Additional info re: Graylyn proposals

We want to provide clarification and to address some questions/concerns about the Graylyn proposals that have been shared with us.

First, in our e-mail, we provided misinformation about who makes the ultimate decision. It is the division director, Lewis Ledford. We apologize for the misinformation we provided earlier.

Secondly, we received a question about the impact of Alternative C on the closing of Sycamore Road and whether it would eliminate a popular route for bikers, runners and hikers. We received the following response from Charlie Peek with NC Parks:

Your question is a good one. It's the division's intention -- under any of the alternatives being considered -- to continue, and perhaps enhance, any access that hikers and bikers now enjoy within the park. Should we proceed with Alternate C, provision will be made for this. However, our planning staff and park staff do want to keep some flexibility concerning some of the details of management. Put another way, we need to keep our options open on how to achieve our objectives. ...please ask further questions if necessary.

We believe that the closing of Sycamore is actually a benefit as it will reduce the cars encountered.

And last but not least, we understand that there is concern by a limited number of neighbors that think that Alternative C would result in Graylyn becoming a main entrance. We believe NC Park's eliminating the vehicular traffic on Sycamore Road addresses this concern so as not to make this access any busier than that at Harrison. NC Parks has clearly established the main entrance with the Visitor's Center off of Hwy 70/Glenwood Avenue.

If you have additional questions, let us know--or if you have relevant information let us know.

In case you're wondering, we support Alternative C

Access Umstead has worked diligently to address the Umstead access issues by initiating a petition; sharing it with elected state, city and county officials; and communicating with various individuals within various government entities to raise awareness, explore alternatives and to arrive at solutions. While we must say that our preference is for the access to Graylyn to revert back to parking allowed alongside the road either informally or with some type of signage designating where to park, we accept that these are not under consideration and are focused on the alternatives proposed by NC Parks for access at the Bike and Bridle Trailhead/Graylyn area.

Of the alternatives proposed, we support Alternative C as it is the only one that restores access from Graylyln as requested by over 1460 petitioners who wanted safe and convenient access to Umstead State Park. This will allow many time-pressed individuals and families to resume enjoying the park for that quick run, walk or ride. We also appreciate that this alternative will have minimal (if any) environmental impact.

We strongly oppose Alternative B and do not view this as an improvement to the park. The paving of these additional roads inside the park will only create more safety hazards for bikers, hikers, runners, and horseback riders using these roads as it will encourage increased vehicular speed within the park. We think this is an expensive alternative that will also have a greater adverse environmental impact.

We oppose Alternative A as it does not address the public's concerns about the impact the loss of Graylyn access has had on their ability to enjoy their park.

Important: Umstead Proposals

Umstead staff and NC Parks planners have developed 3 access alternatives under consideration for the Graylyn Drive/Ebenezer Church Rd area. These plans can be found on the following website: www.ncparks.gov/Visit/parks/wium/access.php and posted at the park. (Note: We mistakenly thought this info would be posted on the press release section of the NC Parks website and apologize for the misinformation.) We appreciate that the staff of Umstead and NC Parks considered the concerns of the 1460+ petitioners concerns about losing access at Graylyn and note that Alternative C provides for restored access to Graylyn.

At this time, it is critical once again for you to share your comments as done on the petition--but this time it will be specific to these 3 options and according the NC Parks' procedures. Your comments can be e-mailed to denr.dpr.media@ncmail.net , mailed to them at William Umstead State Park; 8801 Glenwood Ave; Raleigh NC 27617, or delivered to them at the visitor's center off of Hwy 70. The deadline for comments is 10/10/08. We also appreciate that the comment period was extended for this issue.

Please also share this information with others that might be interested.

Access Umstead

Update from Rep. Weiss

Yesterday, we contacted Representative Weiss for additional details she might have regarding the access issues to Umstead and received the following reply:

Lewis Ledford informed me that the Division of Parks and Recreation will give a report to the Park Advisory Committee tomorrow and will then be publicizing their proposed options for the Graylyn Dr. area on their website on Thursday and that rather than a 2 week public comment period, they will be having a 1 month comment period before making a final decision about Park access and management issues in this area. They plan to propose options related to Old Reedy Creek Road and Trenton Rd. at a future date. I encourage you and the other members of the Access Umstead coalition to examine the options and participate in the public comment period. Sincerely,Jennifer Weiss, NC House 35

GMP and Graylyn Road update

As noted in our last post, we were told that NC Parks planned to have have their General Management Plan (GMP) posted for the public comment period sometime this month. According to Don Reuter, the assistant director of NC Parks, NC Parks expects to post the GMP on their website and at Umstead State Park on Thursday, 9/11. NC Parks is allowing 30 days for public comment. We do not have any details yet about what is in the GMP but appreciate that there is a 30 day period for public comment. We had spoken informally with Representative Weiss about this issue and she had requested that it be extended beyond the typical 14 day period. We are planning to attend the Park Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow night and will share any relevant information with you on the blog. We will also post on our blog once the GMP is available as it will likely include information beyond access issues. It is critical for you to read the GMP and utilize the public comment period as this is our hope of effectuating change for the access issue.

Please keep checking our blog at accessumstead.blogspot.com for updates. We assume the GMP will also be posted on NC Parks website for press releases at www.ncparks.gov/News/releases/main.php .

