The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-21-2000 Park and Recreation Commission AgendasSaratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Special Meeting City Hall Administrative Offices 13 7 7 7 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Tuesday, March 21, 2000 6:30pm AGENDA Orstanization A) Roll Call: Alberts, Clabeaux, Dodge, Fronczak, Ioannou, Olsen, Seroff B) Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on March 15, 2000. II. Oral Written Communication (This section is for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda) III. New Business A) Trails Sub-Committee Report B) Discussion/Preparation for Joint meeting with Council VII. Adiournment Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting City Hall Administrative Offices 13 7 7 7 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Monday, April 3, 2000 7:30 p.m. AGENDA I. OrQanization A> Roll Call: Alberts, Clabeaux, Dodge, Fronczak, Ioannou, Olsen, Seroff s) Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on March 30, 2000. C) Approval of March 13, 2000 Action 1Vlinutes and March 21, 2000 Action Minutes II. Administration A) Recreation Director Joan Pisani update on recreation department activities and programs. B) Review of March 21, 2000 Joint Meeting with Council. C) Park Development Fund-Review Finance Department Report. III. Oral Written Communication (This section is for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda) N. Old Business A) Parker Ranch "Water Tank Trail" segment-presentation by Rick Brusuelas, President of R.O.M.P. B) Review (for approval) of proposed easement improvement at 22111 Villa Oaks-Presentation by property owner Rhonda Douglass. C) C.P.R.S. Conference Briefing by Barbara Olsen and Cary Bloomquist. D) Discussion of Heritage Orchard. E) Discussion of Attaining Funding from passage of Propositions 12 8c 13 Kevin Moran Gardiner Parks Update G) Discussion of March 17, 2000 Letter from Trails Sub-Committee H) Committee Reports V. New Business A) Joint meeting with Council April 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. VI. Commissioner Staff Reports A) Commissioner Reports B) Ciry Hall Update Staff liaison Cary Bloomquist VII. Adiournment ��►J �J ��1V 1L �J l�l �Y �1 1�� ]L ��1�/ ]L �J ��1� V ��l�f 1L �J V�T��I� �'��e��s 1) Public brings idea to commission for suggested action 1 Week 2) Item discussed with commission chair 1 Week 3) If appropriate, placed on Agenda Next Commission Meeting 4) Commission decides whether or not to proceed 5) Commission makes recommendations to council 6) Council makes decision 7) If approved Rough Drawings with specifications 8) Final Drawings with specifications 9) Prepare Notice inviting sealed bids 10) Mailing 11) Sealed Bids received 12) Contract Awarded 13) Demolition/Construction 14) FinalInspection Decision at Meeting Next Council Meeting At Council Meeting 2-3 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks 1 Week 2 Weeks 2 Weeks/Next Council Meeting Approx. 16 Weeks 2 Weeks Joint P&RC meeting 3/21 City council's agenda decisions Subjec�: .�oint lP�cll�� u�aee�na�g,3/B1 -�u�y coan�cnll �g�II➢S�� Q�eCll3ll0IIHS �ate: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:48:40 PST lFro�: "judy alberts" <jjalberts@hotmail.com> �'o: sdodgeqt@aol.com, nstreit@cpa-online.com, jpisani@saratoga.ca.us, eac@pacbell.net, ioannou@msn.com, danczak@worldnet.att.net, nick�rc@worldnet.att.net, jjalberts@hotmail.com, bzo@aol.com, cityhall@saratoga.ca.us, tlbaron@aol.com Hello everyone, Here is the outcome of last night's city council meeting in relation to the agenda for out joint meeting with them on tues march 21. We were able to get 2 of the three requests on the agenda. First, the bike resolution will be on the agenda. Nick Streit has asked the city attorney to review it so the council can vote on it and get that moving. Second, we were granted 5-10 minutes to discuss the successes of the past 6 months and the goals for the next 6 months. Because of this, I would still like to meet at 6:30 on tues before the joint meeting. Trails. the trails issues/proposal for the 4 trail segments and the $30k has been moved to the next adjourned meeting, 2 believe to be April 24. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It will give us more time to prepare and the members of city council want to SEE the trail segments we are speaking about so they can be more informed. According to Mayor Bognosian, he wants to give this topic the proper time and attention it needs and deserves and doesn't want to just push it through on Tues. Nick Streit worked very hard to be sure this was not put off until the next joint meeting in September. Thanks Nick. Teri, Nick will be contacting you to set up tours of the trails with the city council members. Trails subcommittee it would be great if at least one of you could go on these tours to hear the comments of the city council member. This will aid in the presentation in April. Since the trails are an important part of our 6 month plan, I will still mention it during our overview of the commissions' activities. In addition, city council want to have a preliminary document describing the trails in question, what we are requesting to be "improved" or "rebuilt" and the dollar figure associated with it IN THEIR PACKETS ASAP. I am not sure that it can be to City Hall today to get into the packets for next Tues. Nick, can we give to them separately at the meeting since it will not be discussed then? That will give us more time to fine tune the language and review. Thanks again everyone for all the effort and work. Judy Get Your Private, Free Email at httn://www.hotmail.com 1 of 1 3/16/00 8:22 AM y �Il� lh��s �au� �r�� rl� The City Council approved a contract on March 15, with David M. Moyer Consulting Group of Campbeli, for con- sulting services on the design and construction of turf for the Congress Springs Park playfields improvement pro- ject. The agreement is for ser- vices not to exceed $17,955. It includes selecting the proper turf-grass for the specific needs of the user groups and testing the material prior to installation. .,:�.0 .�rl ��.1�� rl��.i�� a�• r��;�� ll�r(��i�l�' �i��'��'I��.lrl(�)il ��;1�(��1 By LE1GH ANN IlRAZE City councilman 1Vick Streit presented a� idea to build a gym in the Heritage Orchard to the parks and recreation com- mission Feb. 7, but members of the her- itage preservation commission thought he should have come to them first. Although two heritage preservation commissioners attended the parks meet- ing, the commission said it was not given enough notice that the item was on the parksagenda. "The heritage commission should have been nodfied," wrote heritage chairman IVorman Koepernik in a letter to parks and recreation commission chairwoman Judy AlUerts. "The orchard is a heritage landmark and any discussion about its use or change in use should have had our commission repre- sented." Alberts apologized to Kcepernik for the oversight in a responding letter. Streit attended the preservation com- mission's March 14 meeting to formally pre- sent his idea to them, and to explain the rea- son he attended the other meeting first. On Feb. 7, I�Iemat l�ialeksalehi, a Saratoga res- ident, who, in January, offered to build and fund an indoor sports hall for the city, was on the agenda to discuss his gym idea. Since Streit felt it was better for the city to build and fund a gym of its own, he wanted to pre- sent his idea the same night as Maleksalehi. Maleksalehi has since pleaded guilty to state charges of welfare fraud and �elony grand theft. He also is being charged in federal court with money laundering, and mail and wire fraud. He did not sho�v up at the meeting on Feb. 7, and the city has not heard about his gym proposal. ?he 13.9-acre Heritage Orchard, locat- ed along Saratoga and Fruitvale avenues, is a heritage landmark ow�ned by the city. Streit envisions a gym designed to look like a barn big enough for two basketball courts, but with the same look and lovv profile as the library, that aLso is located at one corner of the orchard. The gym would be connected to existing parking areas at the library and the city buildings by foot- paths through the orchard. He also wants to incorporate a heritage museum, where the younger generations of Saratogans can learn local history. "I believe if we don't make the orchard accessible, inviting, user- friendly and a leaming experience for every Saratogan, the future generations will make it a sports complex," Streit said. Any change to a designated landmark, such as the Heritage Orchard, must be brought before the heritage preservation commission according to a city ordinance. T'he commission can then make a recom- mendation to community development director James Vdalgren. �dalgren can take the recommendation to the Planning Commissidn, which can make a recom- mendation to the City Council. Streit presented his idea to the parks commission as a citizen, and did not rep- resent the council. A subcommittee, formed by the parks commission, will look into more sites for recreation in the city, and they may look at the orchard as a possible one. "It's nice to see members of the commu- nity coming forth with ideas and solu tions," said Alberts, who is a member of the sub- committee. "I think we need more of that." According to Alberts, the parks com- mission heid a community meeting in 1996 to asls what recreational facilities the com- munity wanted. The first priority was a community center, and the second was more playfields. "Rleither of which has yet to be realized primarily because of lack of available space," Alberts said. On 1March 21, the city might make progress [oward these goals, when the City Council hears a presentation from archi- tects on a new community center. Playfields at Congress Springs Park are scheduled to �e completely redesigned and renovated. Since 1996, attempts to locate new play- fields at selected Saratoga schuol sites by the parks commission have been unsuccessful. "I don'[ believe anyone in Saratoga can argue the demographics are changing," Streit said. "I'm trying to figure out a way to accommodate the kids that are coming to town." 'D j 1 9 I I,�� .�r �'��1� ��1� �o�e� �Il� �oa��cflll The Council voted to request that Santa Clara Counry create a task force to study the feasi- bility of a trail along the Union Pacific Railroad lines in the county, as a request of Sarato- ga's Bicycle Advisory Commit- tee (BAC) and the recommen- dation of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission. The purpose of the pro- posed multiuse trail would be to establish a permanent link between the Stevens Creek Trail and the Los Gatos Creek trail, a distance of 8.7 miles. San Jose, Campbell, Cuperti- no and I.os Gatos are all inter- ested in developing the trail, said Jim Stallman of the BAC. t�� -��e 6 llllll lL��LL.11 V �D�III'� �D�dll��➢�� The Santa Clara County Water District has offered to install and maintain three interpretive park benches in Saratoga: one at IVeale's Hol- low, one at Wildwood Park near the parking lot and one near the intersection of Prospect and English Drive. The benches are made of poured concrete with an inter- pretive resin plaque on top. The district would like to see the benches in place by late spring, according to CaryBlanmquist in the City Manager's office. No o�t or maintenance obligations will be incurred by the city for this project �ol. 47, i�o. 13 ��ednesda�•. I�larch ?9, ?000 �LJ 1 V 1dJi Cll�� 'V'�1�� 1[`� 1L1' `ly �lJ 1L:i ��lL� ��i V Staff �ill begi�r �orking on possible m�zster pla�a tlrge�at nee�ls a priorit� By K,e,x.a cx�MERs P` here's little question that Sarato- ga's aging community and senior centers need attention, but the City Council has questioned whether ren- ovation is only a short-term solution, and if what is needed is a big-picture vision of the entire Civic Center complex. On March 21, Pamela Anderson Brule, principal architect for Anderson Brule Archi- tects, appeared before the cou�cil to present ideas for a brand new community and senior center. Brule had presented less dramatic options—a minor renovation and a remodel with expansion—during an October council meeting, but the council asked her to return with ideas for a completely new center, or cen- ters. At that time, council directed staff to look into financing a new facility. Brule presented three different locations for a center, which would house both facil- ities and could cost up to $7.5 million. But while council members said the presenta- tion was a great start, they were not com- pletely satisfied. By the end of the hour- long presentation, council members ques- tioned whether they were thinking big enough. Changing demographics, includ- ing a growing youth population, and dimin- ishing space were two factors that weighed on the minds of council members Councilwoman Ann Waltonsmith noted that, while no one was paying attention, all Please turn to page 17 IIti II� I News .13 Dining .34 Speak Ou� Calendar ,36 Business ..........26 Sports ............39 Education .28 Legal Nocices .43 Sryle .............31 Classifieds ........44 ��8�� An affordable alternative to high-pnced classifieds �or��unit� Conrinued from page 1 the land in the citv disappeared. Nou�, she said. the citv needs to think about the future, which may mean an overhaul of current faciliues to better use the space that's left. "I think we need to do the temporary fixes ancl create a dream." said Councilman Evan Baker. "And let the people sien up." With a bigger picture in mind, council directed staff to explore replanning and rebuilding the area from the Civic7�eater on Fruitvale Avenue to the corporation yard off Allendale Avenue. In response to the discussion about a bigger vision. Brule said. "It's just a ques- tion of how far your vision would go. W e'd certainlv be willing to take you there." While the architects seemed happy with the meeting's turn of events. Anderson Brule was only hired to do a feasibility study, a first step to any design and con- struction plan. The firm won't necessarily be the cit��'s final choice for actual work According to interim city manager William Norton, there may not be enough money left in the city's current convact with the firm for it to do any :nore master plan- ning for the city. He said it is too eazly [or the ciry to give any direction to the architects. "This is a big money item." Norton said. and explained that he directed the City Council not to make any decisions on March 21. "I wanted them to hear com- ments from other people." he said. Norton said city staff would return to the council with a recommendation for a master plan at one of the April council meetings. Meanwhile, recreation director Joan Pisani pointed out that there are immedi- ate needs in the community center that should be addressed—the leaky roof, the inadequate heating, ventilating and air con- ditioning system, and worn curtains and blinds. She suggested doing an overhaul in phases and fixing the center's most press- ing problems first. She said she would be reluctant to spend monev on reroofing, if the whole facility will be demolished soon. According to Mary Goulart, executive director of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, SASCC, besides the community center's problems, the senior center has an additional short-term need for a computer center, possibly a portable modular building that could be used as additional classroom space. In April, the council will discuss these needs, as well as looking at master plan- ning, Norton said. In 1996, the Ciry Council appointed a task force to leam citizens' priorities [or spend- ingthe city'spark development fund, money allocated to buy or renovate parks or park buildings. A community center renovation and expansion made the top of the list. Anderson Brul� submitted a needs assessment report in January 1999 for the existing community center. T'hey came up with three options: a$733.115 minimal renovation, a more than $1.3 million remodel and expansion, and a$4.4 million rebuild. None of these plans included the senior center. Since then, according to Goulart, the senior center has put its own renovation plans on hold, so that it can be part of the larger plan, including the com- munity center. Goulart said that s6e and the rest of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Coun- cil board members believe seniors in the communiry will benefit from a brand ncw• center, but that they are concerned about programs continuing during construction. "If the City Council can help us with these transition issues. I fcel the seniors in this communit�� and members ot thc SASCC board would bc far more sup portive of this proposed project," Goulart said later in an interview. Saratoga's administrative services direc- tor, Mary Jo Walker, presented several ideas for financing a 57.5 million project at the March 21 meeting. She said the mosi solid contribution would bc thc $1.3 million from the park development funcls, which the Parks and Recreation Commission voted last October to spend on the communitv center. The rest could be financed through loans, since $7.5 million would be too small an amount (or a general obligation bond. IF��e I�o�� Continued from pnge 13 Evans/McDonough Company inc., one in May and one in December 1999, show that the bond measure has a very good chance of passing by the necessary twathirds vote. The district is in the process of buying property in back of the station to house fire- fighters and equipment during construc- tion. At the earliest, construction would start one year from now, although demoli- tion could start next winter, Kraule said. If the measure passes, the commission- ers, next, would decide what the interior would look like. The district now has a preliminary artist's rendering of the exte- rior, but no specific design plans. Build a dream: Evan 13aker Land disappeared: Ann Waltonsmith �V�� o ��.