To: All Interested Parties From: Radley Reep May 13, 2011 Hello Everyone, As promised, I carefully examined the latest

version of the Lost Lake Park Master Plan (LLPMP). Here is my analysis. Date of the latest version of the LLPMP Date this version of the LLPMP was posted to the County Website Date of the next Board of Supervisors Hearing on the LLPMP 04-18-11 05-04-11 05-24-11

The 04-18-11 version of the LLPMP is housed in two County electronic files. LLPMP Appendices It may take 2 or 3 minutes for the first link to open, as the document is 49 MB. The second document is 9 MB. If these links don’t work for you, go to the Fresno County Public Works website, type “Lost Lake Park” in the search box, press Enter and then click on “Lost Lake Park Master Plan.” Open the 2 “NEW!” documents. 1. Is this latest version of the LLPMP nearly identical to the preceding version of the LLPMP? Yes. The end product – the look of the park at build out – for this latest version is nearly identical to the previous version (January 2010), which was used for agency review in June of 2010. No. 2. Both the content and the format of the narrative accompanying the drawings are completely new. This narrative has not been seen by the public.

Is the recommended Board action for 05-24-11 similar to the Board action that was taken at the last Board hearing on 04-27-10? Yes. On 04-27-10, the Board of Supervisors accepted the draft Project Description. On 05-24-11, the Board will be asked to accept the LLPLP as a vision document. In other words, the Board did not formally adopt the plan in April of 2010 and it will not formally adopt the plan in May of 2011. No. This time the Board will likely take an additional step. The Board is slated to direct that the LLPMP, although not formally adopted, nevertheless guide future improvements made to the park. This Board direction is tantamount to implementation. As such, it will create the perception of plan adoption, which carries a risk, namely that the park design might be incorporated into other plans, most notably the SJR Parkway Master Plan. The potential problem here is that the LLPMP can’t guide improvements nor can it be incorporated into other plans until it has undergone complete environmental review, which it has not.


Will the 04-18-11 LLPMP undergo complete environmental review? Yes. At some point, if the project is to move forward, a complete environmental review must be undertaken. At present, however, there are differing views on how to do that. a) County staff may recommend the preparation of a programmatic EIR. b) The Conservancy may recommend folding the environmental assessment of the LLPMP into the environmental assessment for its own Parkway Master Plan update. c) The LLPMP itself reads that it is best to conduct protocol surveys for the presence of the California tiger salamander prior to deciding if an EIR is to be done (page 81). d) US Fish and Wildlife and the CA Department of Fish and Game may recommend yet another approach. No. The Board of Supervisors could decide to put the plan on ice indefinitely, which would effectively end the discussion and eliminate the need for environmental review.


Is the community still able to influence the design of the project? Yes. At the Board hearing of 05-24-11, any member of the public may address the Board of Supervisors on any aspect of the project. No. The project began in 2007 with a series of public workshops intended to generate a community vision for the park and a set of goals for park improvement. Surveyed twice (on 10-02-07 and on 01-21-08), the public overwhelmingly advocated for minor park expansion that would improve the “family” experience within the park and, at the same time, protect the environment. Although the Executive Summary to the 04-18-11 LLPMP (page i) states that “…the Master Plan is based on a vision and set of goals that were developed out of a public process…,” this is mostly hyperbole, for no clear-cut set of goals ever came out of the community workshops, although it was assumed by most observers that the goals of the Fresno County General Plan and the San Joaquin River Parkway Plan would govern park planning. On 09-09-08, the Board of Supervisors unexpectedly endorsed a park design and a set of 7 goals that were very different from park designs presented at community workshops. The design entailed a major restructuring of nearly all of the land surface within the park. A surprised public expressed dismay, and the Board directed staff to solicit more public comment, which it never did. Sometime in 2009, plans for the park took another unexpected turn – and just as before, without public input. The new park design favored the Community of Friant and supported large sporting events. In October of 2009, 2 workshops were held to answer questions about these changes, but there was little if any opportunity for the public to redirect park planning. This latest version of the LLPMP is unique in yet another way. It contains an extensive narrative along with goals and guidelines for park development that are new to the public. Even so, the County has not informed the public of the changes nor invited the public to review the final form of the plans. (For those who are interested, the last 8 pages of this document contain a comprehensive examination of the shaping of park goals over the past 4 years.)


