Public Comment Deadline: April 30

Since 1962, Folsom Lake has served as a premier recreation area in the State. The last major revision to the area’s general plan was made in 1979 and a new 20-year plan is in the works today. You may not be aware of this as El Dorado County was largely left out of the planning this year. Public presentation and input was received in March at Granite Bay and Folsom. After Supervisor Rusty Dupray heard that no meetings were scheduled in El Dorado County, with the majority of the shoreline is in his district, he led the push to add a meeting and extend the deadline for public comment.

Over the protest of team leader Scott Nakaji on March 11, the deadline has been extended from March 24 until April 30. On April 16, 2008, a public hearing was held in El Dorado Hills. Although the public notice did meet statutory requirements, it was functionally defective due to a long, multi-year delay, from initial stakeholder input to this plan’s release. The existing plan was written in 1979 and amended in both 1988 and 1996. The new plan was begun in June 2002, a workshop was held in late 2002 and a telephone survey of 400 of the nearly one million affected residents was also conducted. In June of 2003, a second workshop was held. It was not until December of 2007 that a final workshop was held. It is unclear what caused the apparent delay of five years. Many members of the public felt that the Plan’s team was pursuing a rush to judgment by attempting to close public comment by March 24 without any public input or explanation in El Dorado County.

Members of the public that have read the nearly 1,000 page documents expressed concerns that the proposed Folsom Lake State Recreation Area 2008 General Plan failed to provide for growth in demands of users over the next twenty years and failed to even meet the demands of 1999. With substantial past and future population growth, documented demand, and a shortage of recreational facilities, many believe that it is irresponsible to attempt to rush a 20-year plan that does not even complete the facilities that it determined were needed by 1999.

Two concerns noted by El Dorado County residents at the last public meeting were losing access from properties surrounding the lake and losing the majority of land in the county that surrounds the lake to recreational use as almost all EDC shoreline will be restricted to “conservation” only.

Public criticism of the Plan include the following comments: [Note- the following public comments do not necessarily represent the view of the El Dorado Business Alliance]

• The new Folsom Lake Recreational Area General Plan will erase many of the recreational amenities and capacity planned thirty years ago. The plan also prohibits the ability to provide future facilities. Current Capacity & Issues of Concern
• The majority of recreational facilities planned in 1979 have not been built even though the 1979 General Plan recommended that 70% of the Folsom Lake improvements and 80% of the Lake Natoma improvements be made by 1990. As a result, there is a severe shortage of facilities and visitor capacity at the recreational area.
• There is a five to nine year waiting list for boats slips.
• During peak season, the largest recreational facilities at Folsom Lake; Granite Bay, Beals Point and Browns Ravine, reach capacity at midday on the weekends.
• Inadequate parking facilities create traffic backs-ups along entrance roads, major access routes & local streets.
• There are only 176 family campsites at Folsom Lake. During the peak season, full capacity is often reached on weekends at all three locations. The average number of campsites at California’s fifteen largest reservoirs is 533 at an average of 7.8 locations.

1979 General Plan - What Has and Has Not Been Done

• The 1979 General Plan (as amended in 7/88, 12/88 and 1/96) calls for increases in all facilities during the twenty year planning horizon ending in 1999. Thirty years later, additions to the following recreational capacity are substantially incomplete.
• New parking spaces were planned to more than double from 3,125 spaces to 6,520 spaces. Thirty years later, only 1,830 spaces have been added.
• Campsites (auto, bicycle and boat) were planned to more than double from 160 to 370 -- only 176 campsites exist (including 3 group campsites).
• A new 200-slip marina was to be added at Westshore and 100 additional slips at Brown’s Ravine – there is still only one marina and, instead of 300 slips, only 132 were added.
• A hiking/equestrian trail was to be completed around Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma -- the trails have yet to be completed.
• Many other facilities such as picnic areas, docks, equestrian and bicycle staging areas and trail camps, showers, RV stations and boat rentals were also planned-- never completed.

2008 General Plan (State Park’s Preferred Alternative)

• Over the next 20 years, State Park’s Preferred Alternative provides less visitor capacity than originally planned in 1979 — over thirty years ago.
• Parking spaces may increase by only 700 spaces -- 1,645 spaces less than what was planned.
• Campsites may increase by 50 to 100 but the net increase will be 74-124 less than those planned thirty years ago.
• The second 200 slip marina and related facilities planned at Westshore is eliminated even though the current general plan states that it would be less costly and provide low water access.
• Slips may increase at Browns Ravine by 260-290 for a total of 945-975 -- equal the total slips for two marinas originally planned. But the 175 dry storage boat spaces at Browns Ravine are eliminated for a net gain of only 85-115 boat slips and/or spaces.
• The original boat capacity formula is 1 boat per 16 surface acres. The 2008 Alternative reduces capacity on the middle North & South Forks by 50% and the upper North & South Forks by an average of 80%.
• The plan will eliminate approximately a mile of prime water skiing area between Rattlesnake Bar and Mormon Ravine by expanding the 5 mph restriction in that area.
• The entire FLRA will be divided into four management zones (Recreation, Conservation, Preservation and Administration) that will dictate management and the use. Only 20% of the 8,458 acres of land surrounding the lakes will be designated as Recreation. Conservations zones (74%) will allow only passive recreational activities and, in most cases, trails will be the only improvement.
• The Preferred Alternative eliminates facilities planned in 1979 at Westshore/Mooney Cove, New York Creek and Observation Point including a marina launch ramp, (2) swim beaches, (2) snack bars, 550 parking spaces, 80 campsites, (3) docks, visitor center, lake view restaurant, viewing deck, (3) restrooms, an excursion ferry and a RV sanitation station. No alternative locations or facilities are planned.
• Boarding at the Shadow Glenn equestrian facility at Mississippi Bar will be eliminated and ultimately phased out.
• Pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle access from the private property that borders the lake will be prohibited forcing neighboring property owners to drive to the limited and over capacity public access points.
• Gas engines, including trolling motors, on Lake Natoma will be eliminated. A planned boat dock and a lakeshore riding/hiking trail will be eliminated at the Folsom Powerhouse.
• Fire will be the primary tool to manage vegetation. The current plan prescribes fire only in the two Chaparral units. There appears to be little thought given to the risk to the adjacent private property and impacts to the areas air quality and ozone.