�1� 9 By �cntu� cHn►.1wERs ��t��. ��•�'1�.1 11��'�'r1 Saratoga's City Council may have called a"special" meeting legally to vote to appeal the Mountain Winery's use permit, which the Santa Clara County Planning Commis- sion granted on March 2. But, according to Winery President Nancy Bussani, the coun- cil didn't follow the rules of etiquette. The winery was not no[ified or invited to the meeting that the council called on March 6, at which members voted 4-0 (John Mehaffey was absent) to appeal the county's approval, t�leither the Council nor the Mayor contacted the winery to dis- cuss concerns, Bussani said, adding that she was stunned by the decision to appeal. "The most frustrating thing for us is that we didn't even know they were having a meeting," Bussani said. "It makes it hard to believe we are working towards a win- win partnership, if we're not really part of the conversation." Saratoga city officials filed the appeal on March 17, on the grounds that the city's con- cerns—traffic, noise, trails and parking— were not properly addressed during the per- mit process. In the past 40 years of opera- tion, previous owners never obtained a per- mit for the winery. The board of supervisocs will hear the appeal, most likely in May, said planning commission clerk, Barbara Laskin. This summer's concert series will not be affected by the appeal, Bussani said, since the winery is allowed to continue the series for the duration of the permit process. The Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts, also, is appealing che county's decision. The mission of the volunteer organization is to ensuse that the city's master plan for trails, which was developed in 1991, is implemented. The permit will allow all of the events at the winery, such as the summer concert series, weddings and business meetings, to continue at the hilltop site, off Pierce Road in Saratoga. The permit restricts the num- ber of events and the number of attendants and parking spaces. City officials say these conditions aze not adequate. According to officials, the use permit should not address the proposed 750-seat increase in the concert bowl and the pro- posed 1,500 square foot expansion of the winery building, at all. �Zather, an amend- ment to the permit should address, specif ically, the winery's expansion, after more studies on traffic, noise and parking impacts are done. The Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts want the winery to grant trail easements throughout the property, in accordance with the city's master plan. In that case, people and hors- es won't have to use Pierce Road in Sara ro- ga—the road to the winery. The easements would be one-way to compensate for the winery-associated traffic on Pierce �toad, according to the trail enthusiasts group. The council was not legally required to notify winery ufficials of the sgecial meeting, according to the Brown Act'Ihe act requires open and public meetings of local govern- ments. The acc also states that if a bu�y needs to discuss or act on a matter that it deems pressing enough not to wait for a regular meeting, it may have a"special meeting" at some other time or place. The act requires that special meetings be posted at least 24 hours, in advance, with brief and general descriptions of the items to be discussed, in a place freely accessible to the public. According to interim city clerk Carol Butler, the agenda was posted more than 24 hours in advance on the City Hall's outside� kiosk, the usual place for posting agendas. Ptease turn to page 20 Continued from 16 According to W algren, the purpose of the special meeting was, in part, for Mayor Stan Bogosian to describe the results of the winery's hearing before the county Planning Commission. .�s a result, the council decided to appeal. Walgren noted that the council does not have the power to make decisions on the use permit, or the winery's operations, since the county is the lead agency on the whole permit process. The council merely met to decide whether to appeal the deci- sion of that agency and, therefore, the city never considered notifying the winery. Walgren said that, at an informal meet- ing he initiated with winery part owner Bill Hirschman last fall, Hirschman made it clear the winery wanted to keep the expansion as part of the use permit, which was in conflict with the city's wishes. Wal- gren believed the issue could not be nego- tiated. Since then, nei[her the winery nor the city has approached each other. �AIfBA�'�(�'sA� �I['II'�' (C��1T��IIIL lE�]E��.T'�'I[�IE S�JIYdI�[A1[��' I��. A�IEIYI�A d�'IEI� n 1�[lE]E�'�lY� �DA�']E: N'�[��Iln �ll, (C��'IY I�iIAIYA�IEI[8:�\ �][t][�I[I�A'�'I[I�Y� �]EI��'.: IEB��n��n�� D��n�. J. ��.Tl�.D7E��': Il8e§�➢an�n�u� ��n� ��an�tt� ��n�� C��u��i �u�� ff�e 4'�a� gh� �.T�ufi�u� ]��u1tn� ][S�nll� ��r�fill ff�u� �ll�u�� C�an��. lEg]E��I��1V�]EIID I�I��'��I�1��: A�l��n� �BIEI��If�'�' ��J�IE81�'e A��lfu��l n§ �1�� u��§��an�n�� 1�� u��ea�an�e§��1 ff�� n�� au¢��uH IlIIIl�IIIlIlI�D�Il' �l�II'QllQ �Q �IfIl� �Clli�' (C�➢Il][ll�ll� 1lIlIl��f�llIIIl� �SF ��I�� e ��IIIl� ��a ��s ��(��e ��IID� ��I��IE��JJIEEI�(C:IE� �IF I�Y�'�' A(�,'�II�TQ's �I� IEBIE��I�IEl�IEdD I�it�'d'��IY��:1E8��aIl�u�IIIl a�ill➢ �u�� l�� i��n��e�le ]F�ILIC.�dY �JI� AcC��I��o NiI�n� u��➢an�n�� C�un�� ff cC��u��o A�'ICA��lY'IC�> 118��llan�n�� RESOLUTIOIV RESOLUTIOIV OF TF� CITY COUIVCIL OF TI-IE CITY OF SARATOGA REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF SAAITA CLAR.A CREATE A TASK FORCE FOR THE UIVIOTV PACIFIC RAILROAD TRAIL FOR SANTA CLARA COUIVTY �IE][t1E�5, the Union Pacific Raikoad Trail (Trail) is a route that runs through Santa Clara Counry; and D�[�lll�]EAS, the Trail is included as a Regional Trail Route in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan, as a Proposed Trail in the Santa Clara Counry General Plan, and as a proposed Bicycle Corridor in the Santa Claza County Congestion Management Program; and the Trail is proposed for inclusion in tl�e Valley Transportation Plan 2Q20 of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; and �Y��IE.�S, the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, San Jose, and Saratoga are very interested in developing the Trail for both recreational and commuting opportunities along the trackage of Union Pacific Railroad Company; and �IEI�A�, the top priorities are to negotiaYe easement acquisition for the Trail with Union Pacific Raikoad and obtain funding for project development; and �b'ff3I�d81EA5, a task force of citizens, including members of city bicycle advisory committees, with ihe County of Santa Clara as lead agency should study the feasibility of the Traii, �']8[lEltS]EIF�It�]E, I�IE d81E��1L�]EIlD, the City Council of the City of Saratoga request the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara create a task force of citizens from the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, San Jose, and Saratoga to study the feasibiliry of the Union Pacific Railroad Trail. 1P,�3SIEllD A1�IIID AIID�1�'II'IE➢D at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, held on the 21 day of 1VIarch, 2000 by the following vote: COLTIVCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN S��iYIEdD: MAYOR OF T'HE CITY OF SARATOGA SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK OF TI� CITY OF S.4RATOGA SARATOGA, CALIFORAtIA PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 1 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPNINT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I 0 N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-0000-101.10-01 POOLED CASH GENERAL CHECKING 000000 09/00 AJ 03/23/00 **OFFSET•+ JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/09/00 *+OFFSET*+ JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AJ 02/24/00 •�OFFSET�* JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ 03/06/00 08/00 AJ 02/10/00 **OFFSET** JOURNAL SLiMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS EXPENSES-HUSBAN ASSOCIATES, INC.-CONGRE GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS EXPENSE-COLLISH LANDSCAPING GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS EXPENSE-COLLISH LANDSCAPING TO CORRECT GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS MEADE CONSTRUC TO CORRECT ACT.-CONGRES GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/27/00 *tOFFSET*• JOURNAL SUMMAAY AP DISBIIRSEMENT 20000 GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/02/99 t+OFFSET*+ JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/18/99 •*OFFSET•* JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/04/99 •*OFFSET*+ JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 11/14/99 04/00 AJ 10/21/99 **OFFSET** JOURNAL SLTMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 08/11/99 O1/00 AJ 07/14/99 *+OFFSET+* JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19990 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-101.10-02 POOLED CASH SAVINGS GJ O1/18/00 06/00 12/31/99 •**YERO++t BALANCE FORWARD GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/21/99 ***YERO••* REVERSE GR#503 REROLL BALANCE FORWARD GJ 09/30/99 03/00 10/27/99 ***YERO**' BALANCE FORWARD GJ 08/11/99 O1/00 AJ 07/14/99 0046151 HOWELL MCNEIL VELASCOM 071499 00 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-101.10-03 POOLED CASH PAYROLL/CAECKING ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-103.10-00 CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT US BANK ACCOUNT TOTAL 9,290.41 22,528.37 8,491.15 130.48 2,033.16 4,074.00 470.00 1,610.76 759.60 5,002.73 2,218.78 47.28 4,052.36 1,139.77 00 .00 61,848.85 61,848.85- 2,253,122.72 2,253,122.72 2,253,122.72 9,315.00 00 4,515,560.44 2,253,122.72 2,262,437.72 00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUN'P ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 2 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUN'PING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I O N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-0000-201.00-00 LIABILZTIES VOUCHERS PAYABLE 000000 09/00 AJ 03/23/00 ••OFFSET*+ JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 000000 09/00 AJ 03/10/00 ••OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01297 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/09/00 +*OFFSET++ JOURNAL S[TPR�7ARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/O1/00 ••OFFSET#* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01218 GJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AJ 02/24/00 '+OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ 03/06/00 08/00 AJ 02/11/00 **OFFSET+• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01131 GJ 03/06/00 08/00 AJ 02/10/00 ++OFFSET++ JOURNAL SiJMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AJ 02/O1/00 +*OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01005 GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/27/00 ••OFFSET+� JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 20000 GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/14/00 ++OFFSET•+ JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 0089'7 GJ O1/18/00 06/00 12/31/99 *i*YERO**• BALANCE FORWARD GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/21/99 **�YERO+** REVERSE GR#503 REROLL BALANCE FORWARD GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/02/99 +•OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/O1/99 *•OFFSET*• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00637 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/16/99 *iOFFSET*� JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/OS/99 •*OFFSET•• JOURNAL SUMMARY HATCH TYPE AP 00574 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/04/99 *+OFFSET*+ JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/O1/99 •*OFFSET+* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00486 GJ 09/30/99 03/00 10/27/99 *�*YERO*•O HALANCE FORWARD GJ 11/14/99 04/00 AJ 10/21/99 •*OFFSET*• JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19991 GJ 11/14/99 04/00 AJ 10/12/99 ••OFFSET•* JOi1RNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00410 GJ OB/11/99 O1/00 AJ 07/14/99 *•OFFSET+* JOURNAL SUMMARY AP DISBURSEMENT 19990 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-210.10-03 ACCRUED SALARY WAGES ACCRUED LEAVE ACCOUNT TOTAL 9,290.41 9,290.41 22,528.37 22,528.37 8,491.15 8,491.15 130.48 130.48 759.60 759.60 1,139.77 1,139.77 5,002.73 5,002.73 2,218.78 2,218.78 47.28 47.28 1,139.77 4,052.36 4,052.36 1,139.77 00 54,800.70 00 .00 54,800.70 .00 .00 .00 PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 3 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERZOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPPR�IT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I O N ENCUMBRANCE DEHITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-0000-330.10-00 UNRESERVED ACCOUNT TOTAL DESIGNATED FOR OPERATIONS 310-0000-330.20-00 UNRESERVED UNDESIGNATED GJ O1/18/00 06/00 12/31/99 **'YERO*+* BALANCE FORWARD GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/21/99 +*�YERO++* REVERSE GR�#503 REROLL BALANCE FORWARD GJ 09/30/99 03/00 10/27/99 ��OYERO**• HALANCE FORWARD ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-399.99-01 BALANCING OFFSET ACCOUNTS EXPENDITURE CONTROL 000000 09/00 AJ 03/10/00 **OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01297 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/O1/00 **OFFSET++ JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01218 GJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AJ 02/11/00 ••OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01131 GJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AJ 02/O1/00 •iOFFSET+* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01005 GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 **OFFSET•* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AJ 01023 GJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/14/00 '*OFFSET•• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00897 GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/O1/99 *•OFFSET+* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00637 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/OS/99 �•OFFSETt* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00574 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/O1/99 '*OFFSET'• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00486 GJ 11/14/99 04/00 AJ 10/12/99 ••OFFSET�* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00410 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-399.99-02 BALANCING OFFSET ACCOUNTS REVENUE CONTROL GJ 08/il/99 O1/00 AJ 07/15/99 ••OFFSET•* JOURNAL StJMMARY HATCH TYPE AJ 00042 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-399.99-03 BALANCING OFFSET ACCOUNTS ENCUMBRANCE CONTROL 000000 09/00 AJ 03/10/00 *•OFFSET•* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01297 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/O1/00 dOOFFSET•O JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE EN 01194 00 .00 .00 .00 2,173,682.47 2,173,682.47 2,173,682.47 00 2,173,682.4� 4,347,364.9 2,173,682.47 9,290.41 22,528.37 8,491.15 130.48 8,187.92 759.60 5,002.73 2,218.78 47.28 4,052.36 00 60,709.08 .00 60,709.08- 9,315.00 00 .00 9,315.00 9,315.00 9,230.41 158,661.00 PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 4 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FiJND 310 PARK DVLPhINT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I 0 N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS HALANCE 310-0000-399.99-03 BALANCING OFFSET ACCOUNTS ENCUMBRANCE CONTROL GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/O1/00 °tOFFSET*� JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01218 GJ 03/06/00 08/00 AJ 02/11/00 t�OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01131 GJ 03/06/00 08/00 AJ 02/10/00 ++OFFSET•+ JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE EN 01114 GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/O1/99 *�OFFSET•• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00637 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/08/99 *�OFFSET+• JOURNAL SUMMARY HATCH TYPE EN 00491 GJ 08/31/99 02/00 AJ OB/31/99 °*OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE EN 00337 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-399.99-04 BALANCING OFFSET ACCOUNTS RESERVED FOR ENCUMB. CNTL 000000 09/00 A,7 03/10/00 **OFFSET�• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPS AP 01297 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/O1/00 *tOFFSET•• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE EN 01194 GJ 02/29/00 09/00 AJ 03/O1/00 **OFFSET�* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01218 GJ 03/06/00 08/00 AJ 02/11/00 "OFFSET** JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 01131 GJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AJ 02/10/00 ••OFFSETi+ JOURNAL S[JD4dARY BATCH TYPE EN 01114 GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/O1/99 **OFFSET�* JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE AP 00637 GJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AJ 11/OB/99 fOOFFSET�+ JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE EN 00491 GJ 08/31/99 02/00 AJ 08/31/99 �•OFFSET{• JOURNAL SUMMARY BATCH TYPE EN 00337 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-0000-399.99-OS BALANCING OFFSET ACCOUNTS PRIOR YEAR RESERVE ENC. GJ O1/18/00 06/00 12/31/99 *++YERO+�* BALANCE FORWARD GJ O1/18/00 06/00 12/31/99 ***YERO•*• BALANCE FORWARD GJ 01/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/21/99 •+tYERO•'* REVERSE GR#503 REROLL BALANCE FORWARD GJ O1/18/00 06/00 AJ 12/21/99 +*•YERO" REVERSE GR#503 REROLL BALANCE FORWARD GJ 09/30/99 03/00 10/27/99 "*YERO•�' BALANCE FORWARD GJ 09/30/99 03/00 10/27/99 •�*YERO•t+ BALANCE FORWARD ACCOUNT TOTAL 21,420.00 8,067.40 18,000.00 1,950.00 6,200.00 36,713.96 00 219,574.96 9,230.41 21,420.00 8,067.40 1,950.00 00 00 40,667.81 178,907.15- 158,661.00 18,000.00 6,200.00 36,713.96 40,667.81 219,574.96 178,907.15 36,713.96 41,586.52 36,713.96 41,586.52 36,713.96 41,586.52 78,300.48 156,600.96 78,300.46 c PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 5 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATfi NUMBER D E S C R I P T I 0 N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-3030-443.04-00 PUBLIC WORKS PARK DEVELOPMENT RJ 08/11/99 O1/00 AJ 07/14/99 0046151 HOWELL MCNEZL 9,315.00 VELASCOM 071499 00 ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 9,315.00 9,315.00 310-9010-613.30-01 SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS EXPENSES-HUSBAN ASSOCIATES, INC.