new campground at access#4

bono · Master Fly Fishing Guide

new campground at access#4

SK60 · Senior Member

Bad site and idea in my view. Having a large amount of foot traffic in that area is going to further degrade that eroded hillside. That stretch of water is also dangerous at summer flows-rapids and strong current, brush along the edges, some pretty deep dropoffs right at the bank. Add the low water temperature and there are tragedies waiting to happen.

Steve

Matt R · Senior Member

Well this is the first I've heard of it. And I'd have to say I dont like it. The creek really doesnt need any more people on it than it gets already. I was wondering why they put the bathrooms at access #4 anyway, guess this explains it.

shon42073 · Senior Member

I have been wondering what has been going on there, a few months ago they were drilling there, and now i have recently noticed some new bathroom facilities put in there and at access #1. In my opinion this is not good, putah creek does not need another campground, And as sk60 stated that water is not really safe for city slickers to just come up there and think they can wade, swim, and fish in the summer flows. Honestly I think theres going to come a time in the not to far future that putah creek isn't even going to be worth fishing anymore. Its going to become a put and take planted fisherie.

flyfishingjunkie · Veteran Member

Without a Wal-Mart a new campground is no use

Bono don't they have to have a public hearing on things like that?

Count me in if you have a petition going.

SCM · Senior Member

I don't think the new improvements at No. 4 are intended for overnight camping, but day use as currently allowed at all access locations. Improving Access No. 4 might not be such a bad idea. Providing better amenities at No. 4 would likely take pressure off of the other, more primitive access locations further up the Creek. In my experience, people will generally congregate where the best amenities are located; areas with fewer amentities experience less use. Access 4 is a good location for better facilities since it is highly visible from Hwy. 128, which makes policing easier and users are less comfortable to abuse the site.

I would bet any improvement work at Putah,whether it be habitat restoration or water quality enhancements, is likely funded by state or federal grant money. As such, I would expect future access improvements since most grant programs require a public access component.�� This is something to keep in mind when�lobbying for fishery improvements along Putah Creek.

-- Edited by SCM at 20:52, 2008-04-02

Leicafish · Veteran Member

I have talked with Yolo County Parks folks about the improvements on the creek and they are funded by the parks bond that was passed a few years back. To be honest, the improvements that they have done so far have been pretty nice. The parking lots are smaller and better thought out. The DFG lots up by the bridge could benefit from similar treatment.

As far as a campground being planned at #4, I believe that its true. Initially, the plan is for having a caretaker/host spot and later for a campground. They were drilling a well earlier this year but hit nada.

I think there might still be an opportunity to be involved in the planning(or stopping) of the campground. I personally fish that area a lot and don't really want to see it get trashed more than it already gets.

SK60 · Senior Member

The following from Lois Wolk may shed some light on the situation FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: May 23, 2007	CONTACT : Melissa Jones (916) 319-2008
Wolk urges support for three Yolo County conservation projects
Recommends funding for restoration, conservation projects
"SACRAMENTO Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis) today urged her fellow members of the Wildlife Conservation Board to approve funding for three Yolo County projects up for a vote at the boards next meeting, scheduled for Thursday. Several funding requests are pending approval at the board meeting, including a request for $6,360,000to Audubon California for the acquisition of Bobcat Ranch, over 6,800 acres of oak woodlands, native grasslands, and riparian habitat approximately three miles west of the City of Winters . This property is exactly the type of land that the board was established to conserve, said Wolk, who first voiced her support for the Bobcat Ranch and other Yolo County projects earlier this month in a letter to WCB Executive Director John Donnelly. This is an opportunity to work with private landowners to conserve and restore wildlife habitat on farms and ranches in a manner compatible with existing agricultural operations, proving that ranching and conservation are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Wolk also urged support for over $562,000 to Yolo County and the Department of Fish and Game for improvements to four fishing access sites along Putah Creek located east of the City of Winters between Lake Solano Park and Lake Berryessa . Among the proposed enhancements include the construction of access trails, platforms for fishing and observation, and permanent restrooms. Both the Putah Creek access improvements and Bobcat Ranch acquisition would be funded through voter-approved Proposition 40. As a riparian habitat, Putah Creek is amongthe most bio-diverse ecosystems in the state, and provides numerous educational opportunities. The creek is also a prime spot for fishing, hiking and other recreational activities, said Wolk, one of the founding members of the Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Council. Yet, with the creek in its current condition, the public is unable to appreciate all that it has to offer. The board will also decide Thursday whether to grant $470,000 in voter-approved Proposition 117 funds to theCalifornia Waterfowl Association for the restoration of 350 acres of agricultural lands within the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area to semi-permanent and seasonal wetlands. The monies would also fund an upgrade to an existing pump station to improve the water supply for management of over 3600 acres of wetlands and wildlife-friendly agricultural fields just west of West Sacramento . I am a long-time supporter of wetlands restoration and management within the bypass and believe that this project, like the projects for Putah Creek restoration and the acquisition of Bobcat Ranch, benefit everyone, Wolk concluded." A campground is not specifically mentioned in this release.

-- Edited by SK60 at 22:03, 2008-04-02

-- Edited by SK60 at 22:05, 2008-04-02

lightfoot · Senior Member

Among the proposed enhancements include the construction of access trails, platforms for fishing and observation, and permanent restrooms.

