SPTC Nature Trail Implementation Plan...SPTC NATURAL TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 2 Assessment...

Sacramento‐Placerville Transportation Corridor Natural Trail Implementation Plan

Draft – June, 2014

Prepared for:

El Dorado County Department of Economic Development

Parks and Trails Division and the

Sacramento‐Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority

Prepared by:

Foothill Associates

Acknowledgments

El Dorado County Economic Development/Parks and Trails Division Vickie Sanders –Parks Manager

Donna Mullens – Department Analyst

Sacramento‐Placerville Transportation Corridor JPA John Sedgerdell Lori Merklein

Transportation Provided by:

Folsom, El Dorado & Sacramento Historical Railroad Association Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad

El Dorado Western Railroad

Prepared by Foothill Associates Kate Kirsh, RLA – Project Manager

Ed Armstrong, RLA – Recreation Planner Michael Brewer – GIS Specialist

SPTC NATURAL TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

i

Table of Contents

1 Planning Background ....................................................................................................... 1

2 Assessment Process ......................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Preliminary GIS Analysis ..............................................................................................................2 2.2 Field Assessment .........................................................................................................................3 2.3 Post‐assessment GIS Processing..................................................................................................3

3 Implementation Considerations....................................................................................... 4

3.1 Ownership and Encroachments ..................................................................................................4 3.2 Wetlands......................................................................................................................................5 3.3 Foothill Woodland, Oak Woodland and Native Grassland..........................................................6 3.4 Riparian Woodland and Scrub Habitat ........................................................................................9 3.5 Other Special Status Species .....................................................................................................10 3.6 Erosion and Drainage.................................................................................................................12 3.7 Trail Access and Parking ............................................................................................................13 3.8 Asbestos and Hazardous Materials ...........................................................................................14 3.9 Road Intersections.....................................................................................................................15 3.10 Culverts......................................................................................................................................16 3.11 Bridges .......................................................................................................................................17 3.12 Rail – Trail Intersections ............................................................................................................18 3.13 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................19

4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Preliminary Preferred Alignment Options.................................................................................21 4.2 Crossing Implementation Priorities ...........................................................................................23 4.3 Access Points .............................................................................................................................26 4.4 Institutional Arrangements and Policies ...................................................................................28 4.5 Special Studies ...........................................................................................................................29 4.6 Natural Trail Design and Construction ......................................................................................30 4.7 Signage.......................................................................................................................................32 4.8 Safety .........................................................................................................................................32 4.9 Maintenance and Monitoring ...................................................................................................33 4.10 Funding ......................................................................................................................................34

5 SPTC Assessment Maps.................................................................................................. 37

Tables Table 1 – SPTC Easement Encroachments ....................................................................................................4 Table 2 – Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3 – Oak/Foothill Woodland Canopy Coverage....................................................................................7 Table 4 – Riparian Woodland Areas..............................................................................................................9 Table 5 – Elderberry Shrub Sightings ..........................................................................................................12 Table 6 – Erosion Areas...............................................................................................................................13 Table 7 – Road Crossings.............................................................................................................................15 Table 8 – Culverts........................................................................................................................................17 Table 9 – Bridges.........................................................................................................................................18


ii

Table 10 – Rail‐Trail Intersections...............................................................................................................18 Table 11 – Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................20 Table 12 – Preliminary Alignment Options (Direction of Travel East to West)...........................................22 Table 13 – Implementation Priorities for Natural Trail Crossings...............................................................23 Table 14 – Potential SPTC Access Points.....................................................................................................27 Table 15 – Estimated Costs for Next Steps .................................................................................................35


1

1 Planning Background In 1991, the Sacramento‐Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) Joint Power Authority (JPA) was established to purchase the Sacramento‐Placerville railroad corridor from the Southern Pacific Railway Corporation. Members of the JPA include the counties of El Dorado and Sacramento, the city of Folsom, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District. The Sacramento‐Placerville Transportation Corridor Master Plan1 was developed under direction from the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors in order to identify alternative uses of the portion of the SPTC in El Dorado County.

The SPTC Master Plan and associated programmatic Environmental Impact Report2 (EIR) were prepared over a period of five years from 1998 to 2003. While the early drafts of the SPTC Master Plan included only limited types of trail uses along various segments, the final approved plan allowed consideration of all trail uses throughout the entire corridor. In February 2003, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors found that the EIR had adequately examined all trail uses throughout the entire length of the SPTC at a programmatic level. The approved SPTC Master Plan included the SPTC Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program3 (MMP) which summarized the EIR mitigation measures and determined responsibility for implementing the measure.

Due to the programmatic nature of the EIR, as SPTC projects are proposed for implementation, their scope needs to be compared against the EIR to see if all impacts have been addressed. If not, additional CEQA analysis is required and may potentially be tiered off the SPTC EIR. As any project is implemented, the applicable mitigation measures from the MMP are to be implemented by the responsible entity.

The focus of this study is limited to implementation of a natural trail throughout the SPTC from Missouri Flat Road in the community of Diamond Springs to Iron Point Road in the city of Folsom. The total length of the corridor under consideration is about 28.5 miles, with about 3 miles being in Sacramento County. While the SPTC Master Plan and EIR only apply to the portion of the corridor in El Dorado County, the recommendations in this study for natural trail implementation cover all 28.5 miles.

This study is intended to provide a current overview of general conditions within the SPTC including trail features, natural resources, drainage, crossings, etc. as they may relate to implementing the natural trail. Findings from this study are of a preliminary nature and are intended to be used to identify the next steps that are necessary to open the SPTC natural trail to public use.

1 Jones & Stokes. 2003. Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Master Plan. 2 Jones & Stokes. 2003. Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Draft and Final EIR. 3 Jones & Stokes. 2000. Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring

Program.


2

2 Assessment Process Planning for the implementation of the SPTC natural trail has been hampered by the lack of a current characterization of the corridor especially with regard to resources and conditions addressed in the MMP. The assessment performed for this study is intended to provide a general characterization of the presence of those resources and conditions as a first step in defining and quantifying successive steps needed to actually implement the natural trail. The field assessment process comprised three main phases: preliminary GIS development, field assessment, and post‐assessment GIS processing.

2.1 Preliminary GIS Analysis A geodatabase4 was developed using existing data sources. The location of the SPTC rail line and parcel boundaries were provided by El Dorado County. The SPTC JPA provided digital copies of the 1930 Railway Valuation maps. These were used to create polygons that represented the variable widths of the SPTC easement throughout the corridor. Other geospatial data such as known wetland locations, points from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), streets, jurisdictional boundaries, and aerial imagery were also added to the geodatabase. New datasets were developed using the aerial imagery as a base to show existing bridges, culverts, and other crossings. The geodatabase was loaded into a GeoXT 6000 handheld GPS unit with sub‐meter accuracy.

A number of spatial incongruities were evident when using data from the multiple sources. However, they were not significant enough to affect the intended outcome of this project. They are noted here to make sure that the preliminary nature of these data is documented. It is assumed that additional surveyed data will be developed as needed to support construction and permitting actions in the future. The major incongruities noted among GIS datasets were:

GIS Parcel boundaries and dimensions from the valuation maps were not always in agreement

El Dorado County and Sacramento County boundaries did not line up

Existing GIS data for centerline of railway and parcels did not always align with aerial imagery

Mileposts as indicated in the valuation maps did not uniformly occur at 1‐mile intervals as based on the GIS‐calculated mileposts

In preparation for the field assessment, a field mapbook was produced for the entire corridor. It consisted of an aerial image background with GIS data overlain to show mile markers, parcels, the SPTC easement, the rail line, roads, wetlands, and crossings. A separate 8 ½” x 11” map page was produced for each mile of corridor, for a total of 29 maps. Map scales varied from 1”:250’ to 1”:400’ depending on the sinuosity of the mapped segment.

4 ArcGIS from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), version 10.1


3

2.2 Field Assessment A field crew consisting of two Senior Landscape Architects and a GIS Specialist traversed the entire 28.5 mile corridor over a period of two days (April 11, 2014 and May 09, 2014) while riding on rail equipment provided for that purpose. Rail operators adjusted the speed of travel and made frequents stops as needed to allow field crews to investigate specific points of interest.

Three types of observations were collected. The handheld GPS device that had already been loaded with basic corridor information such as the SPTC easement boundaries and the rail line was used to capture the location of notable points. These included:

Encroachments

Bridges

Culverts

Paved Roads

Access Drives

Erosion Points

Wetlands

Special Status Species

Existing Trails

The field maps were also annotated to record information about unique or challenging segments. Over 900 geographically referenced digital photos were taken along the corridor to complement the GPS points and manual notes that were gathered.

2.3 Post‐assessment GIS Processing Following the field assessment, the geodatabase was update with the new data points collected on the GPS unit. The field map annotations and photographs were reviewed and used to refine the descriptive information and location of significant features. KMZ files were then created for all the major geodatabase feature classes to be exported into Google Earth for analysis and reference during the process of developing recommendations. Several new GIS datasets were then created to reflect the recommendations. These were also translated to KMZ files for use in Google Earth. New datasets created showed the preferred natural trail alignment, access points, and required crossings.

As expected, the GPS data collected while on the moving rail car during the field analysis showed some minor displacement. This is attributed to the delay in satellite response when the GPS unit is in motion and causes points to sometimes show several feet further down the line from where they were observed. Given the overview nature of this assessment, the level of error associated with delayed satellite response time was anticipated and considered inconsequential.


4

3 Implementation Considerations Prior to opening the SPTC natural trail for public use, the EIR requires that various resource, access, safety, and alignment issues must be considered. This chapter describes the current state of the SPTC related to each of these issues as they pertain to implementing the natural trail. Locations are generally relative to approximate mileposts.

3.1 Ownership and Encroachments

Overview

The SPTC is established within the historic railroad corridor as defined by existing easements. The SPTC primarily runs through medium to large lot residential properties with pockets of commercial and industrial uses.

