[RC] Folsom Lake, CA trails-URGENT MESSAGE! - Ranelle Rubin
Fellow N.CA riders:
Please read this and spread the word..we all need to attend this meeting! We are in danger of losing our right to ride this trail that was established in 1958 specifically for equestrians and hikers! Feel free to cross-post! See you there!
I attended the meeting March 5th.There is another scheduled for March 11 at Folsom Middle School.We need to get in our comments by March 24th.I have attached the comment form and next steps agenda.I
listed out some items my quick review came up with but please read the
document online yourself and send in your comments in your OWN WORDS.In the least all should submit the first bullet point as a comment.
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 78Ask 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.