-CONGRE EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS MEADE CONSTRUC TO CORRECT ACT.-CONGRES ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-9010-613.40-10 SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTS EJ 02/29/00 09/00 AP 03/07/00 0080996 MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. MT. EDEN RD TRAZL PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 02/29/00 09/00 AP 03/07/00 0080987 JENS HANSON COMPANY PARK RESTROOM IMPR. PROJECT#: 0001 EJ 02/29/00 09/00 AP 03/07/00 0080987 JENS HANSON COMPANY LESS RETENTION lOk PROJECT#: 0001 EJ 02/29/00 09/00 EN 02/23/00 19069 JENS HANSON COMPANY PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEM PROJECT#: 0001 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS EXPENSE-COLLISH LANDSCAPING EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/31/00 1023 RECLASS EXPENSE-COLLISH LANDSCAPING TO CORRECT EJ O1/31/00 07/00 BA O1/28/00 1021 SET UP PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT#: 0001 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 BA O1/28/00 1021 SET UP PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT#: 9704 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-9010-613.40-16 SERVICES 000000 09/00 AP 03/21/00 0081128 PIIBLIC WORKS INSP. PROJECT#: 0001 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 BA O1/28/00 1021 PROJECT#: 0001 INSPECTION SERVICES LEWIS, HOWARD SET UP PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ACCOUNT TOTAL 00 23,800.00- 2,380.00 158,661.00 2,033.16 1,610.76 3,643.92 1,076.00 23,800.00 4,074.00 470.00 00 3,643.92 2,380.00 137,241.00 29,420.00 2,380.00 27,040.00 60.00 .00 60.00 .00 60.00 G PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVZTY LISTING PAGE 6 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I 0 N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-9010-613.40-17 SERVICES ARCHZTECTURAL SERVICES EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS PARK RESTROOM 2,285.79 IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES PROJECT#: 0001 HJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS WILDWOOD PARK 3,800.00 RENOVATION EXPENSES PROJECT#: 0001 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS LABOR/PRINTING 2,218.78 TO CORRECT PROJECT/ACT PROJECT#: 0001 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 BA O1/28/00 1021 SET iJP PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT#: 0001 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-9010-613.40-40 SERVICES EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/23/00 0080871 ADS PROJECT#: 0001 EJ oi/ai/oo o�/oo a,T oi/2s/oo ioi� PROJECT#: 0001 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 BA O1/28/00 1021 PROJECT#: 0001 ADVERTISING METRO PUBLISHING INC. RECLASS EXPENSES-BLUEPR TO CORRECT ACT/PROJECT SET UP PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 00 8,304.57 168.75 225.92 00 6,304.57 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-9010-613.40-41 SERVICES PRINTING/BINDING EJ 03/06/00 08/00 AP 02/08/00 0080756 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT PLANS FOR CONGRESS SPR PROJECT#: 0001 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/OB/00 0080756 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT PLANS FOR CONGRESS SPR PROJECT#: 0001 EJ 01/31/00 07/00 BA O1/28/00 1021 SET UP PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT#: 0001 ACCOUNT TOTAL 310-9030-622.40-10 SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTS 000000 09/00 AP 03/14/00 0081064 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHITECTS COMMUNITY CTR FORMUL. PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 02/29/00 09/00 AP 03/07/00 0081025 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT HANDICAP RAMP PROJECT#: 9704 00 394.67 .00 394.67 12.99 117.49 .00 130.48 .00 130.48 9,230.41- 9,230.41 32.37 d PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 7 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T Z O N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-9010-622.40-10 SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTS EJ 03/06/00 08/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 1,200.00- 1,200.00 DESIGN DEV. K. MORAN PARK PROJECT#�: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 08/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 350.00- 350.00 DRAINAGE K. MORAN PARK PROJfiCT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 350.00- 350.00 IRRIGATION K. MOARN PARK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 250.00- 250.00 LIGHTING K. MORAN PARK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 450.00- 450.00 CONSTRUCTION K. MORAN P PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 170.00 ADDITIONAL MEETING PROJECT#� 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 850.00- 850.00 DESIGN GARDINER PARK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 08/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 350.00- 350.00 DRAINAGE GARDINER PARK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 08/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 450.00- 450.00 CONSTRUCTION GARDINER P PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OS/00 AP 02/23/00 0080849 HEID, JEFFREY W. 85.00 ADDITIONAL MEETING PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 08/00 AP 02/22/00 0080804 ANDERSON SRULE ARCHITECTS 3,817.40- 3,817.40 COMM. CTR FORMULATION PROJECTq: 9704 EJ 03/06/00 OB/00 EN 02/11/00 19121 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHITECTS 18,000.00 ARCHITECTURAL SERV. PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS WILDWOOD,CONGE 2,285.79 ESS SPRINGS EXPS PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS WILDWOOD PARK 3,800.00 RENOVATION EXPENSES PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS EXPENSES-HLUEPR 225.92 PARK RESTROOM IMPROVE PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP 01/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 112.00 BIDDING MATERIAL PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 3.33 CREDIT PROJECT#: 9704 4 t PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 8 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I O N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-9010-622.40-10 SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTS EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE SLUE PRINT 64.61 COPY WORK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 133.63 COPY WORK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 245.18 COPY WORK PROJfiCT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 14.07 COPY WORK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 20.57 COPY WORK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP 01/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLtJE PRINT 22.62 COPY WORK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AP O1/24/00 0080635 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 150.25 COPY WORK PROJECT#: 9'I04 EJ O1/18/00 06/00 AP 12/O1/99 0080231 WARREN B. HEID AIA ASSOCIAT 2,285.79 RENOVATION WORK PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/18/00 06/00 AP 12/O1/99 0080207 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 16.24 BLUEPRINTS PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/18/00 06/00 AP 12/O1/99 0080207 SAN JOSE BLUE PRZNT 44.60 BLUEPRINTS PROJECTq: 9704 EJ O1/18/00 06/00 AP 12/O1/99 0080207 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 165.08 BLUEPRINTS PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/18/00 06/00 AP 11/29/99 0080156 GERALD L. ARANA ASSOC. 1,950.00- 1,950.00 TOPO SURVEY PROJECT#: 9704 EJ O1/18/00 06/00 AP 11/29/99 0080119 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHZTECTS 541.02 ASSESMENT PHASE IZ PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 12/06/99 OS/00 EN 10/30/99 19062 GERALD L. ARANA ASSOC. 1,950.00 TOPOGRAPH PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AP 10/27/99 0079831 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHITECTS 97.2g PROF. SERVICES PROJECT#�: 9704 EJ 12/06/99 OS/00 EN 10/22/99 19131 HEID, JEFFREY W. 1,650.00 ARCHITECTURAL SERV. PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 12/06/99 OS/00 EN 10/22/99 19130 HEID, JEFFREY W. 2,600.00 ARCHITECTURAL SERV. PROJECT#: 9704 o. PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 9 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPMNT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I 0 N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-9010-622.40-10 SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTS EJ 11/14/99 04/00 AP 10/20/99 0079810 WARREN B. HEID AIA ASSOCIAT 3,800.00 ARCHITECTURAL FEES PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 11/14/99 04/00 AP 10/19/99 0079720 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 252.36 MAILING LAHELS PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 08/31/99 02/00 EN 08/31/99 18561 HEALS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 36,713.96 PRZOR YR ENCUMS PROJECT#: 9704 EJ 08/31/99 02/00 BA OB/31/99 ENC/BUDADJ PROJECT#: 9704 ACCOtJNT TOTAL 41,666.15 27,450.48 6,315.04 21,135.44 310-9010-622.40-14 SERVICES REPAIR SERVICES ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9010-622.40-16 SERVICES P.W. INSPECTION SERVICES ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9010-622.40-17 SERVICES ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9010-622.40-40 SERVICES ADVERTISING ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9010-622.40-41 SERVICES PRINTING/BINDING ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9704-622.40-10 SERVICES GENERAL CONTRACTS EJ O1/31/00 07/00 AJ O1/28/00 1017 RECLASS LABOR/PRINTING 2,218.78 TO CORRECT PROJECT/ACT EJ 12/06/99 OS/00 AP il/16/99 0080105 WARREN B. HEID AIA ASSOCIAT 2,218.76 DESIGN WORK ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 2,218.78 2,218.78 .00 e d PREPARED 03/31/2000, 14:52:32 ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LISTING PAGE 10 PROGRAM GM360L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 09/2000 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND 310 PARK DVLPtR�IT CAP PROJ FND JOURNAL ACCTG ----TRANSACTION---- YTD/CURRENT CURRENT CD DATE PER. CD DATE NUMBER D E S C R I P T I 0 N ENCUMBRANCE DEBITS CREDITS BALANCE 310-9704-622.40-16 SERVICES P.W. INSPECTION SERVICES ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9704-622.40-17 SERVICES ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9704-622.40-40 SERVICES ADVERTISING ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 310-9704-622.40-41 SERVICES PRINTING/BINDING ACCOUNT TOTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 FtJND TOTAL 178,907.15 7,214,918.84 7,163,524.76 4,471,201.82 GRAND TOTAL 178,907.15 7,214,918.84 7,163,524.76 4,471,201.82 �FW: IMBA Articles on trail building/maintenance S�uk�jec�: ]F'�Y III�I�A AIC�llC�eS OIIIl �II'�llIl kD➢AllIlQIlllffigIIlIlIl�llllIl��IIIl�IIIlC� Il��te: Thu, 301VIar 2000 14:26:34 -0800 lF�oflue: Rick Brusuelas <Rick.Brusuelas@hds.com> �o: "'cityhall@saratoga.ca.us"' <cityhall@saratoga.ca.us> Cary, Sorry, bad typing skills... Rick Brusuelas Ph. 408.970.7167 Manager, Analyst Relations Fx. 408.748.8451 Hitachi Data Systems Email rick.brusuelas@hds.com -----Original Message----- From: Rick Brusuelas Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 To: 'cityhallC�sratoga.ca.us' Cc: 'nfronczak�jrusa.com' Subject: IMBA Articles on trail Cary, 2:23 PM building/maintenance Sorry for the delay. Here are the articles I mentioned, but I will also point you to IMBA�s web site where this and other articles are located: htt�://www.areatoutdoors.com/local/nartners/imba/infoaction/librarv/arade di ps.html <httn://www.areatoutdoors.com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/librarv/arade d ips.html> httn://www.qreatoutdoors. review.html <httn://www.areatoutdoors review.html> httn://www.careatoutdoors. irt.html <httn://www.areatoutdoors dirt.html> com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/librarv/liahtiv com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/librarv/liahtiv com/local/nartners/imba/infoaction/librarv/scienced com/local/oartners/imba/infoaction/librarv/science And IMBA's Library can be found at: htt�://www.areatoutdoors.com/local/t�artners/imba/infoaction/librarv/index.ht ml <httn://www.qreatoutdoors.com/local/r�artners/imba/infoaction/librarv/index.h tml> Hope this helps! Rick Brusuelas President, ROMP Rick Brusuelas Ph. 408.970.7167 Manager, Analyst Relations Fx. 408.748.8451 Hitachi Data Systems Email rick.brusuelasC�hds.com 1 of 1 3/31/00 8:56 AM Corn Gluteen Meal Supresses Weeds CalTrans is using com to combat weeds. The actual product is Corn Gluten Meal or the gluten of the corn which is a byproduct of the wet milling process for making com starch or corn syrup. Corn gluten meal is 60% protein and is widely used as a food ingredient for animals. However this food grade product also controls weed seed before they sprout. The fact that Corn Gluten Meal (CGM) controls weeds seeds was discovered by accident. Dr. Nick Christians from Iowa State University was experimenting with turf grass disease management, when they accidentally applied corn gluten meal as a carrier for a fungus in turf. The fungus experunent was a complete failure, but the CGM appeared to have suppressed weed germination. Additional trials where held and Dr. Christians patented the idea. Gluten, which contains 10% nitrogen, acts as a preemergent weed suppressant and is harmless to plants with established root systems. It is applied before fall rains begin, and then again in the late winter and early spring. Repeat applications appear to increase the success rates. This discovery is particularly important for Califomia because synthetic herbicides are being detected in groundwater, rivers and lakes throughout the state and alternarives to their use are now encouraged. CGM has proven to be an excellent control for crabgrass weed seeds and is also an excellent fertilizer. Corn Gluten Meal is registered for use in California as Suppressa Organic Weed and Feed. It is available locally from Bioscape Inc., 4381 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma, CA 94952, 1(877)246-7227 or online at www.Bioscape.com. lmpacts of Mountain Bikes Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 1 of 2 The general conclusion from the material reviewed here is that the focus of attention on mountain biking impacts should be on the social perception aspects. Although mountain bikes clearly do have physical impacts on tracks, these did not appear to be of any greater significance than those from other track users, despite the general perception to the contrary. And, although safety concerns were also commonly highlighted, the problem related more to apprehension about what might happen rather than concern based on any inherent danger, or an established record of incidents. The real difficulty faced by managers making provision for mountain biking opportunities, lies in addressing the recreation conflict issues that arise. Based upon this general conclusion, assuming that managers are considering what opportunities for mountain biking may be available, and recognising that some tracks will not be suitable for mountain biking, a number of more specific suggestions for management and research consideration can be proposed. These are noted briefly below. (i) Managers should note that when considering making opportunities available for mountain biking, rider preferences for riding conditions are diverse. As riders gain in experience, their setting and experience preferences appear to move more towards opportunities characterised by natural settings, challenge, variety, and single-track riding. Rides characterised by these features are likely to be more difficult, and use numbers correspondingly lower. (ii) The significance of assessing use-impacts on tracks needs to be reconsidered, as it is not established that mountain bikes have any greater impact on tracks than do any other non-motorised activities (e.g., walking, running, tramping, horses etc,). Also, actual impacts upon tracks represent more of a management maintenance concern than a significant impact on the environment. It is questionable whether these impacts should be the key factors in decisions to allocate or limit oppotunities for mountain biking. If major damage is anticipated due to susceptible track conditions, the presence of any use would seem to be problematic. (iii) If managers consider that physical impacts on certain tracks should remain a key factor in such decisions, then more objective research on the actual impacts occurring will be required. This research should compare relative longitudinal effects of mountain biking and walking use on specified track impact criteria. Such work should be incorporated into any general monitoring programmes for visitor impacts which may be implemented. (iv) Where mountain biking is to be allowed, but concerns remain over walker safety, active management of tracks to minimise hazard potential should be considered. The main actions this would require would include the strategic location of natural and constructed obstacles to reduce downhill and cornering speed (e.g., steps, culverts, logs, roots, rocks, waterbars etc,). http://www.mountainbike.co.nzJpolitics/doc/impacts/conclude.htm 3/27/00 Impacts of Mountain Bikes Page 2 of 2 (v) Where managers wish to discourage or minimise riding on certain tracks, the strategic use of such obstacles (above) to increase the riding difficulty of tracks could be considered. As track difficulty and inconvenience for riding increases, it is likely that fewer riders would be present. These types of managed difficulties would not be such a disincentive for walkers. Some trial work or social research may be necessary to test the effectiveness of the strategies suggested here and in (iv) above. (vi) Where a track is being considered for possible mountain bike access, short-term visitor monitoring should be considered to identify the characteristics and use patterns of existing users. Tracks which are used by high numbers of walkers likely to be more susceptible to concerns such as perceived hazard from mountain biking (e.g., elderly walkers, young families etc,), may not be socially suitable or appropriate for mountain biking. On low volume tracks with more active users these concerns may be less significant. This may represent a further important area for social perception research. The assumptions about which visitors may be more concerned with mountain biking impacts should also be tested further. (vii) There is some indication that the degree of conflict perceived with mountain biking may diminish over time as other users become more familiar with bike-encounters and riders themselves. Longitudinal research on tracks where mountain bikes are becoming more common should be undertaken to further identify the nature of the conflict perceptions arising, and how these may change over time. Based upon these conclusions, a model for addressing provision of opportunities for mountain biking has been developed NZ MTB WEB POLITICS EMAIL COPYRIGHT SEARCH C C� �JS °v�� V'f��(�-vrl I� �,c�S b� rn o� i�� !