While most of the SPTC easement has not been impacted by private property encroachments, there are a few locations where fencing or other property improvements appear to be within the corridor. In some cases these encroachments are very minor and would be relatively simple to address. There are a few locations where the encroachments appear to limit the use of the SPTC for the proposed natural trail use by limiting available width or by imposing a barrier. These limitations are primarily due to existing fences.

Findings

Specific locations where apparent easement encroachments were observed are identified in Table 1. The approximate mile post and nature of the encroachment are provided for each instance. These encroachments should be investigated in greater detail using survey‐grade equipment when detailed planning for each of the area is conducted if it appears the encroachment will impact the natural trail alignment.

Table 1 – SPTC Easement Encroachments

Approximate Milepost

Location (R/L)

Easement Width1

Description of Encroachment

144.9 L 50 ft. Access road within easement

144.7 L 100 ft. Building and warehouse

144.1 L 50 ft. Gate and fences

144.0 R 50 ft. Driveway, possible encroachment

143.7 R/L 50 ft. Fence

142.4 R 50 ft. Fence


141.6 R 50 ft. Retaining wall

141.1 R 50 ft. Fences



136.4 L 50 ft. Building


5


Location (R/L)

Easement Width1

Description of Encroachment

135.6 R 33 ft. Play equipment, driveway

134.4 R 33 ft. Possible Shingle Lime Mine Road

encroachment

132.8 R 100 ft. Fence

129.8 L 50 ft. Fence



128.3 R 50 ft. Driveway


127.8 L 33 ft. Fence, possible encroachment

126.8 R, L 75 ft. Fence

126.5 L 60 ft. Latrobe Triangle Road


123.0 L 50 ft. Fences

119.1 L 50 ft. Payen Road within easement 1 Easement width is measured from center of tracks on side of potential encroachment.

3.2 Wetlands

Overview

Wetlands pose a challenge to recreational trail development due to their potential nature as Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA); potential use as habitat for sensitive species protected under the Endangered Species Act; and ecological value as wildlife habitat and filters for waterborne pollutants. Trails should be aligned to avoid wetland impacts wherever possible. Where a wetland needs to be crossed, a bridge or boardwalk structure may be used, or the wetland may be filled or the drainage directed to a culvert if proper permits are obtained. Filling of wetlands may require mitigation, if a nexus is deemed to exist between the wetland and a regulated stream or river.

A number of wet areas occur throughout the corridor that may or may not be classified as wetlands following more detailed surveys. Wetlands frequently occur where the slope of the adjacent land causes water to pool at the base of the railroad embankment, usually on the uphill side; at stream crossings; and where intermittent and perennial drainages run close to the railroad. Many of these wetlands are seasonal in nature, holding water during the rainy season and drying out during summer, but some may hold water year‐round. Wetland types likely to occur in the corridor include vernal pools; depressional and riverine seasonal wetlands; ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams; seasonal and perennial marsh; depressional and riverine seeps; ponds; and ditches/canals.


6

Findings

Table 2 lists the some of the potential wetlands identified during project fieldwork. Since detailed, on‐the‐ground biological surveys have not been conducted, this is likely only a subset of wetlands within the corridor. As mentioned earlier in this report, detailed wetland delineations will need to be conducted for areas proposed for trails prior to detailed planning of trail alignments.

Table 2 – Wetlands


Location (R/L)


Location (R/L)


Location (R/L)

144.4‐144.6 R 133.5 L 128.0‐128.1 L

143.2‐143.6 R 133.4 R 127.9‐128.0 R/L

142.2 L 133.0 L 127.1 L

142.2‐141.6 R 132.6 L 126.5 L

138.1‐138.2 L 132.4 L 123.2 L

136.3 R 131.6‐131.7 R 121.4‐121.6 R

135.5 L 131.4‐131.7 L 120.8 R

135.2 R 131.2 L 120.3 R

134.7 L 130.4 L

133.7 R/L 130.2 R

3.3 Foothill Woodland, Oak Woodland and Native Grassland

Overview

Foothill woodland includes a mixed overstory of hardwood trees and conifers including California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Typical understory species include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba). Foothill woodland occurs primarily in the upper, eastern portion of the SPTC and may be interspersed with areas of annual grassland and remnant native grassland.

Oak woodland occurs primarily in the central part of the SPTC. It is comprised of a variety of native trees and shrubs, including valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), blue oak (Quercus doulasii), California black oak, California buckeye, foothill pine, and toyon. Areas of annual grassland and remnant native grassland habitat may be interspersed. In riparian areas, these trees may be joined by any of the riparian woodland species, including California black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera L. ssp. trichocarpa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), box elder (Acer negundo), black elderberry (Sambucus nigra), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), alders (Alnus spp.) or willows (Salix spp.).


7

Both foothill woodland and oak woodland provide habitat for a diverse variety of wildlife species. Native grasslands, where they remain, are a sensitive biological community that has sustained considerable loss throughout the state. In addition, oaks and other native trees are protected under the El Dorado County General Plan. Objective 7.4.4 requires retention of canopy cover in development projects. Objective 7.4.5 requires a tree permit to remove single trunk native oaks larger than 6 inches Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and multi‐trunk oaks larger than 10 inches DBH in aggregate. Impacts to protected oaks are usually mitigated by planting additional trees on an inch‐by‐inch basis. For example, if a 10‐inch native oak is removed, planting of 10 one‐inch oaks either on‐site or at an approved off‐site location is required. Sometimes, protected trees in poor condition near a designated pathway may be removed without mitigation due to safety concerns.

Some of the potential trail impacts to foothill and oak woodland include pruning or removal where needed for trail construction, compaction of soil within root zones, and erosion of soil around roots. Conversely, trail construction has the potential to enhance foothill and oak woodland habitats by concentrating trail users on the officially designated pathway, thereby reducing trailblazing.

Findings

Foothill and oak woodlands tend to be more prevalent on the central and eastern segments of the SPTC and less prevalent to the west. Few trees exist within the study area west of the Dunlap Ranch Road crossing (MP 121.8). Oaks and other native trees tend to be relatively dense along creeks and sparser on hillsides. Table 3 describes comparative tree cover as an indicator of woodland habitat by milepost or street crossing. In this table, as in this report in general, right and left refer to the sides of the track when travelling westward (from the El Dorado part of the corridor towards Sacramento).

Table 3 – Oak/Foothill Woodland Canopy Coverage


Segment Description

143.0 ‐ 144.0 Missouri Flat Road to Oriental Street

Fairly heavily wooded with some open areas on the south side.

142.5 ‐ 143.0 Oriental Street to El Dorado Road

Right side sparsely wooded. Left side primarily open adjacent to railroad museum site – more heavily wooded east of El Dorado Road.

141.7 ‐ 142.5 Mother Lode Drive to El Dorado Road

Narrow corridor is moderately wooded on both sides of right‐of‐way, becoming heavily wooded on left side within 1,000 feet of El Dorado Road.

141.3 ‐ 141.7 Davidson Road to Mother Lode Drive

Narrow corridor moderately wooded between private structures/pavement. Some openings both sides.

104.5 ‐ 141.3 Greenstone Road to Mother Lode Drive

Left bank heavily wooded except adjacent to Greenstone Road. Right bank moderately to heavily wooded.


8


Segment Description

139.0 ‐ 141.3 Red Hawk off ramp to Greenstone Road

Both sides heavily wooded, few openings.

137.9 ‐ 139.3 Shingle Springs Drive to Red Hawk off ramp

Left side heavily wooded, becoming more open near Shingle Springs drive. Right is side mostly open with scattered trees, except moderately to heavily wooded within 1,200 feet of the Red Hawk off ramp.

136.9 ‐ 137.9 Mother Lode Drive to Shingle Springs Drive

Sparsely wooded within 1000 feet of Shingle Springs drive, becoming moderately to lightly wooded both sides.

135.7 ‐ 136.9 S. Shingle Road to Mother Lode Drive

Moderately to heavily wooded, both sides.

134.5 ‐ 135.7 Shingle Lime Mine Road to S. Shingle Road

Left side moderately to heavily wooded. Right side moderately to heavily wooded becoming sparsely wooded adjacent to vehicle storage yard on Business Drive.

132.0 ‐ 134.5 Near Gamebird Court to Shingle Lime Mine Road

Moderately to sparsely wooded both sides, except heavily wooded at several drainage crossings at approximately MP 133.5, 133, 132.7, and 132.3.

126.0 ‐ 132.0 Latrobe Road to near Gamebird Court

Open to sparsely wooded both sides, with small clumps of trees or isolated specimens scattered throughout.

124.8 ‐ 126.0 Along Latrobe Road

Moderate to heavily wooded left side. Mostly open with clumps of trees and scattered specimens right side.

124.3 ‐124.8 Along Latrobe Road

Lightly wooded to open both sides.

123.9 ‐ 124.3 Along Latrobe Road

Moderately wooded both sides.

123.0 ‐123.9 Along Latrobe Road

Lightly wooded to open both sides.

121.8 ‐ 123.0 Latrobe Road to Dunlap Ranch Road

Left side heavily wooded adjacent to Deer Creek. Right side mostly open west of the Deer Creek crossing, heavily wooded upstream of the crossing.

116.0 ‐ 121.8 Dunlap Ranch Road to Iron Point Road

Very few trees on this segment.


9

3.4 Riparian Woodland and Scrub Habitat

Overview

Riparian habitat is regulated by El Dorado County’s General Plan Objective 7.4.4, which requires retention of canopy cover in development projects. Riparian areas are also protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Some plants found in riparian areas, such as elderberry, are protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other special status wildlife species associated with woody riparian habitat in the SPTC area include foothill yellow‐legged frog (Rana boylii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), California yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and yellow‐breasted chat (Icteria virens).

