gov/default/asp?page id=22322  (Or Google it)

SUPPLEMENTAL EA/IS

The Supplemental EA/IS may be viewed at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=1808.

 The site-specific actions being analyzed are the construction of a new contractor access road from Auburn-Folsom Road to the staging area at Dike 5; development of a trail detour to maintain trail connectivity between Beal's Point and Mooney Ridge during work at Dikes 4, 5, and 6; and construction of a cofferdam to improve workers safety while the auxiliary spillway stilling basin is built.

Comments on the Supplemental EA/IS should be e-mailed by Friday, March 28, 2008, to FolsomJFP@mp.usbr.gov; or mailed to Ms. Elizabeth Vasquez, Bureau of Reclamation, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom CA 95630; or faxed to 916-989-7208.  For questions or to request a CD or paper copy of the Supplemental EA/IS, please contact Ms. Vasquez   at 916-989-7192 or FolsomJFP@mp.usbr.gov.

 Additional information on the JFP is available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/jfp/index.html.  If you encounter problems accessing documents online, please contact Ms. Lynnette Wirth at 916-978-5102 or lwirth@mp.usbr.gov. 

Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov.

Relevant Links: Supplemental EA/IS

 

QUIET DAY AT THE LAKE

Support  is requested for   limiting  the use of the North Fork of the American River from Rattlesnake Bar to Mormon's Ravine to "quiet "(ie nonmotorized) users. The Folsom Lake State Recreation Area has been working on an update of its Master Plan for over 5 years. Throughout that period I have been trying to get at least some of the lake closed to motorboats so that swimmers, paddlers, and people on the shoreline trails can enjoy using the lake without the safety hazards, noise and air pollution caused by motorboats.

          The draft plan has finally come out, but the only change for quiet users has been a change to a 5mph zone between Rattlesnake Bar and Mormon's Ravine. This would protect us from waterskiers and other speeding motorcraft, but not from the same safety hazards, noise and air pollution caused by idling, slow motorboats (and partyers).

          This area is a lake/river area in a long narrow canyon at the far north of the lake. It is easily accessed by a launch ramp with lots of parking at the end of Rattlesnake Bar. The Pioneer Trail runs along its east side. It is an absolutely  beautiful place and is ideal for use by quiet users such as swimmers, people powered watercraft like kayaks and canoes, people powered fishing boats, and hikers, joggers, runners, athletes, shoreline fishermen, history students, nature students, indigenous peoples, schoolchildren, equestrians and  other users on the trails .

          As you know there are few, if any, trails along Folsom lake which are free of motorboat noise and pollution.  Rattlesnake Bar would be one of the very few natural places to trail ride. It is perfect because it is easily accessed, has trailer parking and suitable for all levels of riders-from those who want a 2 mile loop around Avery's Pond to those who are going 9 miles to Auburn and beyond.

         The deadline for comments is MARCH 24 AND THE SOONER THE BETTER!!

 

SHADOW GLEN RIDING STABLE

The State wants to remove shadow glen and any subsequent equestrian concession.

Why not keep this opportunity?   Equestrians should not lose this concession. 

Think of all the  riders that come from the Urban areas that will not get a chance to board or even rent at a future date.   Jim said the reason was that state property shouldn't be used to board horses.  the audience countered  state property is used to board boats at Brown's Ravine what's the difference?

URGENT!!! SAVE OUR STABLES!!!
 

The state is trying to shut down Shadow Glen Riding Stables! Shadow Glen has been a Sacramento-area business for over 30 years. Please, please help us continue serving our area with the best riding and stabling services. Call us at (916)989-1826 to find out how you can help!

You can click here to sign the online petition!
shadowglenstables.com
 

Here are just a few concerns from interested horsemen: these are examples of items that are of great importance to horsemen in the area that utilize the Lake trails.
 

• First and foremost please extend the review and comment period to 180 days after the last public meeting presenting the proposed plan. This proposal is huge and no one can adequately review the document and intelligently respond with comments in a 30 day period. There is no reason this cannot be extended as there is no legal binding to 30 days for review and it is up to the State Parks to determine the review period. The state park has the power to extend.

• Regarding the comment that there is NO mention of equestrian staging at Rat Bar or Negro Bar– Per the March 5th meeting Negro Bar and Rat Bar equestrian staging areas were left out in error. This is to be added in but our comments need to reflect this omission to ensure it really does get added back in.

• The original upgrades planned for Rat Bar equestrian staging area have never been completed (i.e water, picnic tables, paved parking, water troughs, hitching posts). Ask that this be included in the new plan.

• Chapter III p. 77 Camping – Ask that horse camping areas be included in the plan (ie. Rat Bar).

• There is NO mention of equestrian trails from Negro to Granite Bay. Ask that this be added.

• Ask that Sterling Point Equestrian staging area be added to the map.

• There is nothing in the plan defining the history of the State Budget used or the estimated future budgets to support trails for operations and maintenance. Ask that this be transparent and added.

• There is continual reference to bike usage and limited mention of equestrian usage on Pioneer Express. – Per the March 5th meeting it was stated the plan defines the intent of a Trail Management Plan. See Chapter III – p 78 Ask who will be involved in this and when? Ask that the equestrian community be involved. Ask if the discussions and solutions drawn up from the past trail stakeholder meetings are to be continued. Ask what budget is defined for this trail management plan including trail enforcement and education. Define the budget history and estimate in the plan.

• Chapter III p 82 Trail Designation section lists one type of trail being a Shared Use Dirt trail with Alternate Time/Date sharing. Ask what research has been done to prove this to be a viable safe option to be listed? What is the estimated impact on park resources time and money required to enforce such a trail to sure the public’s safety at all times? Why is the Corridor Trail option not listed (parallel bike/equestrian trails)?

• There is NO mention of fixing the problem at the tunnel near HQR's on Folsom-Auburn Rd. It is NOT safe for equestrian traffic. – Per the March 5th meeting it was defined that the creation of this tunnel was under the Folsom Dam project. This is a prime example that the State Park is not keeping in close communication with the Folsom Dam project. This example resulted in a very unsafe situation. It was stated that the City of Folsom was looking into how to support safe equestrian trails around this tunnel. Ask that the State also look into how to support a safe solution and that the public be included so we can give input to ensure it accommodates safety of all parties without further damaging the surrounding area more than the Dam project has done.

• Mississippi Bar and Shadow Glen – The proposed plan defines phasing out the boarding aspect of Shadow Glen. The plan does not define why they are going this route. In the alternatives notes (second document) it defines they want to improve Shadow Glen to enhance aesthetic quality and resource protection. What exactly does this entail? In another alternative they define expanding SG by adding covered stables and riding ring etc. This is confusing and needs clarification in the plan. SG points in their favor: The owner rents land from the state park and this money goes to the state park. Currently the park has not renewed the contract with Shadow Glen and they are on a month to month basis but the owner would like to remain which benefits the park income. Shadow Glen also pays their own insurance fees and is not a burden financially on the state park. They offer a family oriented, safe, affordable service for those in the community that cannot afford horses or horse property but want to enjoy equestrian activities on the state park trails. In our community this facility provides a rare commodity for a much needed function.

• Surveys - Surveys were used to determine the community use of the state park. These surveys were done a long time ago and are out of date to support the future planning. Many at the meeting felt that these surveys may not have adequately represented the populace comments. Per our request at the meeting the surveys are to be placed on the website for the public to review. Review these surveys and comment.

• Quiet Days - Plan proposed instead of instituting quite days to apply a 5 mile zone on the north fork. This seems a drastic permanent measure when much of the Fall and Winter already provide a great deal of quiet days.