-�S G e�� e� c�--,I 0�� r ��av� f�. �SS �Z r�d ��u��` C� �n 5e1� �cd� I �1� S� http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/doc/impacts/conclude.htm 3/27/00 Page 1 of 1 C'st�Pwa�ov From: <waltonsmith@attglobal.net> To: "Norton, Bill" <cityman@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: "Baron, Teri" <TLBaron@aol.com>; "Bogosian, Stan" <sbogosian@aol.com> Sen4: Sunday, March 26, 2000 8:45 PM Subjec4: Major trail slide on Water Tank trail just off of Parker Ranch Road Bill Please pass this on to John Cherbone, Public Works, and to Cary Bloomquist, Staff Support for the P� R Commission. I am assuming they know about it but I am adding my support to going for a repair solution. The Baron's and I were out looking at trails on Sunday. At the beginning of the Water Tank trail is a major slide down into Prospect Creek. Not only has it taken out the trail, but my guess is that more trail and hillside will be lost, if it isn't stablilized and repaired. Worse yet, there is a big section of sewer pipe exposed, and bent out into thin air. The Barons and I are concerned that it is a functioning sewer pipe, as it looked to be leaking. 1. If it is functioning, isn't the county responsible for repairing the hillside, stablizing the sewer pipe, and maybe even repairing the trail? 2. If not the county, is Saratoga responsible? 3. If it is leaking, raw sewage into the creek is not something that we should be casual about. 4. Since this is a well used trail, folks have made their own detour up and around the slide area. If someone slips, the drop is pretty faz and steep. I don't think we can have a"public trail" with that amount of hazard on it for very long. Can you let me know what the plans are for a solution? Thanks Aru� 3/28/00 �af�Q`��Q p��f��C� `�I�Qai� 1 J �'A�3�CE� F$�(�C�f �O�P TR�Ufl� �n I S3�-�c? �60 ��z u 3. 1 ,�a... r i 4 OPEN TO E�UESTRIAN• JOGGIMG, i� Gl VUALKING (20 FT 1NIDE �UBLiC E�!►SENIENT) v n y f i �ii o i o SARA�OCA GOL� CLUB .�o `o P O�/'9111le> �000a00000 Geeen Wa4er p CITY '�R�49L t T�e�lc �o� f 1'O OT'f-6EF� �.FiEAS: i Ybo o l 1Alater 1'ank ti�,, �e Vbeo�qp 1J t `1 r/ 1 "3 D .q��, ac,�,�° °a i L o Q l I p, I b p i i 1 o Forest i r 4 i 1 f I -y--; d v o ;o� 0 t i i. b �p �:�'o I �s �4 .�1^�'^' �'o �,Y�� r. �h� �0 5 6 iI bp�, p� 4 o� �'I �!S.p o 7 j V I 1 �^r:\ �occ0 v� r O i �i oo:� I oo�! �p 1 j o�`�- e' 1 �`'^.�-J V/JT dqpq aa 4q �p��a, G p. 1 i Ste2p. e 7 o i 4. Grass o. a�FS j o-�- Hilf n� (Q��, R R ��i j :a N r 4,. .1 l;, f' �t o oocxavvoovva....��..oQ on�-r 1 1 /JRROyo pE �b y r a '7 s ..,�g% �'/l7� �l1 rr v C r P� �l LE�'AD'ING'THE PARTI'CIPATI"O'N'OF"'MOIJNTAIN."CYCLISTS 11N THE'TRA'IL COMMUNITY� FEB.,- �IVIAR 20.00 �__t. i�_ �d�� c�� tr�� o Ned Overend, Specialized-sponsored rider, mountain bike world champion, X- terra Off-Road Triathlon Champion, and author of a new book, Mountain Bike Like a Champion, will speak at Stanford University in conversation with Zapata Espinoza, Mountain Bike Magazine edi- tor, on February 26. Ned will share his 44 years of riding expertise for beginners to experts including riding and racing tips, techniques and tales. There will also be free drawings (no donation or purchase necessary, must be present to win), Ned Trivia Jeopardy, and books for sale. The event will take place on Saturday, February 26, 2000, at 7:30 PM, Cubberly Auditorium, Stanford. Admission is free, but seating is limited and reservations (2 guests max) must be made by calling 800-722-3799 or emailing ned- talk@special ized. com. This event is sponsored by the Stanford Cycling Team and Specialized Bicycles. All proceeds will benefit the Stanford Cycling Team and their trail advocacy projects and partners, including ROMP and IMBA. A special pre-event VIP reception, lim- ited to 50 guests only, will also be held 6— 7:30 PM. Attendees will personally meet Ned; receive an autographed copy of his new book, Mountain Bike Like a Champion; and receive an IMBA mem- bership and promotion bag. $100 dona- tion admits one guest. Pre-register by February 14, 2000, by calling Ariadne Scott, 800-432-4144, ext. 2348. p�r��c�p G3��c�� u� C�Do�c��l ...by Rick Brusuelas The Tank Trail portion of Parker Ranch Trail (the lower portion of the trail which runs from Fremont Older Open Space Preserve to Saratoga) is now closed to all trail users, including mountain bikers. Landslide damage from a few years ago aggravated by last year's rains has washed away large sections of the areas to each side of the trail. In some places the trail is less than 18 inches wide with a steep slope on one side and a washout 75 to 100 feet deep on the other. The City of Saratoga, concerned about the safety of users, approved a Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation to close the trail to all users until such a time that they can decide how or if the trail can be repaired. The city has accordingly posted signs and erected bamcades at the trail entrances. However, neighbors have reported seeing mountain bikers using the trail, and city offi- cials have discovered mountain bike tire tracks on the trail. City officials have also seen evidence of trail users going around and over the clearly marked barricades. While the city understands that such occurrences are not the norm and do not reflect the responsible majority of mountain cyclists, they are very concemed about the safety of anyone ignoring the trail closure at this time. Continued occurrences may ultimately hurt mountain bikers from gaining access to the trail once repairs have been made. Please continue to respect the trail closure and remind others that riding closed trails not only violates a key IMBA Rule of the Trail but also increases the risk of gaining access to trails in the future. Thanks! C�oa��1— �a.af��u� �oa�� I�� do�a��4�� I�aa�� ...by Jane Taylor, Volunteer Data Coordinator Hello mountain bikers! I'd like to remind everyone to forward their volunteer hours to me for a final 1999 count. There are several ways you can forward your hours: o Web Point your browser to the ROMP home page at www.romp.org, click on "Hours Reporting" in the top left hand corner, fill out the online form, click send, and voila! your hours will be whisked to me. o ]Email Send a quick email to jtaylor@corp.sgi.com. In addition to the total of your hours, please break your work into the following categories: trail work, trail patrol, education stations, advocacy meeting, leading rides, club administrative duties, mailing parties, or communications on advocacy issues. o Snail m�il Using the same format as the email, send a quick note to Jane Tay- lor, 406 Iris St., Redwood City CA 94062. Your volunteer hours are used by ROMP to demonstrate that mountain cyclists do give back to the trail community, educate trail users regarding sharing the trails, and work with land managers and other advocacy groups. The hours are also used by the Inter- national Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) in their national and international data collection. Thanks in advance for sending your hours in! G30o �iv p �v �c��uo�� P�� Board meetings aze where the vast majority of ROMP business is transacted. Board meetings cover po(icy development, budgets, and cyclist education. They are held on the fourth Monday of every month (except December) from 7 to 8 PM at the Americana Aparcments in Mountain View. t�1 3� ritq. �'�s�;�,� r�� r d z �>.��Z r. To get to the meeting, take Hwy 85 to EI Camino Real and go south towazd Sunnyvale. Tum right ai the first light. The old Emparium building is on the right; street names are 'I'he Americana to the right and Sylvan to the left. The clubhouse is at the end of The Americana. Check at the guard desk for directions to the meeting room. For more information, contact Rick Brusuelas at 510-440-1940 or president@romp.org. I��O�� f�l�B�6u�� f��o�� So�itf� Y��f•��.� Tr,.3il S�avcc•i On October 11, 1999, access to the South Yuba Trail, a 15 mile long singletrack trail overlooks the South Yuba River, was saved when Governor Gray Davis signed the South Yuba River Wild and Scenic (SB 496 Byron Sher, Palo Alto) bill. This bill stopped two different proposed projects to dam the South Yuba River and made the first addition to California's Wild and Scenic River system in over a decade. Local farmers and residents of the Marysville area had backed two dam projects with the intention of providing flood control (the area has suffered from numerous floods, the last of which in 1997). Proponents of SB 496 successfully argued that other solu- tions, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommendation of levee improve- ments, could provide the necessary level of protection without causing the enormous impact of a large dam project. The South Yuba River area is known for many historic features and attracts a number of different recreational users, including hikers, fishermen, kayakers, gold panners, and mountain bikers. Most important to mountain bikers, the area boasts a number of mountain bike trails, the best of which is the South Yuba Trail. The Grass Valley/ Nevada County Chamber of Commerce has produced a great map of twelve mountain bike rides in the area (including the South Yuba Trail) that is distributed in most of the bike shops in that area. �c�f�r�a�� p �dc�� Go to the page number in parentheses for more information on any event. Sun f1�on T'ue VVed Thu Fri Sat Fe9�ru�e�I 9 2 C-ride (6) 3 4 5 Watershed SM BARTC Watershed Watershed Bontrager hearing (3) mtg (6) hearing (3) input due (3) dinner (7) 6 7 B-ride (6) 8 9 'i 0 'i 'i MROSD mtg LG mtg (6) (6) 95 16 17 'i8 SC BARTC mtg (6) Get tn know other cyclists and help us get the newsletter out on time! The party is usually the 3 B-ride (6) fourth Wednesday or Thursday of the month in C-ride (6) Cupertino. Contact Glenn Wegner at 408-257-8284 C-ride (6) or newsmailin�@romp:org for details. :��P c i► ��il Il��l:� ao a� za D-ride (6) a� B-ride (6) 28 ZJ B-ride (7) ROMP board C-ride (7) meeting (2) The Mountain Cyclist is the monthly newsletter of the Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers (ROMP). Mailing address: ROMP PO Box 1723 5 Campbelt CA 95009-1723 B-ride (7) info@romp.org Send general newsletter material directly to the a B-ride (7) 3 editor (not to the club PO box): C-ride (7) Rod Brown C-ride (7) 650-856-9050 newsletter@romp.org q a0 D-ride (7) 23 C-ride (6) 24 25 MROSD mtg (6) �lflaPCPI 'i 2 SM BARTC mtg (6) 7 8 9 Election Day MROSD mtg LG mtg (6) (4) (6) 'i 2 Volunteer (4) '9 9 2s Ned (1) A&Crides (6) Volunteer (4) 4 April news April rides items due (2) due (5) Volunteer (4) 94 'i5 96 17 SC BARTC mtg (6) a7 aa a3 a� MROSD mtg '9 8 as Send ride listings to the club ride coordinator (not A-ride (7) (6) Volunteer (4) to the club PO box): Pete Lupcovic B-ride (7) 27 28 29 30 39 650-964-6590 B-ride (7) ROMP board ride@romp.org C-ride (7) meeting (2) p�c��u�lc�o�� lo�c�a �o��odu�� C�o�o�aa�u��uoo� ...by Rick Brusuelas, ROMP President Greetings! This will be the first of a monthly series of columns that I hope to contrib- ute to the newsletter. Those that saw my self-introduction over the ROMP email list will have to bear with this slight recap, but I would like to tell you all a little about my- self so you know what ROMP's gotten themselves into. I am 41 years old and married with two kids, and I have been riding mountain bikes for about nine years and been a ROMP member since 1994. Previously, I was the newsletter editor and club secretary, and I helped on a number of projects including the Clean Air charity ride and the opening of Pacheco State Park to mountain bikes. I am excited about the opportunity to help lead ROMP into the new millennium (I work for a computer company, and I have heard the term "Y2K" way too much in the last six months!). ROMP is faced with a lot of challenges as we "lead the participation of mountain cy- clists in the trail community." It's surprising, but the first step toward meeting those challenges is also the easiest, and that first step is communication. I have focused on increasing communication as a key objective of the ROMP board (and myself, specifi- cally), and I hope that over the coming months you will see and hear a lot from me and the rest of the ROMP board. At the same time, I would like to remind everyone that we can all communicate more and communicate better. The easiest way is also the one of the most important: when- ever you are riding and approach another trail user, whether it is another cyclist, an equestrian, or a hiker, make sure to say a friendly hello. It's amazing how far a little friendly courtesy goes toward establishing or improving other trail users' perceptions of mountain bikers. It's also amazing how this small action can help make your own experience a little happier. A more challenging way in which we can all communicate better is just as important, if not more so. It's incumbent upon all of us to communicate more with our government officials and agencies. After all, they represent us, and its important for us to tell them what we want or how we feel, especially when it comes to policies and regulations that affect our access to trails. For a great place to start, review the flyer regarding the Pen- insula watershed opening that was recently mailed, or visit www.romp.org for ad- dresses of local land management agencies. So, whenever you see an issue of impor- tance that may affect your ability to ride a trail, write a letter to the appropriate gov- ernment o�cials and let your voice be heard. f��o��o�(�c��o �9��6��1 Ce�o�trs�9 I�c�� C��o�� Don't forget the Pensinsula Watershed hearings on Feb. 1 and 3, if you haven't done so already, to mail in your letter on this issue by Feb. 4. When you are done, come have dinner and meet Keith Bontrager on Feb. 5. See the recently-mailed January Mountain Cyclist Update or visit www.romp.org for details. �J�uo� �f�c� �liv �u0uo�q� p��y ...by Glenn Wegner Thanks to those that showed up at last month's newsletter mailing party to fold, seal, and label more than 400 newsletters. This fun is repeated monthly, usually on the fourth Wednesday or Thursday of the month in Cupertino. If you would like to help next time (and eat some pizza and talk bikes at the same time), contact Glenn Wegner at 408-257-8284 or newsmailing@romp.org for more details. Welcon�c. Ncw ,�r�c.i Rc��cwir�c•� Mcn�t•�e�r�! �liV Jim Colopy Anna Tong Ben Troxell ��P1�WIP1g Gary Balsam Chazles Dillon Jeff Famsworth Michele Taylor Mdy Dee Hospodor Family Mark Krag Claire Nippress David Tripier Robert T. Ouye Jr. Linda Palmer David Skinner Heidy Braverman Alan Solis f��filf� �6u��tr��/ Responsible Organized Mt. Pedalers (R�MP) PO Bax 1723, Campbell CA 95009-1723 www.romp.org, info@romp.org romp@cyclery.com (email list) romp-owner@cyciery.com (list owner) President: Rick $rusuelas 510-440-1940 president@romp.org Vice President, Public Relations Director, and Webmaster: Rod Brown 408-863-0654 vicepresident@romp.org Secretary: [OPEN Ray Alley acting] 408-265-6440 secretary@romp.org Treasurer and Newsletter Mailing Contact: Glenn Wegner 408-257-8284 treasurer@romp.org Rlembership Director: Linda Wegner 408-257-8284 membership@romp.org Trail Education Coordinator: Jim Owen 408-725-0841 traileducation@romp.org Ride Coordinator: Pete Luptovic 650-964-6590 rideQromp.org Social Coordinator: Kathleen Meyer 408-374-6136 social@romp.org Volunteer Trailwork Coordinator: OPEN Newsletter Editor: [OPEN Rod Brown acting] 408-863-0654 newsletter aQromp.org Membership IDatabase Contact: David Volansky 415-334-7569 memberdata@romp.org �a6�� P��r�u��4u�ov� Bicycle Trails Councii of Marin (BTCM) PO Box 494, Fairfax CA 94978 415-456-7512 btcmarin.org Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay (BTCEB) PO