As noted in the discussion of Oak Woodland (section 3.3), riparian trees include valley oak, interior live oak and blue oak in addition to California black cottonwood, Fremont cottonwood, Northern California black walnut, boxelder, black elderberry, California Sycamore, Oregon ash, white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), red alder (Alnus rubra), and a number of willows: Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), red willow (Salix laevigata), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), el al. Riparian woodland typically occurs along streams and rivers, although they can also occur in around low‐lying wetlands.

Findings

Primary riparian woodlands within the study area occur at creek crossings and in locations where the tracks parallel a creek. Table 4 lists the locations that were noted during the field tours. Other areas may be indentified as a result of detailed surveys.

Table 4 – Riparian Woodland Areas


Description

141.0 Slate Creek crossing

140.3 – 141.0 Slate Creek parallels railroad

140.1 Slate Creek tributary crossing (embankment & culvert)

136.7 Shingle Creek tributary drainage crossing

134.2 Deer Creek tributary crossing (washout, “the Gap”)

133.5 Deer Creek tributary crossing

129.1 Slug Gulch tributary crossing

127.5‐128.5 Clark Creek tributary parallels rail (riparian vegetation is sparse).

127.1 Clark Creek tributary crossing

123.0 ‐ 126.0 Latrobe Creek parallels rail line (riparian vegetation is sparse in most areas).

122.5 ‐ 123.0 Deer Creek parallels the tracks for approximately 2100 feet.


10

3.5 Other Special Status Species

Overview

In addition to protections for riparian areas, a number of other species and their habitats are protected under CDFW or USFWS regulations under state or federal endangered species laws. The SPTC Master Plan EIR identifies special status species and habitats with the potential to occur along the corridor. For many of these species and habitats, potential impacts are not considered significant and no mitigation is required. For some species, protection of their habitats is sufficient mitigation. For other species, particular mitigation measures are included in the SPTC Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan5. These species are:

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)

Valley elderberry longhorn beetles are found on elderberry shrubs within riparian plant communities. Some studies have found that multiple elderberry shrubs clumped together provide superior habitat for the beetle while isolated elderberry shrubs are less likely to support beetle populations. Typical plant species that co‐occur with the elderberry shrubs include California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), willows (Salix spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Beetles require elderberry stems with a basal diameter of at least 1 inch in order for the larvae to utilize the stems. The valley elderberry longhorn beetle depends on elderberry shrubs for its entire lifecycle. Adults are typically active from March through May during the flowering period of the elderberry shrub. The female lays its eggs on the leaves and stems of the elderberry shrub. The larvae emerge within a few days and burrow into the elderberry stem. The larvae feed on the stem pith until they pupate. When the host shrub begins flowering, the pupa emerges from the stem as an adult. The USFWS has determined the range of the beetle to include the watersheds of the American, San Joaquin, and Sacramento Rivers and their tributaries up to approximately 3,000 feet above mean sea level.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchii) and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)

Vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp are filter feeders that consume algae, bacteria, protozoa, rotifers, and bits of detritus. They are ecologically dependent on wetlands with seasonal fluctuations in water levels during specific times of the year with seasonal inundation and subsequent desiccation. A suitable aquatic environment is necessary for egg incubation and hatching, growth and maturation, reproduction, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal. Appropriate periods of desiccation are necessary for egg dormancy and to eliminate predators that depend on year round inundation of wetland habitats to survive. Vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp cannot persist in wetlands that are inundated for the majority of the year, or in wetlands without periodic seasonal inundation, although they do occur in pools that do not inundate every year.

Red‐legged Frog (Rana draytonii) 5 Jones & Stokes. 2000. Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program.


11

California red‐legged frog requires a permanent water source and is typically found along quiet slow moving streams, ponds, or marsh communities with emergent vegetation. This species is listed as federally threatened and California state species of concern.

Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Western burrowing owl is a small ground‐dwelling owl that occurs in western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas, and Louisiana. Although in certain areas of its range western burrowing owls are migratory, these owls are predominantly non‐migratory in California. The western burrowing owl is an opportunistic forager, foraging on large arthropods, mainly beetle and grasshoppers, small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion. The breeding season for western burrowing owls occurs from March to August, peaking in April and May. Western burrowing owls nest in burrows in the ground, often in old ground squirrel burrows. This owl is also known to use artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and nest boxes.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

The tricolored blackbird nests in dense blackberry, cattail, tules, willow, or wild rose within emergent wetlands throughout the Central Valley and foothills surrounding the valley. This species forages on ground in croplands, grassy fields, flooded land, and along edges of ponds.

Special Status Species Plants

Ten special status plant species are indentified in the SPTC Master Plan EIR as having potential to occur in the corridor. These are:

Bisbee Peak rush rose (Helianthus suffrutescens)

El Dorado bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae)

El Dorado County mule ears (Wyethia reticulate)

Layne’s ragwort (Packera laynaeae)

Nissenan Manzanita (Arctostaphylos nissenana)

Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi)

Pine Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickii)

Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron decumbens)

Red Hills soaproot (Chlorogalum grandiflorum)

Stebbin’s morning‐glory (Calystegia stebbinsii)

Findings

While surveys for special status species were not conducted during this study, there were several sightings of tricolored blackbirds and multiple elderberry shrubs were noted. The elderberry locations are indicated in Table 5. Tricolored blackbird observations occurred in the vicinity of Payen Road between MP 120 and MP 119.


12

Table 5 – Elderberry Shrub Sightings


Location (R/L)


Location (R/L)


Location (R/L)

132.0 L 129.9 L 127.0 R

131.8 R 127.9 L 126.5 R

131.2 R 127.5 L 123.1 L

130.7 L 127.1 L

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) identifies five species of concern occurring within the study area. Two of these are fauna, and the remaining three are flora. The animal species are western pond turtle and burrowing owl. The plant species are El Dorado County mule ears, Layne’s ragwort, and Red Hills soaproot. The burrowing owl observation occurred on the western end of the corridor, near milepost 118, and the pond turtle observation was at the eastern end, near milepost 141. The soaproot was also found on the eastern end, between mileposts 140 and 141. The mule ears and ragwort were between mileposts 134 and 136.

Burrowing owl habitat has already been discussed. It has the potential to be found throughout the study area. Western pond turtle is found in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches. Western pond turtles need basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg laying, such as sandy banks or grassy open fields. Pond turtles have the potential to occur within the study site wherever open water is found within 0.5 kilometer of the railroad.

El Dorado County mule ears and Red Hills soaproot are found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, or lower montane coniferous forest. The former is found on stony red clay and gabbroic soils, often in openings in grabbroic chaparral. The latter occurs frequently on serpentine or gabbro soils and on historically disturbed sites, but is also found on non‐ultramafic substrates. Layne’s ragwort is found on ultramafic soil, occasionally along streams above 200 meter elevation in chaparral and cismontane woodland.

These CNDDB occurrences only include the area within 1,000 feet of the railroad easement. If a larger area was chosen, additional observations would likely occur.

3.6 Erosion and Drainage

Overview

The existing natural trail alignment has a number of areas where erosion and drainage issues are apparent. The drainage issues appear typically where water collects against the uphill side of the railroad embankment, creating wetlands and/or poorly drained areas. Additionally, some areas have a high potential for erosion based upon site factors of topography and soils. Trail construction in these areas can be problematic, because it can exacerbate conditions that lead to soil wasting. Erosion leads to down slope deposition, often at the toe of the bank where slope decreases and stormwater slows down. Soil eroded near creeks or seasonal drainages is


13

often flushed into the waterway, leading to downstream sedimentation, reduced aquatic habitat value, and increased flooding.

In order to alleviate potential erosion issues related to construction, all projects that disturb more than 1 acre of land, or that are part of a larger project that disturbs more than 1 acre in total, must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that addresses how stormwater will be controlled to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and pollution. The SWPPP must be developed by a Qualified Stormwater Designer (QSD), and implementation of the SWPPP during construction must be overseen by a Qualified Stormwater Practitioner (QSD). Requirements for development of SWPPPs and SWPPP monitoring of construction sites are established by the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2009 Construction General Permit.

Erosion can happen anywhere, but has a greater chance of occurring on steep and/or unvegetated slopes in soils with low cohesion (high erosion potential). Fill slopes often have a higher chance of eroding than cut slopes, because they are usually formed of less consolidated material. Eroding slopes can be stabilized through revegetation, regrading, installation of retaining walls, rerouting of stormwater runoff, installation of geotextiles, and other methods.

Findings

Table 6 lists areas within the SPTC where erosion was noted during fieldwork. The most significant areas of erosion are the washouts at the Gap (MP 134.2) and just west of South Shingle crossing #1.

Table 6 – Erosion Areas


Location (R/L)


Location (R/L)


Location (R/L)

140.9 R 136.7 R/L2 122.9 L

140.3 R 136.2 L 122.8 L

140.2 R 134.8 L 122.7 L

139.2 L 134.2 R/L 122.4 L

139.1 L 130.8 R 120.1 L

138.6 L 125.7 L 117.7 L1

137.4 L 123.9 L2

137.2 R/L 123.6 R2 1 Many erosion points 2 River/creek washout

3.7 Trail Access and Parking

Overview

Trail access should support multiple modes of transportation. Amenities at access points can vary from directional and rules signage at minor access locations to parking lots, signage, and


14

other features at staging areas. Access points need to accommodate emergency vehicles to provide for medical assistance, police response, and firefighting equipment ingress/egress. Mitigation Measure PHS‐2.1 requires emergency vehicle access to within ¼ mile of any developed portion of the trail. This would apply to any segment that is improved by paving or other stabilized surfacing and it thus understood to not be a requirement for implementing the natural trail.

