3.5 Individuals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ascent Environmental Comments and Responses 3.5 Individuals Letter I1 Rachel Debecker July 21, 2019 Comment I1-1 HI- I l live in Cool, (and have been here for 18 years) and do not want to have any campsites in our state park. It adds too much maintenance, and the wildfire threat is very dangerous in our area. With campers' stoves, and campfires, we are in danger of a fire disaster. Please keep our small town safe, and do not permit campsites in Cool. Response I1-1 The comment’s expression of opposition to the addition of campsites proposed by the GP/RMP was provided to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and California State Parks (CSP). Refer to Master Response 3, Wildfire Risk, which addresses changes to the GP/RMP in response to concerns about new campsites and risk of wildfire associated with campsites. No specific issues related to the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR/EIS are raised in this comment. Letter I2 Janice Nelson Stevens July 22, 2019 Comment I2-1 Is there any restrictions due to fire danger that lighting a campfire would be possibly eliminated? The policy should read, "UNDER SUPERVISION by Park Personnel" to eliminate loss of homes, vegetation in the areas of camping being allowed. Response I2-1 Refer to Goal OP 3 of the Preliminary GP/Draft RMP, which describes the implementation of public safety and security measures to protect visitors and resources. These measures could include prohibiting campfires during periods of elevated fire risk and/or in locations where fire risk is greatest. Please also refer to Master Response 3, Wildfire Risk, which describes elements of the Preliminary GP/Draft RMP intended to prevent wildfires, including a new guideline that describes how site-specific conditions would be assessed to determine if, when, and under what circumstances campfires would be allowed in new or expanded campgrounds. The comment is directed towards implementation of the Preliminary GP/Draft RMP and does not address the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR/EIS. Letter I3 Becca Foles July 24, 2019 Comment I3-1 I am a citizen in Foresthill. I wanted to share that aside from the insurance crisis (our insurance was $1,250 and our renewal increased 520%!! The only quotes I've obtained outside of the CA Fair Plan are for $11,500, $16,000, and $19,432), I received an email from one company declining a quote because "there is a recreational area below the slope of the property". Insurance companies will not even issue quotes, regardless of our defensible fire space or removing 117 trees because of a recreation area down the hill we live on. Auburn SRA General Plan/APL Resource Management Plan Final EIR/EIS 3-193 Comments and Responses Ascent Environmental Please, as we are facing a housing market crash in the foothills, consider the fact that insurance companies are declining quotes because of location to recreational areas. We need to fix this insurance crisis first before adding recreational areas that will only make our homes even more difficult to insure. I have yet to find an option in that regard. First time home buyer 11 months ago too. Response I3-1 See Master Response 3, Wildfire Risk, which addresses concerns related to wildfire in ASRA/APL and homeowner’s insurance and identifies actions that would be taken with implementation of the Preliminary GP/Draft RMP that would reduce wildfire risk. Letter I4 Donna Hughes July 24, 2019 Comment I4-1 Please add me to the list to receive information about planning for Auburn SRA future plans. Response I4-1 Comment noted. No specific issues related to the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR/EIS are raised in this comment. Letter I5 Rick Wolfe July 25, 2019 Comment I5-1 Please add me to your mailing list Response I5-1 The commenter has been added to the contact list for the GP/RMP. No specific issues related to the content, analysis, or conclusions in the Draft EIR/EIS are raised in this comment. Letter I6 Sheila Larson July 30, 2019 Comment I6-1 I am disturbed that there is no link to the NOA on BOR's web page, therefore I did not know this document was available until recently nor locations where I can review it. The file is far to [sic] large for me to download with my internet access (or lack thereof) and the ASRA office on Highway 49 only has an in office copy and cannot provide an area in which to review it making it fairly useless. In addition they do not have cds available for me to take home and review, which should be standard operating procedure. Therefore I do not have the entire 45 days to review the large document(s). This size document should have at least a 90 day review period not a 45 day review period given the amount of local concern and interest. 3-194 Auburn SRA General Plan/APL Resource Management Plan Final EIR/EIS Ascent Environmental Comments and Responses In addition, the library in Auburn California does not have a copy of the EIR/EIS, which as it is the library closest to the impact area and where the public meeting was held is a significant oversight. The document in Placerville is approximately hour away from me and an hour away from Auburn and at minimum of 30 minutes from the impact area. I will be attending the public meeting and will bring these oversights to the attention of BOR, Ascent Environmental, and the public. In addition please send me contact information for your immediate supervisor. Response I6-1 See Master Response 2, which describes the extensive public outreach process that provided many different types of outreach regarding the planning process for the GP/RMP and environmental review process for the Draft EIR/EIS. The Draft EIR/EIS was available for review online and at multiple public libraries and offices in and around Auburn. During the public review period, in response to comments submitted to CSP and Reclamation, additional hard copies of the Draft EIR/EIS were provided at various libraries in Placer and El Dorado counties and the public comment period was extended by two weeks to provide additional review time. The minimum public review times established by CEQA and NEPA were exceeded. Letter I7 Lorna Dobrovolny August 1, 2019 Comment I7-1 On behalf of the Cool and Georgetown Divide Communities, I respectfully request a time extension for submittal of public comments regarding the draft Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) General Plan for the following reasons: • Size of the project area is 30,000 acres and 40 miles of river canyon. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and California State Parks have taken years to put together the proposed Plan. Along the way, there have been major modifications and additions. For those of us who have been attempting to follow the Plan's development, it's difficult to understand what is currently proposed compared to past proposals. It takes time to digest the draft Plan's full scope especially for those who want to review and comment thoughtfully and effectively. Forty-five days to review a project plan of this size in a working person's "spare time" is insufficient. • NO prior outreach to the communities surrounding ASRA The Cool "Open House" scheduled for August 15 is 19 calendar days from the deadline for comment on September 3. This event offers no formal presentation nor explanation of the Proposed Action. The Cool and Georgetown Divide Communities are left to their own devices to figure out what it is being proposed. Since many changes in prior drafts have occurred, gossip abounds as to just what BOR and State Parks are proposing. Our communities have serious concerns about INCREASED FIRE HAZARDS, campgrounds, traffic, opening a non-motorized road to vehicles and new day use areas on the river. These are significant impacts that are required to be addressed under the NEPA/CEQA process. Little time exists to determine whether these proposals fit with the communities' needs. Auburn SRA General Plan/APL Resource Management Plan Final EIR/EIS 3-195 Comments and Responses Ascent Environmental • NO prior targeted outreach to stakeholder groups, particularly equestrian groups Equestrians have been using ASRA for at least a century and continue to present day. They have been slowly pushed out of several portions of ASRA due to safety concerns and loss of parking opportunities (Stagecoach Trailhead, China Bar Trailhead, Confluence at the Middle Fork etc.) Every time State Parks "improves" trailhead parking, no thought is given to horse trailer accessibility. This is just one of many concerns voiced by the equestrian community. Yet no outreach is offered to this or other stakeholder groups. • NO prior outreach to private property owners impacted by this Proposed Action Private property owners must live with the actions of their neighbors (ASRA) every day. Their input is vital in developing an excellent plan. For reasons stated above and many others, I request an extension of the public comment period to offer recreationists and communities surrounding ASRA to fully digest the Proposed Action and offer effective comment. The BOR and State Parks will have a much- improved final document if they include community and stakeholder groups. I know. I was the project manager who developed a very similar river corridor management plan, the South Yuba River Comprehensive Management Plan in Nevada County, California. The Management Team conducted over 40 public meetings, collected extensive recreation use and water quality data, provided "on the ground" tours for the interested public and conducted many outreach days on the river to solicit public comment.