How is the narrative of the 04-18-11 LLPMP different from previous versions? The previous versions were all notably brief, being no more than 35 pages in length (including charts and maps). This latest version weighs in at 92 pages for the LLPMP and 162 pages for the Appendix. (Note that while the actual pagination may indicate a smaller number of pages, the documents print out at the numbers given.) The 92-page LLPMP contains several new elements, chief among them an overview of various planning efforts that affect the park, a brief history of the Lost Lake Park planning process, a set of 24 planning goals and a set of 62 guidelines for implementation of the plan.


Is there anything unusual in the 04-18-11 narrative? Yes. There are many surprises. I can’t begin to list them all here, but I will mention 10 of them, if only to draw your attention to the range of features that need review. 1. 2. 3. The park completion horizon has been extended from 20 years to 30 years. (page i) County staff confirms that effluent can be discharged onto Lost Lake Park property. (page 9) Although it is well known that the consultant for the project, 2M Associates, evaluated two proposals by private entities for recreational uses within the park (a golf course and a soccer complex), here it is revealed that the consultant also evaluated a third proposal – for a white-water park. (That evaluation was not released by staff.) (page 10) Guideline “Utilities 8” states that the only exterior lighting allowed within the park will be placed at the park entrance and at the park entrance station – although there is mention in the narrative of lighting allowed at the entrance to the campground. (page 56) Still, not having exterior lighting within the campground or at the entrances to restrooms could compromise safety. (page 36) Guidelines “Operations 1” and “Operations 3” encourage the private sector and recreational interest groups to enter into lease agreements with the County to provide outdoor recreation and facilities. (page 38) Implementation of the final two phases of the project is (1) dependent upon activities of the River Restoration Program and (2) dependent upon cessation of mining activities at the south end of the park. In other words, park development is not autonomous. Park planning can not be brought to fruition under its own steam nor can it be carried out under its own discrete and separate timeline. (page 61) The phrase “soccer fields” has been edited out of the previous version of the LLPMP, although the design of the park still supports that use. (Page 65) Figure 6-1 (Grading Concept – Floodplain Enhancement) shows clearly that despite grading the park to enhance the floodplain, the river channel will still bottleneck at the south end of the park. The argument for removal of the overburden next to the Audubon trail is that the existing earthwork prohibits the free flow of the river. This illustration shows that (1) removing the overburden does not remedy the constriction and (2) grading the park may actually increase pressure at that property line. (page 69)




7. 8.


The agreement with 2M Associates required the completion of a preliminary capital outlay budget and a preliminary operations and maintenance budget. A preliminary capital outlay budget was completed, and the same may be true for operations and maintenance. Even so, neither the LLPMP nor the Appendices include the budgets or any discussion of budgetary matters. On page 87, there is this statement: “Chapter 5 describes…potential funding sources and partnership opportunities with other organizations.” Not so. The discussion is altogether absent. (Page 79) The narrative contains a statement that surveys for California tiger salamander (CTS), which can take as long as 2 or 3 years to complete, must be finished before the County can determine whether to proceed with a Negative Declaration or an EIR for this project. That statement is simply incorrect. Already established through a field survey is the potential impact to CTS, and that is sufficient cause to proceed with an EIR. (Page 81)



What is in the 162-page Appendix? Most of the information in the 7-part Appendix has been available online for some time, such as (1) the cooperative lease agreements between the County and the Department of Fish and Game, (2) a utilities map, (3) the Biological Constraints Appendix to the Existing Conditions Report of September 2008, (4) the goals, objectives and policies from the Recreation Section of the Parkway Master Plan and (5) the evaluation criteria used by the consultant. New are (1) a list of participants in the planning process and (2) an list (incomplete) of planning meetings / events related to the planning effort.