The creek is also a prime spot for fishing, hiking and other recreational activities

Lois Wolk DOSN"T get it.� There are access trails all over the place.� I'm sure the fish will be stacked up right at the fishing platform and all of the otters and other critters will hang out thre for the publics viewing pleasure. weirdface

If somebody wants to hike the area they head up cold creek/Horse canyon.� I don't think I have ever seen anybody just "hiking" putah.� Granted, perhaps she invisions paving it like along the American river confused

ps :� not sure whatis up with the funky font size but at 0400 it dosn't seem to want to change.

dtp916 · Senior Member

bono wrote:
Why dont we just put in a Wallmart and Taco bell.

�LOL. Seriously!

More camping spots?! F-ing great. What a waste of money.

SuperFlyGuy · Veteran Member

"Yet, with the creek in its current condition, the public is unable to appreciate all that it has to offer."

thats great. i love how a simple hike and walk from your car makes you unable to appreciate putah creek. IMO this is a horrible idea. This is right in the middle of two campsites already in place. I think this would destroy and good flywater left. If theres a petition, count me in.

SCM · Senior Member

I understand that there is some anger regarding expanded public access along Putah Creek, but I don't think a petition will result in any changes to the current project or thwart future projects. Having worked in local government for some time, including preparing water quality and habitat restoration grants, almost all funding for any of�these activities carry a mandate for multi-use access. Basically, if a local agency or non-profit organization is going to use taxpayer funds (bond money or earmarks) to support a project, access must be afforded to the public. Asking to restrict other user access (hikers, bikers, etc.) in deference to maintaining a fishery for fly anglers will likely yield deep resentment of the flyfishing community and harm future conservation efforts sponsered by fly fishing groups. Additionally, if public access is not included in publicly funded conservation projects, most tax payers, aside from the die hard conservationists (who would probably like to kick anglers off most rivers), would likely not support bond measures and other tax supported funding mechanisms. Without grant or bond funding we could see a time when no one is granted access to Putah Creek, assuming Yolo County had no general fund monies to support maintenance.

I know its a tough pill to swallow, but it is the reality of the situation with our outdoor recreation areas in Califorina and throughout much of the U.S. I think a more fruitful approach to addressing concerns about degredation of Putah Creek is to put pressure on Yolo County to better maintain the day use sites, better police users, and provide defined pathways to the creek to avoid erosion and sedimintation from the social trails we are currently using to access the creek channel.

-- Edited by SCM at 12:34, 2008-04-03

LilWhippersnapper · Senior Member

SCM wrote:

I know its a tough pill to swallow, but it is the reality of the situation with our outdoor recreation areas in Califorina and throughout much of the U.S. I think a more fruitful approach to addressing concerns about degredation of Putah Creek is to put pressure on Yolo County to better maintain the day use sites, better police users, and provide defined pathways to the creek to avoid erosion and sedimintation from the social trails we are currently using to access the creek channel.

-- Edited by SCM at 12:34, 2008-04-03

Campers or day users are gonna do more damage to the creek than a dirt path.

shon42073 · Senior Member

Luckily putah is just a spot to get a quick fix when i cant make it to some better rivers and streams.

throwinmetal · Veteran Member

I didn't know about this and I think its a bad idea.

Diego · Veteran Member

Yea, even though it might be a quick fix (and im not disagreeing with you cap) i still love fishing the creek, and is a water i love to spend time on. So the more people who go there who dont think the way we do (baiters) and trash the place the worst we are.

yukon mike · Senior Member

Regarding the fantasies of the county board of supervisors to making people think that
THEY CARE . . .(Group hug required here) They don't have any money for these kind of
projects, with the budget crisis in the country. Its amazing to me the priorities that surface
from politicians during times like this. I can just hear it like a fly on the wall . . ."What, the
economy is taking a dive and our revenues are down? We can't tolerate that. I propose we
raise taxes on each square of toilet paper sold . . ." I now feel much better. I don't think we're
going to see much happen at the creek if it requires a big box of money. Heck, the three
counties that share the creek can't agree on anything up to now anyway.

Mike

SK60 · Senior Member

The campground completion is not eminent and first has to go through the usual public hearings, EIR completion, etc. Funding for several PC projects has already been allocated over the past 3 years, so this and other current work doesn't involve new funds. The recently established Putah Creek Trout group will likely provide future updates to this board on the campground status and other relevant topics/issues relating to successfully obtaining Wild Trout status for PC.

dtp916 · Senior Member

yukon mike wrote:

Regarding the fantasies of the county board of supervisors to making people think that
THEY CARE . . .(Group hug required here) They don't have any money for these kind of
projects, with the budget crisis in the country. Its amazing to me the priorities that surface
from politicians during times like this. I can just hear it like a fly on the wall . . ."What, the
economy is taking a dive and our revenues are down? We can't tolerate that. I propose we
raise taxes on each square of toilet paper sold . . ." I now feel much better. I don't think we're
going to see much happen at the creek if it requires a big box of money. Heck, the three
counties that share the creek can't agree on anything up to now anyway.

Mike

�

Wolk urges support for three Yolo County conservation projects

Recommends funding for restoration, conservation projects