Findings

Trail access currently can occur at any of the public road crossing along the SPTC. However, parking along the corridor is limited to a few locations, mostly concentrated on the eastern sections:

The Missouri Flat Road trailhead (requires crossing the road to access the western segment of the trail)

The Railroad Park at Oriental Street

Shingle Springs Depot

Hampton Inn & Suites in Folsom

Limited, undesignated on‐street parking is also available at some rural road crossings. Plans for development of railroad facilities at Latrobe Road will likely include parking in the future. Additionally, a number of other opportunities for parking and access improvement should be planned throughout the trail corridor. These are discussed further in Section 5.

3.8 Asbestos and Hazardous Materials

Overview

Hazardous materials can pose a danger during construction and for natural trail users if the materials are easily disturbed and become airborne. Areas previously used by railroads have the potential to contain hazardous materials due to leakage from railcars or intentional application prior to being identified as a hazard. Another potential hazard often found in El Dorado County is serpentine rock found in ultramific geologic formations. This type of rock may contain naturally occurring asbestos. It was commonly utilized for roadbeds and may have been used as ballast on the rail line before serpentine was identified as a source of asbestos and before the health hazards of asbestos were well known. Additionally, naturally occurring serpentine can be uncovered during the course of excavation and grading operations. Mitigation Measure PHS‐1.1 of the MMP contains a number of recommendations to reduce exposure to serpentine soils in the event they are uncovered during construction operations.

Findings

This project did not specifically look for serpentine soils or other hazardous materials during fieldwork, and specific occurrences were not noted. According to the California Department of Conservation, Asbestos Sites spreadsheet6, there is a known asbestos site near milepost 124,

6 ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ms/59/asbestos_sites.pdf


15

but it is almost 4,000 feet from the SPTC. Known asbestos occurrences are more prevalent in the western portion of El Dorado County around El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park.7 Unidentified subsurface serpentine formations could be found throughout the SPTC area, and the SPTC Master Plan EIR identifies areas between MP 141.7 and MP 123.0 within the SPTC where ultramific rock foundations are suspected to occur based on generalized geographic mapping.8

3.9 Road Intersections

Overview

Road intersections provide access opportunities for natural trail users, but also create potentially unsafe conditions where trail users encounter vehicular traffic. Getting natural trail users safely across roads is one of the major challenges in implementing the natural trail. Options for crossing a road include painted or textured crosswalks, flashing yellow demand‐actuated warning lights, fully signalized on‐demand HAWK‐type crossings, and overpasses/underpasses.

The SPTC intersects the road network 25 times within the study area. Intersection configurations range from a major six‐lane arterial (Iron Point Road) to unpaved tracks. The majority of crossings are rural, two‐lane routes. Most crossings are un‐signalized, with the exception of White Rock Road. Some crossings, such as Mother Lode Drive at the Shingle Springs Depot, and Missouri Flat Road are relatively close to an existing signal that may be used for natural trail users if the alignment is adjusted accordingly.

Findings

Table 7 lists the road‐rail crossings within the study area. Roads are classified as primary or secondary based upon whether it is defined as an arterial or a local road.

Table 7 – Road Crossings

Road Crossing Approx. MP

Description

El Dorado County

Missouri Flat Road 144.9 Primary road

Forni Road 144.1 Primary road

Blanchard Road 143.5 Secondary road

El Dorado Road 142.3 Primary road

Mother Lode Drive #1 141.7 Primary road

Davidson Road 141.3 Secondary road

Greenstone Road 140.5 Primary road

7 Van Gosen, B. S. and Clinkenbeard, J.P. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, U.S. Geological Survey, 2011. 8 Jones & Stokes. 2003. Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Draft and Final EIR.


16

Road Crossing Approx. MP

Description

Shingle Springs Drive 137.9 Primary road

Buckeye Road 137.3 Secondary road

Rustling Pines Road 137.2 Secondary road

Sunset Lane 137.0 Secondary road

Mother Lode Drive #2 136.8 Primary road

South Shingle Road #1 135.7 Primary road


Shadow Hawk Drive 130.8 Secondary road

Brandon Road 129.9 Secondary road



Memory Lane 127.7 Secondary road


Latrobe Road 126.2 Primary road

Dunlap Ranch Road 121.8 Secondary road

Sacramento County (MP 119.4)

White Rock Road 118.0 Primary road

Iron Point Road 116.0 Primary road

3.10 Culverts

Overview

Culverts convey water from ephemeral, intermittent, and small perennial streams under linear structures such as railroad tracks, roads, and trails. Some larger streams may utilize multiple culverts, but most medium to large streams and rivers use bridges for water conveyance.

Culverts may be made of stone, concrete, metal, or plastic. Some of the culverts in the study area were constructed of stone in the 19th and early 20th centuries and thus have historic value. Replacement or extension of historic culverts to accommodate the natural trail may require a cultural resources study prior to modification. Culverts can be constructed in a number of different forms such as cylindrical tubes, often made of corrugated metal pipe; square‐sectioned structures, called box culverts; or as open bottom arches. The latter may be the most appropriate for larger streams because fish and other animals may negotiate them more easily.


17

Findings

The Project Team recorded 113 culverts during fieldwork. Culvert locations and counts are approximate, since data was primarily recorded while motoring down the tracks. Locations are shown in Table 8. At one location, called “the Gap”, the railroad embankment has been removed with heavy equipment to expose the historic stone culvert. In some locations where culverts pass drainage under the rail line, they could be extended to pass under the natural trail as well by elevating the trail surface. Depending on the size of the culvert and the amount of flow, small bridges may be less expensive and environmentally less cumbersome solutions to get the natural trail over drainages.

Table 8 – Culverts

Mileposts Number of Culverts



144.0 ‐ 144.9 2 134.0 ‐ 135.0 2 124.0 ‐ 125.0 5

143.0 ‐ 144.0 2 133.0 ‐ 134.0 4 123.0 ‐ 124.0 7

142.0 ‐ 143.0 6 132.0 ‐ 133.0 5 122.0 ‐ 123.0 2

141.0 ‐ 142.0 3 131.0 ‐ 132.0 2 121.0 ‐ 122.0 4

140.0 ‐ 141.0 5 130.0 ‐ 131.0 6 120.0 ‐ 121.0 4

139.0 ‐ 140.0 5 129.0 ‐ 130.0 4 119.0 ‐ 120.0 2

138.0 ‐ 139.0 4 128.0 ‐ 129.0 3 118.0 ‐ 119.0 7

137.0 ‐ 138.0 4 127.0 ‐ 128.0 2 117.0 ‐ 118.0 7

136.0 ‐ 137.0 2 126.0 ‐ 127.0 1 SR50 ‐ 117.0 3

135.0 ‐ 136.0 3 125.0 ‐ 126.0 7

3.11 Bridges

Overview

Various types of bridge structures are located within the study area where the existing railroad tracks cross larger water bodies such as moderately sized creeks and rivers. Most bridges within the corridor are steel and wood structures on concrete or stone foundations. Some may have historic significance related to their role in the history of the railroad or for architectural elements.

Findings

Ten railroad bridges were observed during the field assessment. Table 9 lists the bridges with their approximate milepoint locations and the associated waterbodies, if known. None of the existing bridges have adequate width to safely allow both natural trail users and rail cars to use the bridge at the same time without significant enhancements such as attached trail decking on a cantilevered structure and safety signage. The bridges do not appear to be compatible with equestrian use due to the uneven surface of the decking and rails. It was apparent that


18

pedestrians, mountain bikers, and possibly equestrians are currently using these bridges where no alternative crossings are available. Some of the bridges have no railings.

Table 9 – Bridges


Description

141.7 Unnamed drainage

141.1 Slate Creek

138.3 Unnamed drainage. Headwaters of Tennessee Creek

138.2 Unnamed drainage. Headwaters of Tennessee Creek

135.7 Unnamed drainage. Likely flows to Shingle Creek

127.8 Clark Creek

123.0 Latrobe Creek

122.6 Deer Creek. Approx. 70‐foot steel span built ca. 19139

121.9 Deer Creek unnamed tributary

119.7 Carson Creek. Approx. 120‐foot span built ca. 196710

3.12 Rail – Trail Intersections

Overview

Rail‐trail intersections are areas of potential hazard to public safety. Even though the rail line is currently used infrequently, these types of intersections must be carefully sited and maintained to ensure good visibility and sufficient time to clear the tracks of natural trail users in the event a train is coming. As trail and/or rail usage levels increase, consideration should be given to putting procedures in place regarding audible warnings, line of sight, and maximum approach speeds to protect trail users.

Findings

Existing rail‐trail intersections occur at a number of points as shown in Table 10. These intersections occur where the existing informal trail crosses the tracks because no clear alternative alignment has been established. These crossing should be evaluated for safety and relocated if visibility is insufficient to give plenty of advance notice when a train approaches.

Table 10 – Rail‐Trail Intersections


Description

137.0 Trail crosses from north to south.

136.0 Trail both sides. Crosses northwest to southeast.

135.7 Main trail both sides to north, crosses to left‐side only to south.

135.4 Spur trail crosses to right side. Main trail on left.


9 Personal communication, 2014. 10 Ibid.


19


Description


134.7 Main trail crosses from left to right side.

132.6 Main trail both sides. Crossing is east to west.

129.8 Main trail crosses from northeast to southwest.

129.7 Main trail crosses from northwest to southeast.

129.6 Main trail crosses from northeast to southwest.

129.4 Main trail crosses from northwest to southeast.

129.2 Spur trail crosses from south to north to join main trail. Berm for mountain bike crossing.

126.6 Main trail crosses from southeast to northwest.

123.5 Main trail crosses from south to north.

123.0 Main trail crosses from southeast to northwest.

122.6 Main trail crosses from south to north.

3.13 Cultural Resources

Overview

The mild climate and abundant natural resources of the California foothills made for an ideal environment for Nisenan and Eastern Miwok settlements throughout the area prior to disruption of their culture by immigrants from the east, and many cultural artifacts from that time period exist throughout the County. The SPTC is associated with many historically significant events and places related to the early settlement and development of El Dorado County. The railroad played a major role in transporting people, goods, and raw materials between Sacramento and destinations in El Dorado County and was thus a major economic and social influence. The SPTC Master Plan EIR indicates that a number of potentially significant sites have been identified within the corridor. It further concludes that there is a high likelihood of future studies identifying addition cultural resources with in the corridor. Cultural resources must be considered in all development projects that have the potential to uncover or disturb valuable sites, including trail grading and construction. Cultural Resource Assessments are required as part of the federal Clean Water Act permitting process, as well as CEQA and NEPA.