On another note...sadly, it appears that the paving of Graylyn is imminent as noted in Joe Miller's blog posting today (blogs.newsobserver.com/joemiller/hom) Joe also notes that there is a Graylyn update pending according to NC Parks. Hopefully, this update or the GMP will allow us the much needed and requested access to Umstead that you have petitioned for. Sorry for the editorializing but doesn't paving Graylyn seem like Alaska's Bridge to No Where on a smaller scale? In any case, Joe and Bruce Siceloff ( New & Observer Road Worrier) are also closely following this issue.

Please read: Meeting with NC Parks

We recently met with Don Reuter, Assistant Director of Planning and Administration, and Carol Tingley, Chief of Planning and Natural Resources, on Thurs., 8/7/08 to discuss concerns we had about the actions of the Park Advisory Committee (PAC) as well as to present some additional options to restore access at Graylyn Road. To date, Mr. Reuter has been responsive and receptive to all of our communications. He expressed immediate concern that we were informed that NC Parks was not interested in considering alternatives at Graylyn (see last blog posting) as he closed the last meeting with the City of Raleigh with a final statement that all options are still under consideration. He reiterated the complexity of the situation regarding park access given DOT's actions since it involves different government entities as well as the NC Parks needing to balance staffing needs and protecting natural resources. Carol Tingley will be taking the lead role in preparing Umstead State Park’s General Management Plan (GMP).

In order to focus on finding suitable options to restore access to Graylyn, we did not fully discuss concerns we had about the actions of the PAC as noted in the 11/07 PAC Meeting Minutes-- although based on statements made in subsequent PAC meetings we’ve attended, I fear there continues to be certain beliefs with some of the PAC members that may adversely impact finding a solution that ultimately fits the needs of the park and the public. Mr. Reuter stated that the PAC was an advisory committee with a role of providing recommendations used in making decisions. He stated that his interpretation of the ethics law is such that the potential issue with ethics does not apply since none of these individuals has the role of making the final decision. He did state that ideally the individuals on the committee are representing their targeted group and not a self-serving view. We pointed out the contradiction of the current reported obstacles for access to Graylyn when the PAC obviously seriously considered having a parking lot built at Graylyn. We asked that these original plans be put back "on the table." Neither he nor Ms. Tingley were familiar with the plans for parking at Graylyn that were voted out at the 11/07 meeting but they will check with the PAC to see if there were formal plans. If there were formal plans, these will be put back into consideration since they should have considered the stated concerns of NC Parks. We certainly hope that the PAC will be attentive to the opinions in the petition signed by so many of you at
www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/609803273
when considering access at Graylyn for the GMP that will be circulated internally before the public review and comment period.

We provided the options for parking at Graylyn previously that were presented to the PAC as well as a specific plan for parking that had minimal impact on the environment or surrounding neighborhood—and which was easy for the staff to access. Carol stated she had considered another option to extend Graylyn Road to the bike and bridle trailhead. We really liked this idea. In our opinion, this would certainly have the least impact on the environment, budget and staff-and could be done quickly but we back any option that allows access at this point as so many of us have been unable to enjoy the park due to the combined effects of elimination of parking at Reedy Creek and Graylyn Road. NC Parks promised to further consider these options-and perhaps have more than one for the public to consider on the GMP. We pointed out that the planned “improvements” to pave the parking at the Bike and Bridle trailhead and the road leading to it would only encourage increased vehicular speed within the park and further erode safety for many park users that walk, run, bike or ride horses in these areas.

The GMP is expected to be ready in a few weeks. We were assured that Access Umstead will be notified about the review and public comment period for the GMP and that notification would also be available on the press release link on the NC Park’s website at www.ncparks.gov/News/releases/main.php
and posted at Umstead. As we explained before, the public comment procedure is a critical part of restoring access at Graylyn Road. It is time limited and will likely be electronic to enable most of us to easily voice our opinion. We will let you know as soon as we know that the GMP is ready for public review and comment.

Important Update from Vic -Please read

On 7/28/08, I spoke with Vic Lebsock, Raleigh’s greenway planner, for additional details on the City of Raleigh’s attempt to work with NC Parks for improved access to Umstead. He stated that he had a second meeting with Don Reuter ofNC Parks and Recreation and several individuals in operations from Umstead. (He did not get the names of all in attendance, but thought one was Scott and another Kevin. I assume this was Scott Letchworth, but do not know.) While he initially thought there were potential solutions for Reedy Creek/Crabtree Creek after the first meeting, at the second meeting he was told that the Umstead Park Advisory Committee and Umstead Coalition were not in support of parking lots at the edge of park property. Their formal position is for the park to have interior parking with activities to radiate outward to allow the limited staff maximal control. They asked the city to look at putting in sidewalks and pedestrian paths along Ebenezer Church Road to allow people to get into the park easier. Mr Lebsock stated that Graylyn appears to be out of the question—partly because of the PAC’s stance and due to its designation as a State Nature and Historic Preserve requiring legislative intervention and that a solution forReedy Creek now involved NCSU. He does plan to see if potential sites can be located that are not immediately adjacent to the park. He seemed frustrated by the NC Parks refusal to look at alternatives and to examine their current policies for a solution--and thought only continued public pressure (on NC Parks) might help.