Box 9583, Berkeley CA 94709 4T5-528-BIKE wwwbtceastbay.org Folsom Auburn Trail Riders Action Coalition (FATRAC) Jim Haagen-Smit, President PO Box 6356, Aubum CA 95604 916-663-4526 fatracQjps.net wwwjps.neUfatrac International Mt. Biking Association (IlVLBA) PO Box 7578, Boulder CO 80306 3Q3-545-9011 www.imba.com Monterey Mt Bike Association (MoMBA) PO Box 51928, Pacific Grove CA 93590 408-372-2134 Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz (MBoSC) Geoffery Smith, President 408-427-9937 president@mbosc.org www.mbosc.org Sonoma County Trails �ouncil (SCTC) Ken Wells, President PO Box 14483, 5anta Rosa CA 95402 707,526-9385 jfish@sonic.net Sacramento Singletrack Scorchers (SAS3) PO Box 188553, Sacramento CA 95818 www.mother.com/—kson/sass.hhn San Jose Inner City Outings (San Jose ICO) PO Box 60146, Palo Aito GA 94306 408-236-3�94 sanjose_ico@yahoo.com www.sierraclub.orglourings/ico/sanjose Silicon Valtey Bicycle Coalition PO Box 831, Cupertino CA 95015-0831 Western Wheelers Bicycle Club PO Box 518, Palo Alto CA 94302 www.westernwheelers.org Women's Mt. Biking and 'Tea Soc. (WoMBATS) PO Box �5�, Fairfa�c CA 94930 415-459-0980 jacquie@wombats.org www.wombats.org FEBRUARY MARCH 2O0.0 ��o��l f�fli�ov�� f�ll��u��s Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) oversees many open space preserves throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Boazd of director's meetings are open to the public on the second and fourih Wednesdays of each month at 7:30 PM in the district offices at 330 Distel Circle (off El Camino Real north of Reng- storft), Los Altos. The District also holds Trail Policy Committee meetings which deal with devel- opment and implementation of trail use policy. Los Gatas Trails Committee meeu on the second Thursday of each month from 6 to 7 PM at 41 Miles Avenue, Los Gatos. Santa Clara County Group of the Bay Area Ridge Trail Committee (BARTC) meets on the third Wednesday of each month from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM at Greenbelt Alliance, 1922 The Alameda, Santa Clara (may change call before attending). Call Judy Etheridge at 408-248-3900. San Mateo County Group of the BARTC meets on the first Wednesday of each month from 9:30 AM to 12 noon at Coyote Point Museum (odd months) and other locations (even months). Call Bi►1 Smith at 650-873-0415 for meering locarions and other information. ��o�u� f�l�o��o� �u�� Bay Area Action (Arastradero Preserve) 265 Moffett Blvd., Mountain View 94043, 650-625- 1994 or 1996, fax 650-625-1995; www. arastradero.org, www.baacrioaorg (general), www. participation. com/arastradero California Recreational Trails Committee C. Willazd, Trails Coordinator, PO Box 942896, Sac- ramento 94296-0001, 916-653-8803 C'astle Rock State Park Jan Anderson, 408-429- 2869; Dave Keck, 916-322-299? Ciry of Palo Alto (Arastradero) Recreauon, Open Space and Sciences Division, 650-329-2423 East Bay Regional Park IDistrict 11500 3kyline Blvd., Oakland 94619, 415-531-9300 Henry W. Coe State Park P.O. Box 846, Morgan Hill 95038 Kay Robinson, Pazk Sup't. 408-848- 4006, Barry Breckling, Unit Ranger 408-779- 2728, Joe Hazcastle, District Supernitendent. 209- 826-1196; www.coepark.pazks.ca.gov (general), www.coepark.parks.ca.gov/biking.html (hiking) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space IDistrict 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos 94022; 650-691-1200; mrosd@openspace.org, www.openspace.org Ii9t. Diablo State Park District Office 96 Mitchell Canyon Rd., Clayton 94517; 510-673-2891; Larry Ferri, Park Superintendent Santa Clera Couuty Parks Rec. IDept. 298 Garden Hill Dr., Los Gatos, 95030; Mark Freder- ick, Capital Projects Mgr., 408-358-3741 x143; fax 408-358-3245; mark.frederick@mail.prk.co.santa- clara.ca.us, clazaweb.cosanta-clara.ca.uslpazks! Santa Clara County Board of 5npervisors 70 W. Hedding, San Jose, 95110; 408-299-2323 Santa Cruz IDistrict 600 Ocean St., Santa Cruz 95060; 408-429-2850; David Vincent, District Superintendent The Trail Centcr 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303; 650-968-7065, www.trailcenter.org �ao��m�o°i� C��uif�o°u�u� ��t�� f��o uo� f�l��°�c�O f��c�tru�� The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 will be presented to voters on the March 7, 2000 ballot. The California legislature has given this issue near unanimous bipartisan support, recognizing the tre- mendous need California has for parks, open space, and recreation for its growing population. This measure provides funds for all the state agencies which protect land and recreational resources for future generations, and also makes grants to local agen- cies which perform the same functions. Since the 1920's Californians have recognized that the way to build the State Park System, protect the coast, and accomplish other land conservation purposes is through a series of General Obligation Bond Acts. This measure continues that tradition. California is growing at the rate of more than 600,000 people per year, and all these new residents need places to recreate, appreciate wildlife, enjoy the outdoors, and ex- ercise. Existing facilities are simply inadequate, and the bond act will expand the sup- ply of lands and facilities to serve these needs. The bond act gives greatest emphasis to urbanized areas, providing special funds to heavily urbanized areas, including funds for urban conservation corps, recreation for at-risk youth, open space protection in fast growing suburbs, and protection of remain- ing wildlife areas in some of our fastest growing counties. The bond act is divided into more than a dozen categories, reflecting the needs of Cali- fornia's diverse population. For more information about the exact funding breakdown, see the www.safeparks.org website. For further information, or to volunteer to help the campaign, please email blum@safeparks.org, write Safe Neighborhood Parks at 926 J Street, #612, Sacramento, CA 95814, or call Bryan Blum at 916-313-4538. Your help is needed to pass this important park and wildlife bond act. Please show your support and help create future opportunities for biking by giving this act your vote on March 7. N/��a��c�c�� Oo ��tr�u�outru�� See ac9ditional lis4ings a4 �.romp.org/bolunteer For more information, visit www.openspace.org/ volunteer.html or contact the MROSD volunteer coordinator at 650-691-1200 or volun- teer@openspace.org. Arastradero Presenre Bay Area Action, stewazd for Palo Altds Atastradero Preserve, leads regulaz workdays throughout the summer. The group meets the sec- ond and fourth Saturday of every month from 0 AM to 2 PM from October through April and from 9 AM to 1 PM from May through September Dur- ing daylight savings time, the group also holds work parties every Wednesday evening from 6 PM to dusk, meeting in the preserve pazking lot. Tools and gloves are provided; please bring water, lay- ered clothing, and lunch or snacks. Questions? Contact the Saturday coordinator, Karen Cotter, at kcotter@sprynet.com or 650-329- 8544, or the Wednesday coordinator, Miles Hop- kins, at mileshl@ix.netcom.com or 650-368-5124. Rfiic9p�ninsula IZegional Open Space Dis4ricY Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Discrict (MROSD) is looking for volunteers to serve as docents, preserve partners, trail patrollers, special project volunteers, and outdoor education leaders. San Jose Inner City Outings San Jose Inner City Outings is a program led by the Sierra Club which provides wilderness adventures, including mountain biking, for people who would not otherwise have them, such as urban youth of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Volun- teers, trained in recreational and safety skills, make their lrnowledge available to community agencies that want to develop an outings progr�m for their members. In particular, a leader for the biking pro- gram is sought. For more information, contact the group at sanjose_ico@yahoo.com; PO Box 60146, Palo Alto CA 94306; www.sierraclub.org/outings/ ico/sanjose/; or 408-236-3794. San4a Clara Coun4y ParCcs Santa Claza Co. Parks aze looking for volunteers to help with trail patrols and other activities. Por gen- eral activities, the volunteer coordinating council meets the second Tuesday of each month at Hellyer Pazk. For more info, contact John Heenan, Pazk Volunteer Coordinator, at 408-354-6583 or par- kinfo@gwgate.prk.co.santa-claza.ca.us or visit claraweb. co. santa-clara.ca.us/parks/infovol. htm. f�c�f�e a�o��l I�l��e I�u�lc�� ChecE� for last-minute lis4ings at WWlN.POP'97�.OP��PICB@S Wed�:esday, February 2 C/INT/9+/]000 Wednesday Morning Ride at EI Corte De Madera. Meet ready to ride at 9 AM sharp at Skeggs Point lookout on Skyline Blvd., approximately 5 mi. north of the Hwy 84/Skyline Blvd. intersection. We'll do a 2 to 2 1/2 hour loop on technical singletrack. Rain within 24 hours be- fore the ride cancels. For more info contact Susann Novalis at 650-359-1821 or novalis@att.net. Sunday, February 6 B/EASY/]0/1500 ROMP 1" Sunday Social Ride. Meet in the Grizzly Flat parking lot on Sky- line Blvd. (3 mi. north of Hwy 9 and 3 mi. south of Page Mill Rd.) ready to ride at ]0 AM. We'll ride the trails in Long Ridge and Saratoga Gap OSPs. The ride has several steep hills. For more info con- tact Claire and Dave a[ 408-255-3464 or crash- call@scoreone.com. Sunday, February 13 B/INT/5-7/1500 Beginner/Intermediate Stev- ens Creek Park and Fremont Older Ride spon- sored by Bicycle Outfitter. Meet at 9 AM at the Stevens Creek upper dam. A great opportunity to learn how to mountain bike safely in areas provid- ing spectacular views with diverse wildlife. The ride starts �p the Old Canyon Trail. Next is the Rim Trail, which climbs up and down oak and grass- covered hills and connects to Seven Springs loop, a great place to learn singletrack riding. The ride finishes with a quick descent down the Rim and Old Canyon Trails. Ride leaders will assist with mechanical or technique questions. For more info contact Preston at 650-948-8092. Sunday, February 13 C/INT/12-15/2500 Intermediate/Advanced Stevens Canyon Ride sponsored by Bicycle Out- fitter. Meet at 9 AM at the Stevens Creek upper dam. Here's your chance to get a little deeper into the forest. Bring your PowerBars and Cytomax because the ride is challenging and worth every drop of sweat you71 spill! We'll warm up on Stev- ens Canyon Road, then hit the first bit of dirt on the Canyon Trail. Then it is leR on Table Mountain Trail, right at Charcoal Road, right on Saratoga Gap Trail, across Skyline Blvd. and on Long Ridge Trail, right on Ridge Trail. We'll continue on Peters Creek Loop, left to Grizzly Flat, across Skyline Blvd. and then east down Grizzly Flat Trail, left on the singletrack at the bottom then across the creek, right onto Canyon Trail and back to Stevens Can- yon Road. Ride leaders will assist with mechanical or technique questions. For more info contact Pre- ston at 650-948-8092. Sunday, February 13 C/INT/12-15/2500 ROMP 2 Sunday Interme- diate Ride. Expect a moderate pace with frequent regroups. Some cycling experience is needed as well as being in shape! We'll leave at ]0 AM from the south (equestrian) parking lot at Skyline Ridge OSP located on Skyline Blvd., 1 mile south of Page Mill Rd. Rain within 48 hours prior to the ride cancels. For more info contact Pete Luptovic at 650-964-6590 or peter@luptovic.com. Sunday, February 20 GINT/—l8/-1500 Midpeninsula Open Space Tour. We'l1 tour several of the open space regions above Palo Alto. Nice mix of fire roads and single track. We'll leave at 10 AM from the south (equestrian) parking lot at the Skyline Ridge OSP located on Skyline Blvd., 1 mile south of Page Mill Rd. Rain within 24 hours prior to the ride cancels. For more info and to confirm contact Susann No- valis at 650-359-1821 or novalis@att.net. Sunday, February 20 D/DIFF/15/2800 ROMP 3 Sunday Advanced Ride in El Corte de Madera. We'll leave at 10 AM from the Skeggs Point lookout on Skyline Blvd, approximately 5 miles north of the Hwy 84/Skyline intersection. This advanced ride will be filled with technical challenges. For more info contact Dave at 408-255-3464 or email tripman@scoreone.com. Wednesday, February 23 C/INT/9+/1000 Wednesday Morning Ride at EI Corte De Madera. See Feb. 2 for details. Saturday, February 26 A/EASY/6/500 ROMP 4"' Saturday Beginners Clinic. Beginners-only ride and clinic covering trail etiquette, safety, riding technique, control, equipment and basic repair. Meet and pazk at the corner of Skyline Blvd. and Page Mill at 10 AM. Please RSVP to be sure of a spot, ROMP member- ship not required. Helmet required, water and gloves highly recommended. Ride canceled by rain within 48 hours prior to the ride. For reservations and info contact Pete Luptovic at 650-964-6590 or peter@luptovic.com. Saturday, February 26 C/DIFF/16/1700 Oakland Hills (Joaquin Miller) Auto-Free Ride sponsored by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Ride will run from 10 AM to 2 PM. Meet at Rockridge BART. This is a winter friendly ride. We will ride up to the Skyline Gate of Redwood Regional Park by way of Lake Temescal and the old railroad grade in Sheperd Canyon. We will follow the West Ridge Trail to Joaquin Miller Pazk. From here the route is too deliciously complex to describe, but suffice it to say we will make several loops through some of the East Bay's most technical singletrack (yes, it's legal, although recently threatened with closure! Come leam what you can do to help keep access). To finish, we drop down the trail along Dimond Canyon and ride out the bottom to Fruitvale BART. Approximate distances 16 miles consisting of 7 miles of single track, 1 mile of dirt road, 1 mile of paved trail, and 7 miles of paved road. Approxi- mate climbs 1200 and 500 feet. For more info contact Bill Carson at 415-922-2581 or klein_cazson@earthlink.net. Sunday, February 27 B/INT/12/1400+ ROMP Last Sunday Wilder Ranch Ride. Meet in the pazking lot neaz the rest- rooms, ready to ride at 10 AM. We'll do a clock- wise loop around Wilder with somewhat steep climbs on Zane Gray singletrack and fire road, then head back to singletrack (Rodrigo), a short snack break at the Eucalyptus grove, then some great singletrack on Old Cabin Trail or some equivalent. (Continued on page 6) ��u��rr�� I�B�I� �u�ff� Ratings code Pace Technical difficulty Mileage Approximate elevation gain Pace A— Slow; social or introductory ride. Riders need not be experienced or fit. B Moderate; recreational ride. C— Quick; fun and fitness ride with multiple hours of strong riding. D— Sustained, fast; sweaty, intense training ride. E— Hammerfest; riders should have their heads and kneesexamined! Pace generally reflects climbing speed; downhill speed in most local areas is limited to 15 mph. A, B, and C rides are "no drop" rides with regroups as needed and rest breaks appropriate for weather, terrain and pace. D and E rides may drop riders who cannot maintain the pace; the drop policy may be stated in the ride listing, or ask the ride leader. Technical Difficulty EASY 5mooth singletrack or fire road; obstacles such as rocks and roots might exist but are not numerous. INTermediate Steep, rutted fire road; singletrack with extended sections that can include mediiun or large rocks and roots; stream crossings; exposure; long singletrack descents. DIFFicult Singletrack with very steep and/or rocky sections; narrow trails; exposed sideslopes; downhill-side-sloped sections. EXTreme Singletrack with extended steep clanbs or descents over rough teaain; many tight switch- backs and turns. Portions may require portage. Rlo2es For your first ROMP ride, try one of our monthly A, B, or C rides to get an idea of pace and cechnical difficulty. HELMETS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL ROMP RIDES. Please be prepared for the ride (make sure your bike is in working order, bring appropriate tools, food, water, clothing, etc.). All riders will need to sign a waiver before every ride; minors will need a parent or guardian to sign their release. In general, rain at the area of the ride within 48 hours of the ride cancels. But, because different trails can withstand the weather differently, we allow the ride leader to make the final decision. If you are unsure about whether a particular ride will go on, contact the ride leader. 1nfieres4ed in leading a ride? Contact Pete Luptovic at 650•964-6590 or ride@romp.org by the tenth of the preceding month.for newsletter listing. Visit www.romp.org for detailed help on leading a ride or to submit your ride online. F.EBRIJARY —'I�IIARCH 2O ,�r r,J f�fi�� a��u�uus�u�o� ov�e� ��o�u�o� QI�I�D�y �l�e� ��o' [��I��a�u��y �c��C��u��l Now there is an easy way to submit your For one spectacular weekend this spring, Henry W. Coe State Park will open the gate ride for listins in the ROMP newsletter at Bell Station on Highway 152 east of Gilroy. The annual Coe Backcountry Week- and web ride list. Our new web ride sub- end, held in the little-traveled east side of the 80,000 acre park, is scheduled for April mission form makes it easy and quick to 24 and 25. This event, sponsored by the Pine Ridge Association, allows visitors vehi- enter your ride and helps ensure that no cle access to a remote and beautiful area. Hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians important ride info is left out. (Of course, have a unique opportunity to see and enjoy an area isolated from the park's Morgan we wi(1 still accept rides via phone or Hill entrance by long distances and rugged terrain. This area of the park puts on a email). Visit www.romp.org, then click spring extravaganza of colorful wildflowers in the oak woodland. Fishing for bass and the "Schedule a ride" link in the left col- sunfish is excellent in secluded ponds and reservoirs, and the trails provide panoramic umn to schedule your next ride! views of the Diablo Range. B�I�J�S (Continued from page S) Visitors may come into the park for the day, camp overnight at Orestimba Corral or Pacheco Creek Crossing, or backpack to one of the seldom visited areas of the park. We attempt to keep this ride somewhat social we They may explore on their own, join a guided ride or hike, or participate in interpre- maintain a favly comfortable pace and like to do do-overs" on some ofthe more technical areas. For tive activities. Brochures, maps, information, activities, and volunteer assistance will furcher info concacc 1�tichael and .