Findings

Several potentially significant cultural sites were noted during the fieldwork for this project. These sites primarily contain remnants of historic structures associated with the railroad. Table 11 lists approximate mileposts and descriptions for some of the cultural resources that were identified primarily through personal communication. These observations do not constitute a formal cultural resources assessment, which would involve extensive fieldwork as well as records searches. In addition, there are numerous bridges, culverts, and old railroad landings throughout the corridor that may have historical significance.


20

Table 11 – Cultural Resources


Description

133.5 Historic building remnants visible from tracks

131.5 Historic foundation

130.5 Old mine adjacent to easement

126.2 Mound in location of historic Latrobe station


21

4 Recommendations This chapter provides recommendations for opening the natural trail within the SPTC for public use. The recommendations are based on the assessment of existing conditions, and reflect the actions required by the SPTC Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). The implementation strategy for the SPTC natural trail is to open as many segments as possible once they are deemed suitable for a safe user experience in a manner that complies with the SPTC Master Plan and the associated EIR.

4.1 Preliminary Preferred Alignment Options While portions of a natural trail appear to already be in place along certain segments of the SPTC corridor between Missouri Flat and Folsom, there are other segments where no clear alignment is visible. This implementation plan provides a preliminary assessment as to where additional trail segments are needed to supplement or improve the existing natural trails.

Opportunities to establish a natural trail in these areas are constrained mainly by topography and drainage issues and to a lesser degree by corridor width. In some locations, the best location is on the right side while in others it is on the left side. Ideally, the natural trail should be kept on one side or the other between intersections or other access points where it may safely cross the train tracks. The designation of trail alignment as right or left assumes travelling from east to west.

Recommendations

Table 12 shows the preliminary preferred alignment for a natural trail throughout the portion of the SPTC from MP 144.9 (Missouri Flat Road) to MP 116.4 (Iron Point Road). Each segment is given a unique identifier and defined by approximate starting and ending mileposts, with the preferred location of the natural trail being either to the right or left of the railroad tracks. However, in some locations, both sides appear feasible and the final determination will ultimately depend on the ease of connecting to the adjacent segments and trail conditions. These locations may also be suitable for future development of an improved or paved trail separate from the natural trail.

The El Dorado County Parks and Trails Master Plan (2012) identifies implementation of the portion of the El Dorado Trail in the SPTC from the El Dorado/Sacramento county line to Placerville as a Tier 1 priority. Relative priorities for implementing specific sections of the El Dorado Trail were established by El Dorado County in 2007. The relative implementation priorities for segments within the SPTC are also shown in Table 12. For the segments in Sacramento County, the priority is derived based on the connectivity with the El Dorado County segments.

Following more detailed field assessment (see section 4.6), these implementation priorities may need to be adjusted based on existing conditions, costs, current level of use, access/egress points, and connectivity.


22

Table 12 – Preliminary Alignment Options (Direction of Travel East to West)

Segment ID

Start MP

End MP

Side (Left or

Right)

Description Implementation

Priority

1 144.9 144.1 Left Missouri Flat to Forni Road 1

2 144.1 142.3 Right Forni Road to El Dorado Road 1

3 142.6 141.7 Left El Dorado Road to Mother Lode Drive #1

1

4 141.7 140.0 Right Mother Lode Drive #1 to West of Greenstone Road (encroachments at MP 141.6 – 141.5 on left)

3

5 140.0 137.9 Left West of Greenstone Road to Shingle Springs Drive

3

6 137.9 137.2 Right Shingle Springs Drive to Rustling Pines Road

3

7 137.2 136.8 Left Rustling Pines Road to Mother Lode Drive #2

3

8 136.8 136.7 Left Across and south on Mother Load Drive #2; use existing signal and crosswalk; add path south side of Mother Load Drive to connect west to SPTC

4

9 136.7 134.0 Right Mother Lode Drive #2 to Unpaved Access Drive

4

10 134.0 129.9 Left Unpaved Access Drive to Brandon Road

4

11 129.9 128.2 Right Brandon Road to South Shingle Road #4

4

12 128.2 128.0 Left South Shingle Road #4 4

13 128.0 127.9 Right Acquire easement to avoid creek and wetlands

4

14 127.9 126.6 Left Return to left side after creek/wetlands; need bridge and rail crossing

4

15 126.6 126.2 Right Return to right side until Latrobe Road to avoid conflict with Latrobe Triangle Road in left easement

4

16 126.2 122.7 Left Cross at Latrobe Road and stay left until east of Deer Creek

2

17 122.7 121.8 Right East of Deer Creek to Dunlap Ranch Road

2


23

Segment ID

Start MP

End MP

Side (Left or

Right)

Description Implementation

Priority

18 121.8 119.7 Left Dunlap Ranch Road to 2/10 mi. east of Payen Road

2

19 119.7 119.5 Left Acquire easement; use Payen Road bridge and follow Payen Road back to SPTC at MP 119.5

2

20 119.5 118.0 Left Payen Road to White Rock Road 2

21 118.0 116.4 Right White Rock Road to Placerville Road 2

4.2 Crossing Implementation Priorities The SPTC includes several types of crossings that could influence implementation of the natural trail. These are intersections with roads; access driveways; bridges and culverts at creeks or drainages; and places where the natural trail crosses the railroad tracks to gain a more favorable alignment. Trail/rail crossings should ideally occur at public street intersections or other public access points where the train activities will have other controls that can be designed to make the natural trail crossing safer. However, this may not be feasible at all trail/rail crossings.

Recommendations

Implementation criteria for crossings are also shown and correspond to the priorities recommended for trail implementation. Crossings for higher priority trail segments are thus given a similarly high rating as they are needed to facilitate access and safe passage along the segments.

Table 13 includes the preliminary list of crossings associated with implementing the natural trail. Each crossing is assigned an identifier and associated with the trail segment (see Table 12) within which it occurs. The crossing is classified as to type and general descriptive information is provided as relevant. The natural trail assessment maps (Chapter 5) also show the location of each crossing. Crossings are listed sequentially from east to west.

Implementation criteria for crossings are also shown and correspond to the priorities recommended for trail implementation. Crossings for higher priority trail segments are thus given a similarly high rating as they are needed to facilitate access and safe passage along the segments.

Table 13 – Implementation Priorities for Natural Trail Crossings

Segment ID

Crossing ID

Type Description Implementation

Priority

1 1 Paved Road Missouri Flat Road 1

2 2 Paved Road ‐ Tracks Forni Road 1

2 3 Paved Road Blanchard Road 1


24

Segment ID

Crossing ID


Priority

2 4 Dirt Road 1

2 5 Dirt Road 1

3 6 Paved Road ‐ Tracks El Dorado Road 1

3 7 Bridge 1

4 8 Paved Road ‐ Tracks Mother Lode Drive #1 3

4 9 Paved Driveway Paved access driveway 3

4 10 Dirt Road 3

4 11 Paved Road Davidson Road 3

4 12 Bridge Approx. 65 ft. trestle 3

4 13 Paved Road Greenstone Road 3

5 14 Tracks 3

5 15 Bridge 3

5 16 Bridge 3

6 17 Road ‐ Tracks Shingle Springs Drive 3

7 18 Dirt Road Buckeye Road 3

7 19 Dirt Road ‐Tracks Rustling Pines Road 3

7 20 Dirt Road Sunset Lane 3

8 21 Paved Road Mother Load Drive #2 3

8 22 Paved Road French Creek Road 3

8 23 Paved Driveway Paved access driveway 3

9 24 Tracks 4

9 25 Paved Road South Shingle Road #1 4

9 26 Bridge 4

9 27 Bridge The "Gap" 4

10 28 Dirt Road ‐Tracks Unpaved access driveway 4

10 29 Dirt Road Unpaved access driveway 4




10 33 Paved Road Shadow Hawk Drive 4

11 34 Paved Road ‐ Tracks Brandon Road 4

12 35 Paved Road ‐ Tracks South Shingle Road #3 4


13 37 Tracks‐ Bridge 4

14 38 Tracks‐ Bridge 4

14 39 Paved Road Memory Lane 4

14 40 Bridge 4


15 42 Tracks 4


25

Segment ID

Crossing ID


Priority

16 43 Paved Road ‐ Tracks Latrobe Road 2

16 44 Dirt Road 2

16 45 Dirt Road 2

16 46 Dirt Road 2

16 47 Bridge 2

17 48 Tracks 2

17 49 Bridge Approx. 70 ft. steel span ca. 1913

2

17 50 Bridge 2

18 51 Dirt Road ‐ Tracks Dunlap Ranch Road 2

19 52 Bridge Approx. 60 ft. on Payen Road over Carson Creek

2

20 53 Dirt Road Approx. county line 2

20 54 Dirt Road 2

21 55 Paved Road ‐ Tracks White Rock Road 2

21 56 Culvert 2

21 57 Culvert 2

21 58 Culvert 2

21 59 Culvert 2

21 60 Culvert 2

21 61 Culvert 2

21 62 Culvert 2

21 63 Paved Road Iron Point Road 2

The following general recommendations also apply to natural trail crossings.

1. All intersections with vehicular roads should be prominently signed on both the trail and road for both drivers and trail users to anticipate the presence of the other.