In the Preferred Alternative, these are but a few of the reductions in the facilities and changes to management of this critically important recreational area.

Other General Plan Alternatives.

There are three other alternatives presented. Alternative us called the “No Action/No Project” alternative and leaves the current 1979 General Plan in place.

Alternative 3 is referred to as the “Maximize Recreation Opportunities” but actually contains less facilities and capacity than the current general plan (Alternative 1).

Alternative 4 is called “Increase Protection and Restoration of Natural/Cultural Resources” and restricts recreational use beyond Alternative 2 and even eliminates current facilities and capacity.

Summary

After reading the comments from the limited public outreach, it is also apparent that State Parks has ignored input which requests further development and enhancement of recreational facilities and capacity at the Folsom Lake SRA.

If public outreach, disclosure, and responsiveness are the intents of our environmental disclosure laws, this document fails.

Of the 1.5 million annual visitors to the Folsom Lake SRA, 70% are residents of Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado counties. Recreation is an important component of our quality of life and as such, we, respectfully request that our state, county and local officials work together with representatives of State Parks to develop a reasonable and responsive plan that consider:

1. Provide a clear summary of alternatives and to compare previously planned, existing, and proposed facilities and improvements.
2. Provide clear explanations of what revenues are received and how they are spent/distributed.
3. Given that the State Parks is considering closing 42 state parks and recreational facilities due to budget matters it may be time for the local jurisdictions that surround the recreational area to negotiate a lease(s) directly with the Bureau of Reclamation to improve, manage and maintain the area. [Or] To maximize public access and benefit; consider the common practice that other agencies can manage all or a portion of the recreational facilities at California’s reservoirs. In fact, only 25-30% of the recreational facilities at California’s fifteen largest reservoirs are managed by State Parks.
4. Hundreds of acres are being disturbed and millions of cubic yards of material are being moved for flood control work, there is rare opportunity to plan, improve, upgrade and add facilities at a lower cost and with little or no additional environmental impact.
5. Include elements of how stakeholders can participate in the plan development process beyond public comment — mountain bike users are willing to build trails, concession rights can be developed and leased, etc. Coalitions/partnerships/shared responsibility.

[Note: the preceding comments were made at public hearings and do not necessarily represent the view of the El Dorado Business Alliance]

The following video was taken at the public hearing held in El Dorado County on April 16.

Links to the complete document are below. These documents are in two volumes: Volume 1 consists of the three chapters of the Preliminary Plan and Volume 2 contains the Draft EIR/EIS.

Volume I – Chapters 1-3, Preliminary General Plan/Resource Management Plan
Cover and Table of Contents (PDF, 611 KB)
Chapter 1 - Introduction (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions (PDF, 6.6 MB)
Chapter 3 – The Plan (PDF, 4.9 MB)
Appendices (PDF, 992 KB)

Volume II – Chapter 4, Draft EIR/EIS
Cover and Tables of Contents (PDF, 613 KB)
Section 4.1 - Introduction (PDF, 4.4 MB)
Section 4.2 - Project Description and Alternatives 1 and 2 (PDF, 83 KB)
Section 4.2 – Alternatives 3 and 4 (PDF, 7.6 MB)
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 – Environmental Setting and Consequences (PDF, 6.1 MB)
Section 4.5 through 4.11 – Cumulative Impacts and References (PDF, 98 KB)

General Plan Newsletters:

March 2006 Newsletter #4

June 2003 Newsletter #3

May 2003 Newsletter #2 (299 KB)

January 2003 Newsletter #1  (329 KB)


Summary of Public Workshops:

November 2002 Public Workshop #1 (147 KB)

June 2003 Public Workshop #2 (36 KB)

April 2003 Trails Stakeholder Meeting #1 (26 KB)

August 2003 Trails Stakeholder Meeting #2 - Agenda (PDF, 161 KB)

August 2003 Trails Stakeholder Mtg. #2 - Powerpoint Presentation (PDF, 3.3 MB)

Visitor and Telephone Survey Report for Folsom Lake SRA (PDF, 1.5 MB)

Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period and Additional Public Meeting