►ain L�ght ac 831- be available. No dogs are allowed. Camp stoves will be permitted, but no open fires, 662-9744 or malite@bikerider.com. baibeCUeS, or hibachis. A group campfire will be held on Saturday night. Sunday, February 27 B/INT/5-7/1500 Beginner/Intermediate Sce�- Participants will travel 8.5 miles on an unpaved road from Bell Station to Pacheco e�s Creek Park and Fremont Older Ride. See Creek Crossing or an additional 3.8 miles to the Orestimba Corral. The road is in Feb. t3 for decails. good condition and passable by two-wheel drive vehicles, although there are some nar- row and steep sections requiring high clearance. Because of space limitations, steep Sunday, February 27 C/INT/12-15/2500 Intermediate/Advanced hills and creek crossings with sharp embankments, camp trailers and motor homes are Stevens Canyon Ride. See Feb. 13 for details. pI'OhlblteCl. Sunday, March 5 Entry for the weekend is by reservation only. Flyers announcing the event and provid- B/EASY/10/1500 ROMP l" Sunday Social ►t;de. See Feb. 6 for details. ing an application form are available at www.coepark.parks.ca.gov; the REI stores in Berkeley, San Carlos, and Cupertino; Silacci's Feed Barn in Gilroy; Gunther's Feed Sunday, March 12 Store in Morgan Hill; FISCO Farm Home Store in Modesto; and at the Coe Park B/INT/5 Beginner/Intermediate Stev- Visitor Center. Written requests for applications (self-addressed stamped business en- ens Creek Park and Fremont Older Ride. See Feb. l3 for detai�s. velopes included) should be addressed to Application Forms, Coe Sector Office, 5750 Obata Way, Suite A, Gilroy CA 95020. Sunday, Marc{t 12 C/INT/12-15/2500 Intermediate/Advanced Stevens Canyon Ride. See Feb. 13 for details. Sunday, March 12 C/INT/12-15/2500 ROMP 2 Sunday Interme- diate Ride. See Feb. 13 for details. Sunday, March 19 D/DIFF/15/2800 ROMP 3'� Sunday Advanced Ride. See Feb. 20 for details. Applications and entry fees, $10.00 per vehicle for day use, $20.00 per vehicle for ovemight, must be postmarked by March 31, 2000. One vehicle per application, please. We strongly encourage car pooling. A random drawing will be held to meet the 330 vehicles per day space limitation. All unsuccessful application forms will be re- turned with their checks to the applicants. �v ��c� G�a�l�� u��l �u�i� �c��l��°� ��a��tr Saturdoy, March 15 As usual, the number of ride postings has slackened a bit as winter has come upon us. A/EASY/5/500 ROMP 4�' Saturday Beginners Don t let the gloomy weather stop you from leading a ride! Spring will be here by the Clinic. See Feb. 26 for details. ttme y0u ieCelve the next newsletter, so be sure to get your ride submitted in early March for listing in April. B-paced, social rides are usually in high demand but short Sunday, March 26 supply, but all ride levels are desired and appreciated. Also remember that ROMP will B/INT/12/1400+ ROMP Last Sunday Wilder xa�cn �de. See Feb. 27 for decails. pay the membership fee for anyone who leads eight or more rides during one year. Sunday, March 26 Also remember that last minute rides can be posted to the email list and webpage. To B/INT/5-7/1500 Beginner/Intermediate Stev- post a ride to the email list, simply send your email to romp@topica.com. To post a ens Creek Park and Fremont Older Ride. See ride to the web a e forward it to ride@romp.org or use the new web page form as Feb. 13 for details. p g� described at the top of this page. Sunday, March 26 C/INT/12-15/2500 Intermediate/Advanced A final note: multiple rides at the same location on the same day are fine! ROMP rides Stevens Canyon Ride. See Feb. 13 for details. are t�p1C111y W011 SttCrided sometimes in excess of the 8-10 riders that are easily man- aged, so the more rides the better. m G°3c��o��u��c� Oo ��u�c��l �lo��o� p��l��c�� f��u��v��s�u� ��u��u�o�, f��ov�w�0, ��u�io�� o �ov� ��ov��u��u f��o�o� ROMP is a group of local, energetic mountain bikers who have discovered the need for an active representation for the mountain biking public, and for an organized, re- sponsible attitude in the practices of off-road bicyclists. ROMP needs YOUR support to help these changes come about. Fill in all in�orr��tion v+rhether you are a newr or renedving mer�ber. Fail- ure 4o incluc9e all information dvill c9elay your r�erv�bership. Please prin� legibly anc9 fill out every line. Name Additional names (family membership) Address Ciry State Zip Phone Email I�I�O'�'0��0'��UO� New Renewal Change of address (allow 30 days) Individual ($20.00) Family ($25.00) Student ($10.00) Donation Send newsletter via postal service Just send me an email when the news is online (��a�l� �a��tr�� Du�� u�v� Name Address Phone Do not list me in the directory 0`�I DuG�� I��O� �utr6�u Education Trail work Fundraising E�cnt coordination Newsletter articles Ride leadership f�� u�f�uDu�� Q��u�u�o�tr Email Letter writing Social events Upon acceptance of my membership in Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers (ROMP), and while participating in any group event sanctioned, sponsored or organized by ROMP, I hereby, for myself, my heirs, assigns, successors and administrators, release, waive and dischazge any and all claims £or liability or damages resulting from death, personal injury or damage to any property which may occur, or which may later become accountable to me as a result, directly or indirectly of my participation in ROMP events (group rides). I fully understand this release is intended to unconditionally release, in advance, ROMP from any and all liability pursuant to or arising from my participation in club event, EVEN WHEN SUCH LIABILITY ARISES OUT OF NEGLIGENCE OR CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF ROMP, its members, officers, and representatives. Signature Date Pazent signature (if under 18) Date Send this form with check payable to: ROMP Attention: Membership, PO Box 1723, Campbell CA 95009-1723 Did you complete all information, sign your name, and enclose your checl�? Thank you, and vvelcome to ROMP! �OO MP wi�� .>ckSl�ox tool c.�r,��t ROMP has won a grant for tools from RockShox, so look for two shiny new McLeods emerging from our tool trailer soon. When the weather clears, come out to one of our workdays and be one of the first to swing these beauties on some new singletrack! ��1N/C� dl �I��(�o p�](�(�1��0 Members with web access may forgo re- ceiving the printed version of this news- letter. By doing so, you will receive an email notifying you when the latest news- letter is posted on ROMP's website (at www.romp.org/news). If you would like to select this option, send an email to newsletter@romp.org with "No paper, please" in the subject and your name and preferred email address in the body. a 4 1�'7f1�1�� IMIV p ��5 ��0 If you weaz a small size or just need some cleaning rags, this is your opportunity to get some ROMP weaz at a great price. Our Few remaining small T- shirts are now half price and shipping fees have been waived. Get yours beFore they are gone! T-shirts are ash (gray) Hanes Beefy-T's with the club logo on the front and a"shaze the trails" pano- rama on the back. Price is $5 including shipping. T-shirts may be mailed or delivered by amdngement at a club meet- ing or ride. To order, fill out the following: Name Address City State Zip Phone T-shirt-S (quantity Send this form witH check payable to: ROMP Attention: T-shirts PO Box 1723 Campbell CA 95009-1723 FEBRUARY IVIARCH 2O00 �7 ��'tP �_�;C� Responsible Organiaed fi�ountain Pec9alers �o �o� 7a3 c��,�b�n �soos -'i723 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ��0� ��voo Parker Ranch 7rail Closed ..............9 R�ed Overend 4o SpeaE� 9 Submit Your bolun4eer Hours 9 Sou4h Yuba 7rail Sabed ...................2 Improving Comrnunica4ion .............3 Watershecl anc0 �ontrager ...............3 Mailing Par�y ....................................3 Parks iNieasure on �allo4 .................4 !lolunteer OpporQunities ..................4 February ancl Mi arch t2ides 5 Coe Backcoun4ey !�leeE�end 6 Ric9e Leac9ers R1eec9ecB Small 7-Shie4s $59 .............................7 RocE�Shox Tool GranQ lf�on 7 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAI D SAN JOSE CA PERMIT NO. 1371 �usinesses that supporf ROMP and our policy of safe, responsible riding... r 1. 1 a ��o J�J1�U 1[� �#1.�\�ir- t ti i� t,t� W"�� l i k3 I h t ti�{ i�� P 1 P i�vsxrns CHAI�J 4�, RE�CTI�O�J R y�`��J� :IC`►'CLES c' u� s��r ro �r�rf�� s�;� �r �Ci� L=� ��G�i�� i�, ;�r f,��. �l Dr. Ra elle A. Manning Spor[s hrjun� a�rd Firnulp Chiroprnctic The Bicycle Outfitter 963 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos 650-948-8092 www.bicycleoutfitter.com Broken Spake 890 Laurel Street, San Cazlos 650-594-9210 www.brokenspoke.com Calmar Cycles 2236 El Camino Real, Santa Clara 408-249-6907 www.netcom.com/ calmar2 Chain Reaction 1451 El Camino Real, Redwood City 650-366-6620; 2310 Homestead (at Foothill Plaza), Los Altos 408-735-8735 www.chainreaction.con: Cupertino Bike Shop 10493 S. De Anza Blvd, Cupertino 408-255-2217 www.cupertinobike.com Dr. Ranelle Manning, Chiropractor 10601 S. De Anza Blvd. #212, Cupertino 408-446-4444 Palo Alto Bicycles 170 University Ave. Palo Alto 650-328-7411 www.paloa(tobicycles.com Slough's Bike Shoppe 260 Race St., San Jose 408-293-] 616 Start To Finish Bicycles 1171 Homestead Rd., Santa Clara 408-261-7420; 40922 Fremont Blvd., Fremont 510-440-9300; 2530 Lombard St., SF 415-202-9830 www.starttofinish. com Summit Bicycles 100-A S. Santa Cruz Ave., Los Gatos 408-399-9142; 843 Gilman St., Berkeley 510-524-5398; 1111 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame 415-343-8483 www.summitbicycles. com Let's build trails, not walls by John Viehman Executive Editor, Backpacker Magazine There are many wise people in our society, most of them possessed of the wisdom that comes with the passing of years and the learning that occurs after making so many mistakes. The comments of two stand out in my mind: "Pick your fights well, and make sure you can win them." "If I had my life to live over again, I would have more real problems and fewer imaginary ones." These phrases kept invading my thoughts as I weighed the issue of mountain bikes on trails and began writing our official stand. For those of you who don't know the brief history, after announcing in 1989 that we were conducting a study of the issue we received hundreds of letters from readers pro and con and in between. The debate has been heated and inflammatory. We huddled with government agencies, trail planners, members of the American Hiking Society, and, yes, even mountain bike groups. Jointly with Bicycling Plus Mountain Bike Magazine, we also completed a national survey of trail managers. Before going any further, two points need to be clarified and stressed: The debate is not about opening wilderness areas or nature preserves to mechanized travel (i.e., bicycles). And we're assuming that jeep roads and fire roads already open to motorized vehicles are also open to mountain- bicycle travel. The debate is over access to singletrack hiking and horse trails in nonwilderness areas. With those points firmly set, we came away convinced that the hiking community should lower its guard and let mountain bikes on trails in nonwilderness areas. Further, local trail planners should decide the access issue on an individual trail basis after getting input from all the potential trail user groups. This is also the position recently adopted by the American Hiking Society. Still, some restrictions must apply. Trails designated multi-use (i.e., open to mountain bicycles) should meet the following conditions: Trail surfaces should be such that erosion from the additional use will be minimal. Trails must be closed to mountain bikes in wet weather or rainy seasons. Signs should indicate a multi-use trail, low-speed and potential hazards. The trail must be wide enough to let mountain bikers and hikers pass each other safely. There must be adequate visibility to avoid collisions. We should establish a reasonable "probationary" period of, say, two years. During that period any trail that shows signs of deterioration or user conflict (i.e., safety) from the additional use will be closed. i'age 1 of 3 http://www. greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/library/buildnotwalls_clean. html 3/27/00 Page 2 of 3 Why should we let mountain bikers in? There are nine good reasons. 1. When operated responsibly, mountain bikes are a legitimate mode of outdoor recreation. And if our nonwilderness public lands, and subsequently our public trails, exist to provide recreational opportunities, then the question is one of managing that recreational use, not whether one group should have a right to be there. 2. Every user group has its fringe elements N thrill-seekers who run roughshod over social norms and even their own well-being. This happened during the high-impact camping days of the early sixties when backpacking boomed (remember trenching around tents and digging fire pits and cutting small trees for kindling?). This seems to be the case with mountain bicycling. The mountain biking community recognizes the problems and is developing methods for self-policing and education. 3. Mountain bikers and hikers share a common appreciation of the outdoor world and the desire to conserve as much as possible. Never mind that their experience there is different from the hikers'. Their activity is just as dependent on it being there. 4. The mountain bike, while having a greater impact on the soil than the hiking boot under normal conditions, is not on a par with off- road motorized vehicles (dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, etc.). Trails can be closed to mountain bikes during muddy periods to prevent erosion. 5. The trails will limit the range of mountain bikes. So many routes are just too rugged, rocky, or steep for a bike. Hikers in search of solitude will always have access to all exclusive experience. 6. Mountain biking's growth rate is phenomenal, and in Washington, D.C., money goes where the people are. Don't expect significant gains in new trail funding without a big push from outside the Beltway. Our "Trails In Trouble" project (May 1990) attests to this sad reality; the growth in trail use is not being matched by dollars, even for basic trail maintenance. Little if any federal money is set aside to build new trails. If we unite, the collective voice will be louder and harder to ignore. Adequate funding will follow. Look at it this way: If it's a matter of sharing a trail with a bike or two (be realistic, we're not talking about fleets of bikes bumper to bumper on all the country's trails!), or having no trails at all, which would you prefer? 7. Mountain bicyclists are volunteering for trail construction and maintenance crews. The sport was only five years old when the first volunteer mountain bicycle crew, the Mount Wilson Bicycling Association, was working in California's San Gabriel Mountains. Last year they logged 1,500 hours of volunteer trail time. Most trail work is performed by volunteers, and here's a fresh "crew." 8. If current levels of growth continue, they'll soon be close to outnumbering hikers. Sales are expected to top five million this year, which isn't counting the ones already out there. Contrast that with a hiking population of 12 million. We have more to lose by waiting. 