2. Each road intersection should be evaluated to determine what level of improvements may be needed for driver and trail user safety, depending on road speed, visibility, and level of use. The SPTC Master Plan provides examples of various types of vehicle intersection improvements including:

limit lines

varied striping

bollards

flashing beacons

traffic signal with trail user activation


26

3. Trail approaches to vehicular roads should be aligned to provide maximum visibility of oncoming traffic and a comfortable flat resting spot for trail uses to wait while traffic passes.

4. In several locations, railroad bridges provide the only means of crossing a creek on the SPTC. Bridges either need to be widened to allow placement of a trail a safe distance from the train, or separate bridges for trail use only need to be constructed at these locations.

5. Trail/rail crossings should ideally occur at public street intersections or other public access points. However, in the locations where this is not feasible and the natural trail needs to cross the rail tracks to attain a more favorable alignment, signage should be prominently displayed for both the trail and rail users to anticipate the presence of the other.

4.3 Access Points Designated access/egress points need to be provided for natural trail users so that they are not trespassing, damaging the environment, or creating unsafe situations. Access points should generally be placed at intersections or where the road is adjacent to the SPTC to facilitate users either driving to the trail or connecting to on‐street bike or pedestrian facilities. Intersection improvements for trail user safety described above (Section 5.3) should be implemented along with access improvements.

Recommendations

1. Implement three levels of access points differentiated by the extent of improvements and anticipated use (Table 14).

Type “A” points would include basic signage for trail identification, mileage, allowed uses, regulations, and segment conditions (width, slope, vertical clearance, etc.), as well as removable bollards or other barriers that will allow emergency or maintenance vehicle access only.

Type “B” points would include all the improvements of type “A” with the addition of several parking spaces and perhaps informational signage explaining natural and cultural resources to be seen along the segment.

Type “C” points would include all the improvements of types “A” and “B” with the possible addition of expanded off‐street parking, interpretive elements, drinking water, rest rooms, and/or shade shelters.

2. The priority for implementing access points should be coordinated with the implementation of natural trail segments. As segments are opened to public use, the corresponding access points should also be implemented, beginning with the minimum level of improvements (type “A”) at each access point since funding may not initially allow for implementation of type “B” and “C” access improvements.


27

3. Consider requirements for parking that may be needed to serve anticipated natural trail users before opening a segment. Adequate parking should be provided either on‐street or in designated off‐street spaces to prevent trail users from leaving vehicles in locations that are unsafe, obstruct traffic, or impact local residents. Signage should indicate parking restrictions near access points.

Table 14 – Potential SPTC Access Points

Access Point Approx. MP Description

El Dorado County

Type "A" Access Points

Forni Road 144.1 Intersection

Blanchard Road 143.5 Intersection

El Dorado Road 142.3 Intersection

Davidson Road 141.3 Intersection

Buckeye Road 137.3 Intersection

Rustling Pines Road 137.2 Intersection

Sunset Lane 137.0 Intersection

Mother Lode Drive #2 136.8 Intersection

Shadow Hawk Drive 130.8 Intersection

Brandon Road 129.9 Intersection

Memory Lane 127.7 Intersection

South Shingle Road #5 127.2 Intersection

Latrobe Triangle Road 126.4 Intersection

Type "B" Access Points

Mother Lode Drive #1 141.7 Intersection

Greenstone Road 140.5 Intersection

Shingle Springs Drive 137.9 Intersection

South Shingle Road #1 135.7 Intersection

Shingle Lime Mine Road 134.5 Adjacent to SPTC

South Shingle Road #3 128.3

South Shingle Road #4 128.2

Combine these crossings for a single access point

Latrobe Road #2 123.0 Adjacent to SPTC

Payen Road 119.5 Adjacent to SPTC

Type "C" Access Points

Missouri Flat Road 144.9 Existing parking east of intersection; crossing improvements needed

Oriental Street 142.7 Future public park site

Shingle Springs Depot 136.9 Existing depot with parking

Lime Rock Valley 133.4 Future planned development


28

Access Point Approx. MP Description

South Shingle Road #2 131.4 Acquisition needed, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment needed

Latrobe Road #1 126.2 Easement 200+ feet; adequate room for parking

Sacramento County (MP 119.4)

Type "A" Access Points

Iron Point Road 116.0 Intersection

Type "B" Access Points

White Rock Road 118.0 Intersection

Type "C" Access Points

Placerville Road 116.4 Adjacent to SPTC

4.4 Institutional Arrangements and Policies Since the 2003 SPTC Master Plan addresses only the portion of the SPTC in El Dorado County, the El Dorado County Department of General Services was as the lead entity responsible for management of the corridor. The General Services Department has since been eliminated and allocation of this responsibility needs to be revisited and reassigned. The Master Plan acknowledges that El Dorado County and the SPTC JPA are expected to develop agreements, policies, procedures, ordinances, and standards as needed to govern the development, maintenance, and operation of the corridor. Before the corridor is officially opened for public use roles, responsibilities, and procedures for these tasks should be clearly defined to ensure user safety.

Recommendations

1. Identify maintenance standards and procedures to be used for the natural trail, including frequency of inspections and response time.

2. Identify the entities responsible for implementing trail maintenance standards by trail location.

3. Identify existing ordinances by jurisdiction and those that need to be developed to manage natural trail use in a consistent manner that is safe and does not adversely impact adjacent property owners. Natural trail use that occurs in different jurisdictions should be subject to comparable ordinances so users are not confused about what regulations apply as they travel the trail through different jurisdictions.

4. Identify and coordinate among local jurisdictions for responsibility and procedures for emergency responders such as fire, medical care, or crime.

5. Establish procedures by which special events and uses may be reviewed, approved, noticed, and managed to prevent unsafe conflicts with informal trail users.


29

4.5 Special Studies The SPTC Master Plan EIR identifies a number of natural and cultural resources with the potential to occur within or adjacent to the corridor. Activities associated with implementing and maintaining the natural trail are subject to the mitigation measures identified in the adopted MMP to limit impacts on these resources. In addition, boundary surveys are needed in some areas where private property improvements appear to encroach on the SPTC.

It is recommended that surveys be conducted, at a minimum, for all natural trail segments that are anticipated to be implemented in the next five years.

Recommendations

1. Perform surveys and mapping for the presence of special status species, habitat, and wetlands. Special status species identified in the SPTC Master Plan EIR include:

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchii)

Red‐Legged Frog (Rana draytonii)

Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

Additional special status species are known to exist in the vicinity of the SPTC as indicated by records in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). These include Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) and three plants: County Mule Ears (Wyethia reticulate), Layne’s Ragwort (Packera laynaeae), and Red Hills Soaproot (Chlorogalum grandiflorum). Special status species survey parameters regarding time of year and area are identified in the MMP and by the regulatory agencies.

General habitat surveys should include riparian woodland, oak woodland, and scrub.

Wetland surveys should include a delineation and quantification of wetlands using the Army Corps of Engineer’s current procedures.

2. Complete pedestrian surveys to locate and record cultural resources. While numerous prior surveys were conducted in the area that includes the SPTC, the SPTC Master Plan EIR found that the scope, sensitivity, and analysis of these surveys to be quite variable. Guidance from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) North Central Information Center further suggested that sites that have not been surveyed in the last ten years should be re‐surveyed. Findings from a current survey would also result in a compiled list of all cultural and historic resources within the corridor and would be an invaluable tool for coordinated interpretive planning. The cultural resources inventory should also include a records search, sacred lands file search, literature review, and preparation of record forms and a report.

3. Any construction work in the vicinity of Amber Fields Drive and South Shingle Springs Road (approximate MP 131.4) will require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine


30

the presence/absence of hazardous materials contamination. Steel drums, discarded paint cans, and other unidentifiable debris were noted at this location in the SPTC Master Plan EIR.

4. Perform boundary surveys at locations where there appear to be encroachments into the SPTC that would limit the potential placement of the natural trail alignment.

4.6 Natural Trail Design and Construction Three types of trails are envisioned in the SPTC Master Plan. Natural trails have no paving or other surface material improvements. Improved trails have compacted gravel or decomposed granite surfaces. Paved trail surfaces are asphalt, stabilized decomposed granite, or similar material. This implementation plan only examines natural trails.

The existing conditions of the recommended natural trail alignment are quite variable. In some locations, the existing trail is nothing more than an irregular 2‐foot wide path with occasional tree roots and large rocks protruding through the surface. In other locations, where the alignment coincides with the old railroad maintenance road, the trail is relatively flat and 10 feet wide. In still other locations, there appears to be no existing trail that receives regular use and hikers and bikers instead walk either on or immediately adjacent to the railroad ties. This is not a safe situation and usually occurs when trail users don’t readily see an obvious alternative route.

SPTC Master Plan Design Guidelines

The SPTC Master Plan Design Guidelines for natural trails suggest a tread width of 10 feet with a 2 percent cross slope for drainage. The recommended vertical clearance for natural trails is a minimum of 12 feet beneath structures or tree limbs. Swales that are at least 6 inches deep and separated from the trail by a 3 inch high berm should be constructed where needed to divert uphill cross drainage from the trail surface. Berms, railroad ties, or treated logs should be used on the downhill side of trails to control erosion from trail drainage.

While these guidelines describe ultimate development of the natural trail, the SPTC Master Plan allows for interim use of the corridor for trail purposes that are consistent with the SPTC Master Plan without the suggested improvements. The expectation is that, as funds allow, the natural trail will eventually be improved to conform to the guidelines to ensure safety and proper drainage.