What can you do for Lost Lake Park at this time? You can share this document with those who have an interest in Lost Lake Park. You can read through the 04-18-11 LLPMP and the accompanying appendices. You can inquire when you have questions and speak up when you have opinions. You can attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 24, 2011.

Should anyone wish to discuss with me this latest version of the LLPMP or any other matters related to Lost Lake Park, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Radley Reep 297.4203 457-2500, ext. 45774

home voicemail

From September 18, 2007 to April 18, 2011 The following pages are a history of how the goals within the Lost Lake Park Master Plan came into being. These pages explore the 4-year planning tug-of-war evident in the summaries of the community workshops, in various reports and in several versions of the plan. The first community workshop, entitled “Existing Conditions and General Goals,” was held on September 18, 2007. The latest version of the Lost Lake Park Master Plan is dated April 18, 2011. Listed below, as a preface to the discussion, are 5 key observations about the goal setting process: • • No specific goals for the LLPMP came out of any of the 5 community workshops. Prior to the 04-18-11 version of the LLPMP, the only list of goals to surface were those in the 09-09-08 briefing report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the “Preferred Alternative.” Those 7 goals centered on the needs of the park visitor and the re-contouring of the park. In contrast, a week later, on 09-16-08, the “Existing Conditions” report cited 7 goals from the Fresno County General Plan and 7 goals from the Parkway Master Plan that pertain to Lost Lake Park, most of which centered on the conservation of natural resources along the river. During the entire 4-year period, public comment favored minor changes to the park in support of environmental protection and enhanced family enjoyment of the park. Nonetheless, support for major restructuring of the park and a design for large-scale events and organized sports won the day. The 24 goals and the 62 guidelines in the 04-18-11 LLPMP are new. These goals and guidelines did not direct the design of the LLPMP. They mirror it. As such, the reader should not assume that the public has either endorsed or reviewed the 04-18-11 goals and guidelines.

Beginning with the next page is a chronological history outlining the events that could have or did lead to the setting of goals for the Lost Lake Park Master Plan. The 3 Board briefing reports that are cited were all presented to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors at public hearings. Here is a list of the 12 events analyzed in this review: 09-18-07 10-02-07 01-21-08 03-13-08 06-24-08 09-09-08 Community Workshop #1 Community Workshop #2 Community Workshop #3 Board Briefing Report Board Briefing Report Board Briefing Report 09-16-08 09-28-09 10-14-09 10-15-09 Jan 2010 May 2010 Existing Conditions Report Preliminary Master Plan Community Workshop #4 Community Workshop #5 Project Description for the LLPMP Project Description for the Draft LLLPMP

This analysis is a rigorous attempt to cite every instance where goals or something approximating goals were put into print. The reader is asked to help correct any errors or omissions. Note: For ease in reading, some of the wishes, components and goals listed in blue on the next 3 pages are paraphrased or summarized.

09-18-07 Community Workshop #1: Existing Conditions and General Goals Although the idea was to formulate a list of general goals, no workable list was generated. Instead, a long and varied wish list was created. 10-02-07 Community Workshop #2: Park Vision The wish list from Workshop #1 was discussed and prioritized. While the ranking did not result in a list of goals, it did rank the desires of those in attendance at the meeting. Forty two items were ranked. In descending order, these were the top 10 wishes of the public:
# 1 – Maintain the river as a wildlife corridor # 2 – Establish additional family picnic areas # 3 – Increase policing and staffing # 4 – Enhance wildlife habitats # 5 – Create an environmentally responsible design # 6 – Improve kayaking and canoeing opportunities # 7 – Preserve cultural resources # 8 – Connect the park to the Parkway trail # 9 – Connect the park to the Friant Cove trail #10 – Make the park ADA accessible

Items ranked last were these:
RV camping, play structures, multi-use sports fields, 9-hole golf course, amphitheatre, equestrian staging, restaurant, corporate picnicking (groups of 100 – 1000), soccer sports complex, wedding chapel and fencing/boundary control.