9. Splintering the outdoor user groups is playing into the hands of those interests that would exploit or destroy the resource we're so preoccupied with saving. The Davids of the world have a tough job already. If we start slinging rocks at each other, the Goliaths (ORVs, motorcycles/dirt bikers, developers, and snowmobilers, to name a few) will walk all over us. But enough saber rattling. When I compare the threat of a mountain bike http://www. greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/library/buildnotwalls_clean. html 3/27/00 Page 3 of 3 to that posed by the Goliaths, I don't think we've picked our fight well. And I'm convinced that we're not using our precious time and energy on the real problems. Let's build trails, not walls between each other. http://www.greatoutdoors.comllocaUpartners/imba/infoactionflibrary/buildnotwalls clean.html 3/27/00 Page 1 of 5 [��1�55 �1��1 ��0�5��e ��1� W� �10�� by Theo Stein Perhaps no animal has meant as much to the advance of human culture as the horse. Paleolithic man first looked to this grazing herd animal as meat on the hoof. The trick was getting close enough to strike. On the steppes where it evolved, the horse's keen eyesight, hearing and blazing speed made it just about safe from attack. Hunters of all species had to wait for the herd to maneuver into tighter quarters like in the woods along a stream or water hole. Once the horse was domesticated, its trainability, strength and speed afforded human cultures a quantum leap forward. The horse became beast of burden, transportation and a devastating weapon of war. On the broad back of this noble beast, kingdoms were gained and kingdoms lost. Today, because of the relative fortune required to purchase and maintain a horse, equestrians are often wealthy and landed citizens: people with clout. Therein lies the rub: mountain biking is a new sport whose devotees are relatively young and not rich. We all wish it were otherwise, but money talks. It is the horse owners who will be able to pull the right strings when conflicts arise. Therefore, it behooves (sorry) us to make friends of equestrians, rather than enemies. �1 w��y ff�� umru�0 wu�0� ��o� ��c�� But this issue is more than just a turf battle over trails between us young turks and them establishment types. It also has to do with safety. On the back of a startled horse, attached only by gripping thighs, a rider is in an extremely precarious position. And to a horse, a mountain biker screaming around a blind corner at Warp Nine looks like a nightmare from hell: alien, silent and horrifyingly fast. While hiker-cyclist conflicts provoke most land access battles, chance encounters between horses and bicycles pose a far greater threat of injury and death. A horse, by design, is a nervous, cautious beast. Mountain bikers are, more or less, risk-takers. When these two very different users meet unexpectedly on the trail, the results are sometimes disastrous. Deb Carano, a rider for 26 years and world-class equestrienne racer from New England, believes that the majority of unpleasant horse-bicycle incidents arise from our own ignorance about how this this herbivore perceives its world. When faced with potential danger, humans may choose to fight or flee. Horses have one response, and that's flight N right now. One of Deb's housemates, Tunde "Tucsi" Ludanye, has studied equine behavior and sensory perception. She said that if self-preservation is the first law of nature, iYs also the last word in horse sense. The horse has an inbred fear of being eaten. It is known to be the fastest animal in the world at distances over 50 yards, but within that distance, it is vulnerable to ambush artists like lions and wolves. That first 50 yards is crucial. To gain this ever-important head start, a horse depends on an amazing sensory system D a 360-degree field of vision and ears which swivel a full 180 http://www. greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/horses_clean. html 4/3/00 Page 2 of 5 degrees. Tucci said iYs possible to understand a horse's seemingly irrational reactions as natural wariness. Remember, it's an animal of wide open spaces, not twisty single track. Tucci notes that a horse instinctively fears small, tight, dark places, like a trailer, as place where a horse-eater may be lurking. A tight trail in deep woods may also make a horse nervous, Deb said. The only way to calm a spooked horse is to convince it that there is nothing to fear. A trained animal takes its cues from its rider or other horses. A startled horse under a startled rider is a dangerous combination. A startled horse under a calm rider is less so. One of the most volatile elements in the mix is that every animal is different. "My horse Hardin is bomb-proof," she said. "The previous owner used to take him hunting and shoot a gun off his back." Deb and Hardin also used to tag along behind a racer-friend when he trained in the woods. "Hardin loved it. He would just fall in behind the bike and away we'd go. But even with a bomb-proof horse, if you startle it, iYs going to shy." While a horse is a large animal, it is also quite fragile. "There are a number of things that can happen to a horse, just like with any human athlete." A spooked horse, madly dashing over hill and dale, can easily pop a tendon, tear a ligament, break a cannon bone, or twist a fetlock, which is the equine equivalent of spraining our wrist. Any of those injuries entail a long-term recovery and big-time veterinarian costs. A severe injury may oblige the owner to euthanize the animal, which is part cherished friend and part investment. Any rider who has had a horse injured or put down after being spooked by cyclists is sure to hit the warpath against mountain bike access. But the party most in danger during unexpected confrontations is the person is the person riding a spooked horse. "Typically horses weigh 1,000 pounds and up," she said. "When you startle a horse, its instinctive reaction is flight, and thaYs when people get hurt." The most common injuries, Deb said, are broken shoulders and wrists and lungs punctured by broken ribs. But more serious injuries do happen. Deb said she saw one rider break his back after getting thrown. She also knows of riders who were killed after they were thrown into a tree or stone wall. Even a sudden sideways movement in the woods may result in the rider being crushed against a tree or clotheslined by a low-hanging limb. C��w ��u�l ��ff�u�� Approaching a horse and rider suddenly from the rear is the most perilous type of ineeting. Popping up in a horse's face will certainly scare the bejeesus out of the animal, but at least the rider can quickly identify the nature of the threat and act accordingly. A horse is likely to sense a cyclist approaching from the rear before its rider, and will instinctively perceive that cyclist as a threat to its safety. That's why it is vital that you make your presence known to the rider. "No matter which way you approach, it's critical you alert the rider as soon as possible," Deb said. The best thing to do, she said, is to slow to a crawl http://www. greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/library/horses_clean.html 4/3/00 Page 3 of 5 or stop and ask the rider for instructions. Don't be bashful and don't wait until you get close. Just sing out, "Rider back. May we pass?" The rider may tell you to pass, or to wait while he or she moves the horse off the trail. The rider may just need to turn the animal around so it can look you over. With a skittish animal or inexperienced rider, you may have to dismount and move off the trail yourself. Deb also recommends you outfit your bike with a bell, even a tiny, tin kitty bell under your seat. "That may give the horse and rider the split-second warning they need to buy time for everybody involved." But the most important thing is to let the equestrian control the flow of events. The horse needs to know the rider is in charge. "Ask the rider for instructions no matter what, she said. "They will appreciate it." Anticipating incidents is the best way to avoid nasty accidents. Keep your eyes open for horse sign on the trail. A 1,200 pound animal shod with steel shoes leaves tracks on everything short of asphalt. Even then, manure piles should alert you that you're sharing the trail with an animal. If you suspect there's a horse somewhere ahead of you, consider riding elsewhere. If it's your training day, do ride elsewhere. Otherwise, proceed with caution and make noise as you go. Despite having a bomb-proof horse familiar with bicyclists, Deb said that she tries to keep Hardin away from mountain bikes whenever possible, more so because she's afraid of how bikers will act than how Hardin will. "I like trail riding, but iYs not relaxing, she said. Given that a horse may spook at the sight of a deer, a few anxious moments per ride in the woods is the norm. Knowing that mountain bikes may be in the area ratchets up the tension level dramatically. "To be honest, I don't go to areas where I can expect to run into them," she said. "The potential for disaster is just too great where the horse and rider are concerned. I've been there and it's not fun." ��OP�I�J �1��'ll� That admission begs the question: "Can we get along? Yes, if we show respect and a sense of knowing what horses do and what they need. If we don't do that, then I think we're going to be denied access to a lot of great mountain biking." And who wants that? Reprinted from IMBA Trail iVews ��v�a�u�u�� w6��o� Q��uu�� by Michael Kelley IMBA Vice-president Trail courtesy is critical to what we are trying to do. I have been getting complaints about rude behavior that we need to address. These deal with how we pass others on the trail. The number one gripe from other users http://www.greatoutdoors. com/IocaUpartners/imbalinfoaction/library/horses_clean. html 4/3/00 Page 4 of 5 has been bikes approaching others, usually from behind, going too fast and without giving proper warning. Put yourself in the position of a hiker in nature-induced reverie, who suddenly feels the swish of a passing silent cyclist. That could be very startling to one unaccustomed to bikes. Alerting one to your presence is a bit delicate. Obviously OHeyEget outta my way!O stinks. Surprisingly to many, the often heard Oon Oyer IeftO isnOt so well received, either. It confuses many who interpret it to mean they should move to the left, which could have severe consequences. ItOs also a bit curt. I find a soft and friendly greeting uttered as far back as possible works best. Many park managers and other users have encouraged us to use bells. Bells are becoming a symbol of trail courtesy. Hikers and equestrians tell me they hear a bell and associate the sound with a bicyclist who is trying to be considerate. Some parks are considering making them mandatory. Mandatory or not, they are a great idea. That was not always the case. When bells were new, I was told they sometimes startled horses. These days horses are coming to associate the sound with bikes, which they are used to. (Even now, opinions are not unanimous. At a recent meeting of the East Bay Area Trails Council, the group spent a good quarter hour complimenting cyclists for their support of bells. Then one perennial bike basher suggested that cyclists were actually using bells to scare horses! It was amusing, if not a little sad.) So, make every trail encounter a good one. Slow down! Let everyone you pass know our intentions well in advance. If you want to pass a horse, establish voice contact with the rider. Be prepared to stop until asked to proceed. Use your bells and above all, use your smiles and show that you care. As mentioned, these things become natural if you put yourself in the place of the other trail user. Remember, good will is contagious. We have been under attack lately and need the affirmation that comes from expressing the good things that happen every day on the trail. or� horse ser�s� fror» �c•��cstri�:�r� r��acicr� I am a horse owner and have been trailriding the Midwest for 15 years. I also serve as equestrian advisor for numerous city and state level trail advisory groups, and non-profit trail organizations. I would like to say a BIG THANK YOU for runnin� the informative article, OEquestrians and cyclists: Can we get along?O by Theo Stein in the September ITIV. I would like to make a couple more suggestions: 1) If a horse is crossing a bridge, cyclists should always wait for the the horse to finish. 2) Cyclists should never approach a horse while it is crossing creeks or other water. 3) When calling to the horserider to alert them of your presence, remember it is best not to holler or yell excitedly, but to speak calmly. If the cyclist is some distance from the horse, a loud but calm voice should be used. There is nothing wrong with a OHello, itOs really a nice day for riding, isnOt it?O The more an approaching cyclists talks when passing, the more the horse will realize it is just a human being on a strange looking contraption. One last thing just to set the record straight. Although owning a horse is an http://www.greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imbalinfoaction/library/horses_clean.html 4/3/00 Page 5 of 5 expensive hobby, the majority of horse owners who trailride for pleasure are not wealthy. Many trailriders are silly enough to dump every last, hard- earned dime they have into their hobby so that they can do what they enjoy. For many, trailriding is all they do with their horses. They donOt show them and do not own expensive horses of show caliber. But they do come from all walks of life, just a mountain bikers do. If all of us use a little common courtesy, and take into consideration the excellent points you have made in your article, everyone can go home at the end of the day after a safe and very enjoyable ride. Again, thanks for helping others understand a bit of horse psychology and promoting trail etiquette. Margo Ems, Lincoln, NE Copyright International Mountain Bicycling Association. Permission to reprint granted, provided credit is given to IMBA and article author (if noted). http://www. greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imbalinfoaction/library/horses_clean. html 4/3/00 a Y 1 x_ i*-. .,�'""..f,�'{f �n t 3 �,c'F'� �..s s. �t �t 5 t i a" i z r k i� �p �4��.` i Y^.yy �`��i {i`'lI k e. t s. F -k r t c�*+.�.;' s ..�z.t. r a 3� Y .z'' �k� a .��`��i �7 �1: u� s ,.P, n, a� ax 3 r e.fi, z t's .�i q �,i �t s ,yt�� F i`�A� t' r a k -r ti.a F; r.... f 5 Yt� 4. t� 1 �-.�b }.�.'v'�,' Lk=i t�A' fi.' :i.; ��o cts on }s i u t�i e- Se ra. �.�a� r �,x; K i ��,i ia��r ■a� aigra� �rx� ti S w-r, E r. a n�thesis of the Literature �cznd Y'!� i �F ��,S�tate of the Practic"e� 4�� Y E �g� �h t FE 4: J 'S w '��t �"a;�,'��e 3 �i'.; Sponsored by The Federal Highway >Administration and The National Recreational Trails Y Advisory_ Committee ,Wn 1:_ '�r ,U.S. D:epariment.. of 7ransportation k �federal;Highway j �Aclm�nistra�ion Technical Report Documen4afion Page 1. Report No. FHWA 4. Title and Subtitle Conflicts on Mul[iple-Use T�ails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice 7. Author (s) Roger L. Moore 2. Government Accession No. 9. Periorming Organization Name and Address North Carolina Sta[e Universi[y Dept. of Yarks, Recreation, �4: Tourism Mgmt Box 8004 Raleigh, NC 27695-8004 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Federal Highway Administration Intermodal Division (HEP-50) 400 Seventh St SW Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Wates 16. Abstract 3. RecipienYs Calalog No. 5. Reporl Date August 1994 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit iVo. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFx61-93-P-162b 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 14, Sponsoring Agency Code The National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee identified trail-user conflicts on multiple-use trails as a major concern that needs resolution. The Committee asked tl�e Federal Highway Administration to prodt�ce a synthesis of [he existing research to foster understanding of ti conflict, identify approaclles foi promoting trail-sharing, and identify gaps in current knowledge. This synthesis is intended to establish a baseline of the curren[ state of knowledge and practice and to serve as a guide for trail managers and researchers. T11e goal of the repoc�t is to promote user safety, protect natural resources, and provide high-quality user experiences. It reviews management options such as uail design, information and education, user involvement, and regulations and enforcement. Trail con�licts can occur among different user groups, among difFerent users within the same user group, and as a result of factors not related to trail user ac[ivities at all. Conflict has been foiind to be related to ��ctivity style, focus of trip, expectations, attitudes toward and perceptions of the environment, level of tolei for others, and difFerent norms held by different users. The report provides 12 principles for minimizing conflicts on multiple-use trails. Althotigh this report is about conflicts on trails, it is intended to promote cooperation and understanding ainong trail users and to inspire ideas tha[ will help reduce trail conflict. It is intended [o be used by trail managers, St2te and local trail coordinators, researchers, and trail-user volunteer organizations. 17. Key Words Multiple-use Trail Conflict Trail Management Trail Sharing n�otorized Recreation Nonmotorized 19. Security Classif. (of ihis repartj Unclassified 18. Distribuiion Statement No restrictions 20.Security Classit. (of this page) 21. No. nt Pages 22. Price Unclassified 70 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction og comple4ed page authorized I.i��►�� 1��1��it�c�t�t` The large number of people and organizations involved in the research for and writing of this report is an indication of how strongly trail managers and users feel about improving cooperation and sharing on multiple-use trails. Their concern and commitment have earned them the thanks of the trails community. Several contributors deserve special recognition, however. The members of the National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee recognized the need for this baseline information and made this project a high priority. They shared their vast trail contacts and advice and reviewed drafts. Advisory Committee Chair Stuart Macdonald, in particular, provided invaluable guidance and contacts and got the effort off to a solid start. Several individuals deserve special thanks for their efforts in actually gathering the information and producing the report you are holding. Melanie Orwig, graduate student in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at North Carolina State Universiry, made a large number of the contacts with trail managers, gathered and recorded references, and compiled all of the appendix material. Steve Fiala, Trails Specialist with the East Bay Regional Park District, inade key contacts in California and contributed valuable material. Many others, too numerous to mention, provided guidance and reviewed drafts. Finally, graduate students Timothy Hopkin and Laurie Sullivan researched and gathered much of the original reference material. nnn �C�.I�Il� �a��u�r� ��r�a� i �a��u.r��r ��r�� r�vII.��-u.r�� rv� A. Challenges Faced by Multiple-Use Trail Managers 7 MaintainingUser Safety 7 Protecting Natural Resources 8 Providing High-Quality User Experiences 9 Threats to Quality Experiences 10 Summary................................................................................................................................. 15 B. Ways to Avoid or Minimize Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails 16 PhysicalResponses 18 ManagementResponses 22 Informationand Education 22 UserInvolvement 26 Regulations and Enforcement 28 Summary.................................................................... 