Recommendations

1. Before the prioritized segments are officially opened to public use, each segment should be walked and rated as to its suitability for various uses in its current condition, and the refinements identified that are needed to expand the range of suitable uses. In many locations, the technical challenges and costs of implementing the full guidelines may be impractical and therefore, it may not be feasible to allow the full range of uses. In these locations, the trail construction should focus on minimizing hazards to trail users, erosion, and environmental impacts. Such interim improvements may include:


31

widening the tread

grading to improve cross drainage

increasing vertical clearance

installation of safety fences

leveling the trail surface

shifting the alignment to avoid obstacles or sensitive resources

removing major obstacles such as boulders and fallen trees

adding bridges and/or installing culverts to redirect intersecting drainage

2. New alignments need to be established for segments where the trail coincides with the rail line to separate rail and trail use. Each segment will need to be examined individually to determine the best alignment. In some cases, bridges may be needed to allow the existing trail to continue across a drainage that is presently impassable. In other cases, the existing trail may need to be realigned well before it reaches the rail bed to separate the trail users from the trains. The construction of the new natural trail segments may not meet the Design Guidelines but may rely on the interim construction measures listed above to achieve a safe, separated trail that serves the anticipated uses.

3. Prior to any trail improvement project being undertaken, all resource studies and mitigation plans must be completed to identify any regulatory restrictions. Necessary permits must be secured and/or modifications made to the design of the improvements to eliminate impacts.

4. Evaluate the need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Asbestos Hazard Dust Mitigation Plan for any natural trail construction activities. Develop and implement the plans accordingly.

5. Since access to many trail segments is very limited, the construction methods and staging must be carefully considered to ensure an accurate estimate of costs and regulatory impacts.

6. During any construction project that could limit trail uses or create safety issues, appropriate signage should be posted to advise users of trail closures or construction activities.

7. Trail construction activities within the 100‐year floodplain of any drainage are to be limited to the dry season (April 16 – October 14) to reduce potential for siltation impacts.

8. Retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities in sensitive biological resource area. Duties of the monitor are outlined in the MMP mitigation measure BIO‐1.2.

9. Comply with all other construction‐related restriction or mitigation measures as defined in the MMP, regulatory permits, and El Dorado County ordinances.


32

4.7 Signage Various types of signage are needed to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for natural trail users. Signage content and locations are also referenced in other recommendations in this chapter, such as for crossings and access points. The recommendations provided here are consistent with the guidelines provided in the El Dorado County Parks and Trails Master Plan (2102) for trail signage.

Recommendations

1. Develop graphic standards (colors, font, logo, etc.) for SPTC natural trail signage to be implemented uniformly throughout the corridor. This will help establish the identity of the corridor as a designated public resource and will make it easier for trail users to comprehend content.

2. Establish a standard design for which signs will appear at each of the various types of access points (type “A”, “B”, and “C”) and crossings.

3. Where feasible, reduce the number of individual signs at a given location by combining information on fewer signs.

4. Provide signs that reflect ordinances regarding permitted uses, regulations, and penalties for unsafe and unlawful uses.

5. Use permanent or temporary signs as appropriate to identify potential hazards and/or unsafe conditions.

6. Include information on signs about proper natural trail etiquette for shared uses (natural trail may be equestrian, hiking, and mountain biking).

7. Provide wayfinding signage with place names, directions, mileage, and trail segment conditions (width, slope, vertical clearance, etc.).

8. Traffic control signage is needed at access points and crossings indicating speed limits, right of way, etc.

9. The SPTC corridor is rich with interpretive opportunities for natural and cultural resources. As funding allows, develop an interpretive program that includes signs and possibly digital “apps” to educate trail users without inviting vandalism or other impacts to the resources.

4.8 Safety It is likely that all or portions of the natural trail will be opened for public use before any additional improved or paved trails are constructed. Given the remoteness of certain corridor segments and the nature of trail uses, safety must be a major consideration.


33

Recommendations

1. Review existing ordinances related to natural trail use and adopt new ones as needed that define lawful uses and penalties for unlawful use.

2. Work with volunteer groups to create regular patrols (equestrian, pedestrian, and mountain bike) to detect safety issues, help educate trail users, and discourage unlawful activities.

3. Most areas of the SPTC have adequate cell phone coverage if trail users need to call for assistance so the expense of call boxes may not be warranted. However, trail users should be encouraged to carry their charged cell phones with them at all times.

4. Where the natural trail is adjacent to a drop‐off or steep slope, such as a cut bank or drainage channel, safety fencing should be installed to prevent hazardous falls.

5. The natural trail should be at least five feet away from the rail line when both are on the same elevation.

6. Signage on the natural trail should include notice to trail users of fire dangers and ordinances restricting activities that pose fire threat.

7. Monitor the implemented segments of natural trail as needed for vegetation management, wash out repair, etc, to keep the natural trails safe and reduce fire danger.

8. All crossings (road, drainage, and trail/rail) crossings must be designed and maintained to provide adequate sight lines, stopping distance, and safety signage.

9. The SPTC Master Plan MMP specifies that all developed areas of the SPTC should be accessible to within one‐quarter mile by emergency response vehicles. Since the natural trail is not a developed use, this standard will not be met. However, emergency responders (sheriff, fire, etc.) should be provided with maps and other information to help them locate the best access routes to specific segments should they receive a distress call or other emergency notification.

4.9 Maintenance and Monitoring The setting of the natural trail provides several maintenance and monitoring challenges. Portions of the SPTC corridor are in remote locations that are not easily accessible for maintenance vehicles or large equipment. Keeping the trails open for use and free of obstructions requires ongoing monitoring and periodic action to clear fast growing vegetation, correct trail erosion, and repair signage.

Recommendations

1. It is likely that the interim implementation of the natural trail will include segments of varying widths and grade. Maintenance standards for each segment may vary as well depending on access, level of use, and type of vegetation.


34

2. Conduct periodic monitoring surveys of the natural trails to identify the need for vegetation removal, drainage improvements, trash and debris removal, and vandalism and graffiti repairs.

3. Estimate annual maintenance costs required to keep any given natural trail segment at the minimum level of safe conditions. Make sure funds or other resources are available to provide this maintenance.

4. Consider use of the rail line to transport large equipment or materials that may be needed to implement maintenance or repairs.

5. Consider use of trail volunteers to implement regular maintenance tasks or special projects to help minimize maintenance costs and promote trail stewardship.

6. Be sure to post signs notifying trail users when maintenance activities are underway to alert them to possible danger and to protect maintenance workers.

7. Portions of the SPTC being evaluated in this implementation plan for natural trail use are in El Dorado County, Sacramento County, and the City of Folsom. Therefore, each jurisdiction needs to coordinate with the others on proposed maintenance activities so that trail users can expect a consistent level of trail experience.

4.10 Funding The SPTC Master Plan states that development of trails will be funded through 1) private funds, or 2) public grants that are available for the development of trails but may not be used for developing, maintaining, or operating roads or public transit systems. In the last decade since the Master Plan was adopted, the allocation of public grants has become less distinctly oriented so as to distinguish between trails and roads. An emphasis on multimodal transportation options has emerged at both the federal and state level recognizing that trails may be regarded as a providing transportation as well as recreational value. Nevertheless, finding funding for implementing/improving natural trails segments, constructing major improvements such as bridges or type “C” access points, adding interpretive elements, and ongoing maintenance will be a limiting factor.

Recommendations

1. Further analysis is needed to accurately assess the scope and costs for opening priority natural trails segments to the public in a manner that is consistent with the SPTC Master Plan, MMP, and EIR. The recommended steps in this analysis are are:

Conduct field assessment of priority segments to identify needed improvements and associated costs.

Develop access strategy (access points, parking needs, etc.) and costs for priority segments.

Identify crossing improvements and costs required for priority segments.


35

Complete natural and cultural resource studies and as needed boundary surveys.

Identify any required regulatory permits and estimated permitting costs. Note: if regulatory permits are required, additional more detailed natural and/or cultural resources studies may be required by the regulatory agencies.

Develop minimally necessary signage plan and costs for priority segments.

Table 15 provides estimated costs to complete these preparatory studies broken out for each of the four prioritized groups of segments. Costs are estimated assuming the same people conduct the assessments throughout the entire study area to maximize efficiency and consistency in the findings. Coordination will be required between those assessing the natural trail and related improvements and those performing resource studies since trail improvements may need to be adjusted to limit impacts. Some cost savings may be possible by assessing more than one group of segments at a time. See Table 12 for a list of which segments comprise each priority grouping.

Table 15 – Estimated Costs for Next Steps

Natural Trail Segment Implementation Priority

Task 1

3.2 miles 7 crossings

2 9.8 miles

20 crossings

3 4.9 miles

16 crossings

4 10.6

19 crossings

Total Estimated

Cost

Trails Field Assessment

Field Visit to:

Evaluate Trail Evaluate Parking Needs

Assess Crossings Identify Sign Locations

$ 5,940 $ 7,860 $ 7,220 $ 8,500 $ 29,520

Documentation and Reporting

$ 1,280 $ 1,920 $ 1,600 $ 1,920 $ 6,720

Cost Estimates for:

Trails Permitting

Access Points Crossings Signage

$ 2,560 $ 3,840 $ 3,200 $ 3,840 $ 13,440

Resource Studies and Boundary Surveys

Biological Resources and Wetland Survey

$ 9,950 $ 12,200 $ 9,950 $ 12,500 $ 44,600

Cultural Resources $ 8,260 $ 15,710 $ 12,330 $17,380 $53,680

Boundary Surveys1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Develop Minimal Signage Plan


36

Natural Trail Segment Implementation Priority

Establish Graphic Standards

$ 4,420 $ 4,420

Design Mandatory Signage

$ 5,100

Apply signage standards and designs as completed for first phase

$ 5,100

Total $ 37,510 $ 41,530 $ 34,300 $ 44,140 $157,4801 Boundary surveys to identify encroachments should be limited to those points identified in the proposed field evaluations as impeding implementation of the natural trail.