01-21-08 Community Workshop #3: Park Alternatives This workshop did not produce any goals. The 4 alternatives presented to the public were ranked. The favored alternative was “Minor Enhancement,” and the least liked was “Soccer as a Focal Activity.” In descending order, the alternatives were ranked as follows:
Alternative #1 – Minor Enhancement Alternative #3 – Active Recreation – Golf as the focal activity Alternative #4 – Resource Enhancement (mining the park) Alternative #2 – Active Recreation – Soccer as the focal activity

03-13-08 Board Briefing Report This progress report did not contain any goals for the LLPMP, but it did rank public interest in 20 park “components.” The top five components were these:
picnicking, hiking, river fishing, the Eaton trail and riparian enhancement.

The bottom five components were these:
equestrian trails, concessions, warm water fishing, golf and soccer.

06-24-08 Board Briefing Report This extensive report examined the suitability of golf and mineral extraction within the park. There was no mention of goals for the Lost Lake Park Master Plan. 09-09-08 Board Briefing Report This report outlined the four alternatives for the LLPMP. It also presented the “Preferred Alternative,” which called for massive reshaping of the park, something which had not previous been presented to the public. The report contained a set of 7 goals, most of which were centered on the needs of the park visitor and the re-contouring of the park.
1. Preserve and enhance the Park’s natural and cultural resources for the enjoyment and education of the park visitor 2. Disperse visitor use through the Park with expanded water-oriented and land-based recreation opportunities 3. Provide trails, use areas and facilities for a wide variety of safe recreation and educational experiences 4. Assure funding of capital improvements, operations & maintenance through public and private partnerships and user fees 5. Respect the river’s dynamic hydrology and ecology in the siting of new facilities and use areas 6. Use Park resources to support efforts of the River Restoration Program to restore the river channel and fish spawning beds 7. Recognize the importance of the Park as a community amenity for Friant and assure that community access is provided

09-16-08 Existing Condition Report for Lost Lake Park The Existing Conditions Report did not identify any goals specifically designed for the Lost Lake Park Master Plan but it did list goals within the Fresno County General Plan related to Lost Lake Park.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Protect and enhance water quality and quantity Conserve areas that contain significant mineral deposits Protect, restore, and enhance habitat, wetlands and valuable vegetation Designate areas for additional recreational facilities Develop a system of hiking, riding, and bicycling trails and paths Identify, protect, and enhance important historical, archeological, paleontological, geological and cultural sites Conserve, protect and maintain the scenic quality of Fresno County

The Existing Conditions Report also listed the fundamental goals of the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Preserve and restore the riparian corridor Protect wildlife species that depend on or prefer the river environment Provide for conservation, education and recreation Operate and manage lands for public enjoyment consistent with protection of natural resources Provide a continuous trail in cooperation with affected landowners Protect irreplaceable natural and cultural resources Protect existing undeveloped areas of the river bottom

09-28-09 Preliminary Master Plan The Preliminary Master Plan consisted of 1 page of text, 1 chart and 4 maps. The plan did not list any goals. 10-14-09 Community Workshops #4: Lost Lake Park Master Plan The discussion centered on questions about the design of the Preferred Alternative. There was no reformulation of goals. 10-15-09 Community Workshops #5: Lost Lake Park Master Plan The discussion centered on questions about the design of the Preferred Alternative. Likewise, there was no reformulation of goals. LLPMP (January 2010) Project Description for the LLPMP The 35-page document described the characteristics of the proposed plan. It did not list any goals per se, but it did contain this vision statement:
Lost Lake Park is the hallmark “park” of the San Joaquin River Parkway where individuals, families and groups large and small can: Safely interact with the river’s waters and environment Begin their experience along the Parkway’s trails and the river itself Learn about the river, its habitats and its wildlife Recreate together in a shaded, green, serene landscape where water is always nearby

LLPMP (May 2010) Project Description for the Draft LLPMP The 30-page document described the characteristics of the proposed plan. It did not list any goals per se, but it did contain the same vision statement:
Lost Lake Park is the hallmark “park” of the San Joaquin River Parkway where individuals, families and groups large and small can: Safely interact with the river’s waters and environment Begin their experience along the Parkway’s trails and the river itself Learn about the river, its habitats and its wildlife Recreate together in a shaded, green, serene landscape where water is always nearby

To summarize, the only list of goals for the LLPMP prior to 04-18-11 were the 7 goals associated with the “Preferred Alternative.” The LLPMP started off modestly but eventually ended up as a 20 to 30year project that will move 2.5 million tons of earth and cost approximately $70,000,000 to construct. The latest version of the LLPMP is dated 04-18-11. Chapter 4 (pages 31-38) of that plan presents a list of 24 goals and 62 guidelines. These are new. Chapter 4 is reprinted below in its entirety. End.

Pages 31 through 38 from the Lost Lake Park Master Plan (04-18-11)



The vision, goals, and guidelines for Lost Lake Park described in this section reflect the adopted policies of Fresno County and the San Joaquin River Conservancy for the San Joaquin River Parkway. The vision, goals, and guidelines were developed and refined through detailed site analyses and an extensive participation program involving County representatives, resource and regulatory agency representatives, and the general public.

Lost Lake Park is the hallmark "park" of the San Joaquin River Parkway. The Park reflects its original purpose as a public fishing area, embraces the resource management principles of the Parkway, and is envisioned to become a place where individuals, families, and groups large and small can:      safely interact with the river's waters and environment; begin their river experience along the Parkway's trails and the river itself; learn about the river, its habitats, and its wildlife; have the opportunity to enjoy solitude within a riverine environment; and have the opportunity to recreate together in a shaded, naturalistic landscape.

As a regional recreation area, Lost Lake Park will be known for sustainability and for offering a wide variety of outdoor recreation experiences. As a local asset, Lost Lake Park will be known by its nearby neighbors as Friant's backyard on the river, a gateway for the town, and where the community plays.

This section presents goals and guidelines for implementing the Master Plan. While some of the goals and guidelines apply to the entire project, others are specific to discrete planning areas or activities. Goals and guidelines are defined as follows:  Goal refers to a general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim or intent toward which management will direct effort.  Guideline refers to a general set of parameters that provide clear direction for accomplishing goals.

Fundamental Park-Wide Goals

 Ensure consistency with the goals and policies of the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan and the County General Plan.  Develop the Park as the San Joaquin River Parkway's primary recreation area and gateway to the San Joaquin River.  Preserve and enhance the Park’s natural and cultural resources for the enjoyment and education of visitors.  Develop the Park as an integral public amenity for the Community of Friant.

Natural Resource Management
a. Hydrology Goal  To reflect the river's dynamic hydrology in reclaiming the Park's disturbed lands and in providing new facilities and use areas. Guidelines