2. Given the limitations on funding sources for implementing SPTC trails, it is important that all

designated sources be preserved for this purpose. The SPTC Master Plan notes that El Dorado County administers approximately 79 leases within the corridor. Revenues from the leases are supposed to go into a special revenue fund for projects and expenses related to the SPTC. The status of these leases should be reviewed in case any might impede implementation of the natural trail. In addition, the process for collecting and managing these revenues should be examined to determine what funds may be immediately available for SPTC projects and to quantify future revenue streams.


37

5 SPTC Assessment Maps A separate map has been developed for each mile of the studied corridor showing existing features as described in this report, as well as a proposed preliminary alignment for the natural trail. Map scales vary to allow largest display of information while accounting for corridor sinuosity.

It should be noted that the placement of all map features is very preliminary and should not be used for construction purposes. Milepost demarcation along the SPTC is not sufficiently refined or surveyed to allow more precise placement of features. Intervals of one‐tenth mile were estimated using GIS tools to help refine feature locations. Refer to Chapter 2 for further information on data accuracy and sources.

144

MISSOURI FLAT RD

WEDGE HILL RD

FORNI RD

ENTERPRISE

DR

BBON LN

HAZELNUT LN

WED

GEHI

LLCT

MERCHANDISE WAY

ALICE C

T

JUNIPER LN

LONG

AVE

HA

LYA

RD

CT

ALPINE LN

GREENBACK DR

HALYARD LN

BETTY JEAN C

TBR

IGHT

CT

CAPI

TOL A

VE

STARTHISTLE LN

CHESTNUT LN

JASMIN

E DR

TOTEM RD

AMBER LN

RHODES AVE

ZAM

ORA

DR

LINDBERG AVE

INDUSTRIAL DR

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 144

SPTC NaturalTrail Mapbook

Document Name: SPTC_Trail_Mapbook_20140616 : 6/17/2014 5:49:49 PM

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd

Other FeaturesMile Marker

SPTC Rail Centerline

Road

Pacrel

SPTC Easement Boundary

LegendAccess Point (Type)

A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland

Required Crossing (Type)Bridge

Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks

Existing Informal Trail

Preliminary Natural Trail

© 2014

144

143

WES

TJA

SM

INE

DR

NIPERCT

PANORAMA DR

JUNIP

ER LN

TURBO LN

CLEAR C

T

ENTERPRISEDR

BLAN

CH

AR

D R

D

IVY TRL

BLAN

CH

AR

D C

T

BOYD

LN

NAN

AS L

N

JASMIN

E DR

OR

IEN

TAL S

T

WADE CT

FORNI RD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 143



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

142

143

THE

LODE D

R

PLEASANT VALLEY RD

HU

RC

H S

T

OR

IENTAL ST

ANNMARIE LN

COLT

CT

NORTH ST

ELIZ

AB

ETH

LN

HAGEN

RAN

CH RD

EL

DO

RA

DO

RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 142



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

141

142

DAVIDSON RDVENTURE RD

IRIS

H P

OR

T LN

CLOVER LEAF CT

MERCHANT CIR

MOTHER LODE DR

PLEASANT VALLEY RD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 141



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

140

141

MO

NK

RD

QUAIL VALLEY RD

AUTO

MO

TIV

EC

T

FAWN ST

BOLE

S RD DAVIDSON RD

GREENSTONECUTOFF

MERCHANT CIR

BUCK RD

CLOVER LEAF CT

GR

EEN

STO

NE R

D

STUDEBAKER RD

PRODUCTION DRSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 140



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

139

140

QUAIL

VALLEY RD

TWO

PIN

E C

T

GRANDVIEW CIR

STU

DEB

AKER

RD

HO

PE LN

WENDSAN LN

GR

AN

DVI

EW

CT

MO

NK

RDUS

HWY

50

EXIT 40

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 139



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

138

139

SHIN

GLE

SPR

ING

S D

R

TWO PINE CT

MA

GG

IE CT

QU

AIL

VALL

EY R

D

US HWY 50

EXIT 40

SLEEPY CREEK LN

GR

AN

DV

IEW

CIR

EXIT 39

GRANDVIEW

CT

ROCK BARN RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 138



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

137

138

EASTW DR

NO

RTH

STAR D

R

SUNSETLN CHILDHOOD CT

BUCKEYE RD

SCENIC DR

HO

LIDAY LA

KE DR

MOTHER LODE DR

RID

GE

DR

FOO

THIL

L D

R

CH

ILD

HO

OD

LN

NO

RTH

SH

ING

LE R

D

SH

ING

LE S

PR

ING

S D

R

CAROL LN

MAGGIE LN

RU

STLIN

G P

INE

S R

D

US HW

Y 50


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 137



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

136

137

ALTAIR

WAY

MA

CLN

EAGLE

NEST CT

CR

EEKS

IDE

CT

CREEKSIDE DR

SOTT

ILE

LN

NORTH

STAR DR

TOYON C

T

SUNRISE RIDGE RD

SOU

TH S

HIN

GLE

CT

HA

MR

OS

EW

AY

LOR

RA

IN S

T

US HWY 50

BEC

KEN

LN

SUN

SET LN

DAT

SU

N C

T

POS

TOA

K D

R

WOODSIDE WAY

PINE RIDGE CT

MIT

HR

IL W

AY

SPA

RTA

N L

N

SPORTS CLUB DR

RIGEL CT

MO

THER

LOD

E DR

SPA

RR

OW

LN

FRENCH CREEK RD

ROBERTA LN

NORTH SHING

LE RD

MO

NA

RC

H L

N

EXIT 37

IDLE CREEK DR

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 136



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

135

136MET

CT

SOUTH SHINGLE RD

OD

UD

R

VIDEND D

R

MILTON RANCH RD

CO

USI

NS

CT

PELKIE LN

PALM LN

PRES

LEY

LN

TAMMY LN

HIGHBURY LN

BU

SIN

ES

S D

R

RAEJIM LN

REM

UD

A C

T

BENT

ON

WAY

LAK

EVIE

W D

R

WO

ODS

IDE

WAY

MONARCH LN


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 135



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

134

135

CO

MM

OD

ITY

WAY

MILTON RANCH RD

BUSINESS DR

BARNETT LOOP RDSHIN

GLE L

IME

MIN

E RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 134



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

133

134

MILTON RANCH RD

HIBRA CT

MIL

TON

RA

NC

H C

T

CHAR MAR CIR

BIG

BR

ANC

H R

D

HIGHCREST DR

SLEEPY HO

LLOW

RD

BARNETT RANCH RD

SHINGLE LIME MINE RD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 133



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

132

133SOUTH SHINGLE RD

FAR

REL

L R

D

ASH

LIEC

T

STEEPLE CHASE DR

RAYMOND CT

BAR

NET

TR

ANC

H C

T

BARNETT RANCH RD

STEE

PLE

CH

ASE

CT

AMBER FIELDS DR

BREEZY BRANCH CT

GAM

EBIR

D CT

BOYSENBERRY LN

PURPLELEAF CT

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 132



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

131

132

AMBER FIELDS DR

LONESOME DOVE DR

LONESOME DOVE CT

HAVETURE WAY

SOUTH SHINGLE RDFERNWOOD DR

COYOTE PASS RD

BULLAR

D D

R

ARENA LN

DOUBLE OAK RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 131



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

130

131

SOUTH SHING

LE RD

TALON DR

SHAD

OW

HAW

K DR

SHULTZVINEYARD RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 130



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

129130

SHAD

OW H

AWK

DR

BRAN

DO

N R

D

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS,

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 129



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

128

129

BRANDON RD

SOUT

H SH

ING

LE R

D

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 128



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

127

128

AIX

RAN

CH

RD

SOUT

H S

HIN

GLE

RD

MEMORY LN


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 127



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

126

127

LATROBE RD

SOUTH SHINGLE RD

OLD STATION LN

THROTTLE LN

LATROBE TRIANGLE


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 126



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

125

126

LATROBE RD

THRO

TTLE

LN

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 125



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

124

125

SUN RIDGE MEADOW RD

LATROBE RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 124



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

123

124

SUN RID

GE

MEADOW R

D

LATROBE RD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 123



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

122

123C

OTH

RIN

RAN

CH

RD

LATROBE RD


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 122



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

121

122


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 121



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

120

121

WETSEL

OVIATT R

D


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 120



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

119 120

PAYEN RD

OLDPLACERVILLE

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User

0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 119



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

118

119

OLD PLACERVILLE

WHIT

E ROCK


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 118



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

118

117

OLD PLACERVILLE

WHI

TE R

OCK


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 117



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

117

116

SCOTT

RD S

B HW

Y 50

EB

ON

SCOTT

RD

NB H

WY

50 W

B ON

SCOTT

OLD PLACERVILLE

SCOTT RD

SB HWY

50 EB ON

CAVITT

CAI

THN

ESS

LISTOWE

CAIH

NE

SS

5050

HWY 50 EB SCOTT RD OFF

BIDWELL

IRO

N P

OIN

T

SCOTT RDSB HWY50 EB ON

SCOTT RDNB HWY

50 WB ON

HWY 50 WB SCOTT RD OFF

SCO

TT R

D NB

HW

Y 50

EB

ON

SCOTT RD SB HWY 50 W

B ON


0 500 1,000

FeetMILE: 116



Doc

umen

t Pat

h: O

:\N_C

al\S

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_JPA

_Cor

ridor

\GIS

\GIS

_Pro

ject

s\S

PTC

_Tra

il_M

apbo

ok_2

0140

616.

mxd



Road

Pacrel



A

B

C

Culvert

Bridge

Encroachment

Erosion Point

Elderberry

Riparian Woodland

Wetland


Culvert

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Dirt Road - Tracks

Paved Road - Tracks

Tracks



© 2014

SPTC Nature Trail Implementation Plan...SPTC NATURAL TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 2 Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of SPTC Nature Trail Implementation Plan...SPTC NATURAL TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 2 Assessment...