 Hydrology 1: Restore the San Joaquin River natural floodplain to the greatest extent practical and allow for stable hydro-geomorphic processes beneficial to the preservation of a sustainable riparian habitat corridor.  Hydrology 2: Site new structures within the Park and the Parkway Multi-use trail above the 100year floodplain. b. Vegetation Goals  To establish a diverse vegetation mosaic of native plant associations.  To enhance a continuous riparian corridor along the San Joaquin River.  To enhance the Park's entrance experience and the overall park image as a riverside setting.  To provide shade for active and passive recreation use areas, the river, and the Park's wetland areas.  To screen views between selected use areas and surrounding land uses. Guidelines  Vegetation 1: Preserve existing elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana) by establishing buffer zones around each to prevent soil compaction and potential damage from recreation facility development and use.  Vegetation 2: Develop park features with minimal disturbance to existing riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to the San Joaquin River and riparian and wetland vegetation within reclaimed lands owned by the Conservancy.  Vegetation 3: For any new tree and shrub plantings, use species that are native to the region and complement the Park’s diverse habitats. Select species from the Master Plant List for Lost Lake Park.  Vegetation 4: Incorporate climate-appropriate and water-efficient species to reduce the amount of water used for irrigation.  Vegetation 5: Provide monitoring and maintenance to ensure the long-term health and survival of native plant associations.  Vegetation 6: Over time, remove non-native trees and shrubs and replace with native species  Vegetation 7: Manage invasive plant species through mechanical means. c. Wildlife Goal  To manage and enhance the Park‘s biological resources to encourage native bio-diversity, preserve resources, and protect habitats in cooperation with a variety of partner agencies and interest groups. Guidelines  Wildlife 1: Identify, establish, and maintain functioning habitat corridors that extend for the length of the Park.  Wildlife 2: Enhance natural resources through active stewardship programs and adaptive management strategies based upon the most current and reliable scientific information.  Wildlife 3: Site, design and construct Park features to avoid existing populations of special status, and State or federally threatened or endangered plants and animals where possible. When special-status species cannot be avoided, implement appropriate mitigation measures.  Wildlife 4: Protect nesting birds and their nests through pre-construction surveys and avoidance.  Wildlife 5: Implement the project so as not to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Design the reclaimed floodplain to prevent formation of fish entrapment areas.  Wildlife 6: In order to determine the presence of CTS in the Park, protocol level surveys will be conducted. d. Cultural Resource Management Goal  To preserve and enhance the Park’s cultural resources for the enjoyment and education of visitors. Guidelines  Cultural 1: Avoid disturbance of all bedrock milling sites and other known cultural resources within the Park.

 Cultural 2: Precede actions requiring extensive ground disturbance within or adjacent to the bedrock milling sites with additional archaeological review and monitoring as appropriate.  Cultural 3: Interpret significant archaeological, paleontological, historical, and cultural resources.  Cultural 4: Permit sustainable harvesting of plants by Native Americans for cultural uses and activities.

Goal  To provide access to the San Joaquin River.  To disperse visitor use throughout the Park.  To ensure that Park visitors enjoy a wide variety of safe outdoor recreation and educational experiences that can be associated with the San Joaquin River Parkway. Guidelines  Recreation 1: Retain existing recreation uses.  Recreation 2: Provide an interconnected system of trails, use areas, and facilities that are directly related to or benefit from the natural, cultural, or historic resources of the San Joaquin River and the overall San Joaquin River Parkway.  Recreation 3: Provide expanded day use areas and related support facilities for family, group, and occasional event uses.  Recreation 4: Expand existing overnight camping facilities.  Recreation 5: Develop trails, use areas, and facilities in shaded settings that are conducive to all-season use.  Recreation 6: Develop a segment of the San Joaquin River Parkway's continuous, multi-use trail for the length of the Park.  Recreation 7: Balance recreational opportunities in the Park with resource conservation efforts. Develop adequate parking and recreation facilities in conjunction with each use area and its intended purpose.  Recreation 8: Provide a variety of recreational trails in the Park that offer opportunities for recreation, river access, education, and wildlife observation.  Recreation 9: Design multi-use trails to be accessible to a variety of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, and equestrians, consistent with the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan.  Recreation 10: Design roads, parking areas, and trails to avoid native trees where possible, limit erosion and protect water quality.  Recreation 11: Allow dogs in the Park, subject to the following:  Leashes will be required on all dogs, with the exception of dogs in any off-leash dog  Dogs will be prohibited on trails passing through sensitive areas. Specific trails on which dogs will be prohibited will be signed accordingly.  Recreation 12: Prohibit all hunting and/or use of firearms within the Park consistent with County regulations.  Recreation 13: Develop a gating system to allow closure of portions of the Park as warranted during seasonal flooding.


Goals  To continue providing convenient access to the river and each recreation use area.  To expand circulation systems to accommodate new uses.  To provide for efficient park management and emergency access. Guidelines  Access 1: Design all roads and trails to minimize disturbance of the Park’s natural and cultural resources.  Access 2: Utilize existing road alignments wherever it is possible to do so without compromising the greater intent of the Park Master Plan.  Access 3: Retain the existing vehicular entrance to the Park from Friant Expressway as the singular park entrance, with a 30-foot by 30-foot minimum clear area at the entry for visibility.  Access 4: Develop a secondary emergency access and maintenance route to meet Fresno County standards.

 Access 5: Provide formal parking areas in association with each use area, and overflow parking for special events. Provide accessible parking spaces as required by law and in proximity to the river and the fish hatchery trail.  Access 6: Provide non-vehicular access to all park facilities and use areas.  Access 7: Provide safe and convenient bicycle parking in association with all use areas.  Access 8: Design and develop all structures, trails, and use facilities to meet accessibility guidelines as outlined in the latest edition of the California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines.

Goals  To locate restrooms above the 100-year floodplain.  To provide water, wastewater and electrical service to park use areas that meet current standards and use sustainable design principles. Guidelines  Utilities 1: Provide domestic water via on-site wells.  Utilities 2: Require water storage to be in accordance with State and local regulations and evaluate based on the number of proposed service connections, the number of users expected to be served, and the production capacities of the wells.  Utilities 3: Observe County of Fresno separation requirements in the construction of the potable water and wastewater disposal systems.  Utilities 4: Construct restrooms to be above the 100-year floodplain and service by a septic tank and leach field system. Construct leach fields outside of the 100-year floodplain. Size and construct all septic systems per County standards.  Utilities 5: During large events, use on-site portable toilets to accommodate the increased number of visitors.  Utilities 6: Obtain water for irrigation and fire fighting purpose from the San Joaquin River.  Utilities 7: Install fire hydrants on site per Fire Department standards. Equip facilities required for fire fighting purposes with a backup generator.  Utilities 8: Provide exterior security lighting only at the park entrance and the park entrance station. No other exterior lighting will be permitted in the Park.  Utilities 9: Design electrical facilities to maximize sustainability and equip with high efficiency LED lamps to reduce energy consumption. Restroom and other building interior lighting will be powered by solar panels attached to the roofs of the buildings to the extent possible.

Land Use Compatibility
Goal  To respect privacy and security of adjacent properties. Guidelines  Land Use 1:  Land Use 2:  Land Use 3: Provide a buffer with vegetative screening along common property lines. Provide security fencing as necessary along common property lines. Sign all park boundaries.

Community Amenity
Goal  To recognize the importance of the Park as a community amenity for the Town of Friant and assure that community access is provided. Guidelines  Community 1: Provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the Park from the Town of Friant.  Community 2: Develop an area of the Park that will serve both regional and local outdoor recreation needs.

Goal  To provide an interconnected system of features that will foster education and research about the ecology of the San Joaquin River and its riparian corridor, the overall Park, and the need to steward these resources.

Guidelines  Education 1: Provide informational signs to orient visitors and identify park rules at the park entrance, staging areas, trail intersections, and river access points for non-motorized boating.  Education 2: Develop a park and interpretive nature center themed on the Park’s resources in the context of the San Joaquin River Parkway, Native American habitation of the Park's river setting, and the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The center would include classroom facilities and/or multi-use space to accommodate educational programs.  Education 3: Expand and enhance the existing Audubon Nature Trail with additional loop trail opportunities and themes for varying educational levels.  Education 4: Prepare an Interpretation Master Plan to develop and guide interpretive and educational services in the Park.

Operations, Management, Funding, and Implementation
Goal  To assure adequate funding of capital improvements, operations, and maintenance. Guidelines  Operations 1: Provide opportunities for partnership programs with the private sector through concession or lease agreements.  Operations 2: Undertake collaboration efforts to obtain adequate protection and funding for the initiation and long-term administration of natural resource management programs in the Park.  Operations 3: Encourage cooperation with partner agencies, non-profit organizations, and recreation interest groups to provide outdoor recreation, education and interpretation uses and facilities to meet the goals of the Park and, where possible, the mutual goals of these agencies and organizations.  Operations 4: Establish park use fees commensurate with similar facilities in the region.