30 C. Conclusion II�. II81E�IEfilIIB�]H[ I�IEII�� II�l Ad�II�DIII�YQ'v �1II� 1JqII�][�[][��1Qp ��1�T]FI.g�'II'� ��`T 1��JII.'Il'IIII'I[.IE-�.T�IE 'II'�.� 33 A. Challenges Faced by Multiple-Use Trail Managers 33 MaintainingUser Safety 33 Protecting Natural Resources 34 Providing High-Quality User Experiences 34 n� B. Ways to Avoid or Minimize Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails 36 PhysicalResponses 36 ManagementResponses 36 Information and Education 36 UserInvolvement 37 Regulations and Enforcement 3� OverallApproach 38 OtherResearch Needs 38 C. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................38 .�lE'lI'IE�T1IDII�lE� Appendix 1 National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee 39 Appendix 2 Organizations to Contact for Additional Infozmation 43 Appendix 3 Persons Contributing Information for this Report 49 Appendix 4 List of Existing Trail-Sharing Guidelines and Other Educational Materials 55 I�I[I�ILII[�'v1I8AII �71 i' t��I l I I� I�1 �111 �l�l The National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee identified trail-user conflicts on multiple-use trails as a major concern that needs resolution. The Advisory Committee recognized that there is a significant amount of literature and exper[ise on this topic, but no one source that summarizes the available information. The Committee asked the Federal Highway Administration to produce a synthesis of the existing research to foster understanding of trail conflicts, identify promising ap- proaches for promo[ing trail sharing, and identify gaps in our current knowledge. This synthesis is intended to establish a baseline of the current state of knowledge and practice and to serve as a guide for trail managers and researchers. The challenges faced by multiple-use trail managers can be broadly summarized as maintaining user safety, protecting natural resources, and providing high-quality user experiences. These challenges are interrelated and cannot be effectively addressed in isolation. To address these challenges, man- agers can employ a wide array of physical and management options such as trail design, information and education, user involvement, and regulations and enforcement. Past research has consistently found that most outdoor recreationists are satisfied with their recreation experiences. Likewise, most trail experiences on multiple-use trails are probably enjoyable and satisfying. Conflicts among trail users do exist, however, and these conflicts can have serious conse- quences. Conflict in outdoor recreation settings (such as trails) can best be defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior" (Jacob and Schreyer 1980, 369). As such, trail conflicts can and do occur among different user groups, among different users within the same user group, and as a result of factors not related to users' trail activities at all. In fact, no actual contact among users need occur for conflict to be felt. Conflict has been found to be related to activiry style (mode of travel, level of technology, environmenta] dominance, etc.), focus of trip, expectations, attitudes toward and percep- tions of the environment, level of tolerance for others, and different norms held by different users. Conflict is often asymmetrical (i.e., one group resents another, but the reverse is not true). The existing literature and practice were synthesized into the following 12 principles for minimizing conf]icts on multiple-use trails. Adherence to these principles should help improve sharing and cooperation on multiple-use trails. Il. IlS�eogIInna� �oan4llnca ��Il IIffn��a�ff�n��ffn��—Do not treat conflict as an inherent incompatibility among different trail activities, but goal interference attributed to another's behavior. B• II'rovfl�Il� Aa��Q](nn�� 'd'��nIl �]pg��anIInn�n��—Offer adequate trail mileage and provide opportuni[ies for a variety of trail e.zperiences. This will help reduce congestion and allow users to choose the conditions that are best suited to the experiences they desire. 3. i�[nain.aannze I�Iu�nib�a� off �offn¢��¢� nan I��i�Il�mmn A��—Each contact among trail users (as well as contact with evidence of others) has the potential to result in conflict. So, as a general rule, reduce the number of user contacts whenever possible. This is especially true in congested areas and at trailheads. Disperse use and provide separate irails where necessary after careful consideration of the additional envixonmental impact and lost opportunities for positive interactions this may cause. 4, IIanvollve �T�� IE�Ily a� ]�ossnl�ll�—Identify the present and likely fu[ure users of each trail and involve them in the process of avoiding and resolving conflicts as early as possible, preferably before conflicts occur. For proposed trails, possible conflicts and their solutions should be addressed during the planning and design stage with the involvement of prospective users. New and emerging uses should be anticipated and addressed as early as possible with the involvement of participants. Like- wise, existing and developing conflicts on present trails need to be faced quickly and addressed with the participation of those affected. c�' a� ��p �T�� I�I��—Determine the motivations, desired experiences, norms, setting prefer- ences, and other needs of the present and likely future users of each trail. This "customer" informa- tion is critical for anticipating and managing conflicts. 6. IIaDeffatnffy ¢lln� �cgau�ll �oun�c�§ �ff ��llnc�—Help users to identify the specific tangible causes of any conflicts they are experiencing. In other words, get beyond emotions and stereotypes as quickly as possible, and get to the roots of any problems that exist. 7, ��1� wn�lln Affff��l N��—Work with all parties involved to reach mutually agreeable solutions to these specific issues. Users who are not involved as part of the solution are more likely to be part of the problem now and in the future. ]��o�anoge 'd'��llll I�gn�ba�4��—Minimize the possibility that any particular trail contact will result in conflict by actively and aggressively promoting responsible trail behavior. Use existing educational materials or modify them to better meet local needs. Target these educational efforts, get the infor- mation.into users' hands as early as possible, and present it in interesCing and understandable ways (Roggenbuck and Ham 1986). 9. ]E�ncouna�a�e l��§nan�� ffna��an�nn A�noffng II�nffff��ant �Js�a�—Trail users are usually not as different from one another as they believe. Providing positive interactions both on and off the trail will help break down barriers and stereotypes, and build understanding, good will, and cooperation. This can be accomplished through a variety of strategies such as sponsoring "user swaps," joint trail-building or maintenance projects, filming trail-sharing videos, and forming Trail Advisory Councils. 710. lFa�oa� "][,g�flna-3Hl�ana�t�Qll lYd�nn��n�ffn�"—Use the most "light-handed approaches" that will achieve area objectives. This is essential in order to provide the freedom of choice and natural environments that are so important to trail-based recreation. Intrusive design and coercive management are not compatible with high-quality trail experiences. ��,1Pg�n aa�d t�.ca I[,�c�tIly Whenever possible, address issues regarding multiple-use trails at the local level. This allows greater sensitivity to local needs and provides better flexibility for addressing difficult issues on a case-by-case basis. Local action also facilitates involvement of the people who will be most affected by the decisions and most able to assist in their successful implementation. g2. Nq�mnaoP l��'ogr�§�—Monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the decisions made and programs implemented. Conscious, deliberate monitoring is the only way to determine if conElicts are indeed being reduced and what changes in programs might be needed. This as only possible within the conte�t of clear:y understoou and agreed upon objectives for each trail area. The available research on recreadonal conflict is helpful for understanding and managing conflicts on trails. There is a great deal we do not know, however. This report concludes by identifying many __2 conflict-related research topics that have not been adequately explored. Some of this suggested research is theoretical in nature, and some is suggested for appliec! experimentation by managers in the field. Trait managers recognize trail conflicts as a potentially serious threat. Many are optimistic, however, and feel that when trail conflict situations are tackled head on and openly they can become an opportunity to build and strengthen trail constituencies and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities for all users. c�>��ti�«� x ,11uluplc:Usc� ;1��aa�: St'nrl;esis �.�y'i�,e l�iteniltur nurl sarri f �;3tbc Po'i�clii•a i� N 3: Conflicts on multiple-use trails have been described "as problems of success—an indication of the trail's popularity" (Ryan 1993, 158). In fact, the vast majority of trail users are satisfied, have few complaints, and return often. However, conflicts among trail users do occur and can have serious consequences if not addressed. The National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee identified trail-user conflicts on multiple-use trails as a major concern that needs resolution. The Advisory Committee recognized that there is a significant amount of literature on this topic, but no one c� source summarized the available information. The Committee asked the Federal Highway Adminis- tration to produce a synthesis of the existing research to help identify ways to avoid and minimize multiple-use trail conflicts. This synthesis is intended to establish a baseline of the current state of knowledge and practice anci to serve as a guide for trail managers and researchers. Multiple-use trails (often called "shared use," "mutual use," or "diversified" trails) are becoming the norm. It is increasingly common for trail users to encounter other users (or evidence of use) on trails. Some encounters are with users participating in the same activity, and some are with fellow trail users engaged in different activities. While most trail encounters seem to be pleasant or neutral, some are unpleasant. The conflicts that can result from unpleasant encounters may spoil individual experiences and threaten to polarize trail users who could be working together rather than at odds with one another. As the number of trail users grows and diversity of trail activities increases, the potential for conflict grows as well. It is the responsibiliry of managers, researchers, and trail users to understand the processes involved in recreational conflicts and do everything possible to avoid and minimize them on multiple-use trails. This synthesis of literature is one step in that direction. It has two primary goals: To guide planners and managers by providing a concise, readable synopsis of the literature and current state of management knowledge regarding how to best accommodate multiple activities on the same trails. To direct future research by clearly identifying the topics which most warrant further study, in terms of both formal scientific inquiry and manager experimentation. Although this report is about conflicts on trails, its tone is intended to be positive, constructive, and hopeful. The nature of a literature review is historic—what has been tried, what has been learned, and what the experts have concluded. Because it is largely a synthesis of existing information, this report uses the existing language. This language has tended to revolve around the word "conflict," which could set a negative tone if the report were concerned only with existing information. However, the Advisory Committee is looking beyond the past focus on conElict to a new and more positive focus on trail sharing in which conflicts have been minimized or avoided. With such a focus, contacts with other users can more often become a positive part of the trail experience. This positive approach is consistent with the discussions we had with trail managers and advocates across the country. They regard the resolution of trail conflicts as an opportunity to build a stron- ger, more mutually supportive communiry of trail users. By focusing on the many things trail users have in common and the many constnictive trail-sharing efforts underway across the country, they feel it will be easier to address the relatively few areas that tend to pull users apart. 1'he scope of this document is broad because conflicts come in many shapes and forms. In fact, the majoriry of the literature related to conflict and conflict resolution is from the perspective of international politics and organiaational behavior. The focus of this report is conflicts on trails. Even in the area of trails, many types of conflicts can occur—conflicts between trail users and animals, trail users and trail managers, even trail proponents and private landowners, to name just a �4 few. This synihesis recognizes these as impor[ant topics, but will only address conflicts among trail users. Although it focuses on conflicts among the users of multiple-use trails, it does so within the context of the other interrelated problems trail managers face. It also uses a broad definition oF multiple-use trails and attempts to make applications to a wide variety of different types of trails. Resolving conflicts and promoting trail sharing among users is only one of many challenges faced by managers of multiple-use trails. In attempting to address the issue of trail conflicts, however, it quickly becomes apparent that the challenges trail managers face are interrelated, as are the tools available to address these challenges. It is superficial to attempt to focus only on how to reduce conflict without also addressing other threats to user satisfaction, issues related to visitor safety, and the impacts trail use has on natural resources. The focus of this report is how to improve trail shar- ing by avoiding and resolving conflicts. To address this topic adequately, it is presented within [he context of these interrelated issues. Similarly, the responses available to address all of these chal- lenges are interrelated and are also presented here. Likewise, "multiple-use trail" is defined broadly for the purposes of this document. A multiple-use trail is typically defined as any [rail that is used by more than one user group, or for more than one trail activity. These two terms are the ones most commonly used to refer to users traveling by different modes of transportation and are used interchangeably in this report. Trail-user groups include hikers, equestrians, mountain bicyclists, cross-country skiers, 4-wheel drive users, off-highway mo[orcyclists, all-terrain vehicle users, and snowmobilers. Many other trail-user groups exist as well, including in-line skaters, dog sledders, llama packers, and wheelchair users to mention a few. Any trail. used by more than one of these user groups is certainly a multiple-use trail. However, when considering trail conflict, we have to consider other trails as well. Even single-use trails must accom- modate very different styles of a single activity. A pedestrians-only trail, for example, might be used by hikers, backpackers, trail runners, bird watchers, hunters, snowshoers, orienteers, rock hounds, etc., and conflict can and does occur among any and all of these trail users. Conflicts occur even among members of the same user group. Therefore, the information contained here can and should be applied to all trails since in the broadest sense all trails are multiple-use trails and are being shared to some extent. A wide variety of trail types were also considered in attempting to address the topic of trail conflicts thoroughly. Information was considered that per[ains to trails ranging from hard-surfaced urban greenways to unimproved backcouri[ry trails extending miles from the nearest access point. AI- though there are obvious physical differences among these many types of trails, much of the informa- tion and all of the canclusions reached can be applied successfully to any recreational trail. By definition, a literature review considers the information available. In some parts of the report this fact will tend to emphasize the perspective of one user group or a particular type of trail over others. Much of the most recent information regarding information and education efforts on trails, for ex- ample, was written with mountain biking in mind. These apparent biases are simply due to the references available. In most cases, the reader will be able to make broader applications of examples or studies originally directed at a single type of trail or trail-user group. This report is organized into two parts. Part I presents the synthesis of literature and practice related to multiple-use trails. It is organized around the three ma}or challenges faced by trail managers and the two categories of responses at their disposal to address these challenges. In every case the challenges and available responses cut across many trail activities and types of trails. Part I concludes with a presentation of general principles for avoiding and minimizing conflicts on multiple-use trails distilled from the information reviewed. Part II builds on the synthesis by identifying gaps in our current knowledge and suggesting research that could be undertaken to close these gaps. This report is a review and synthesis of literature, but the literature considered was more than that typically reviewed for academic purposes. Three types of written and computer-based information sources were reviewed: research-based literature (scientific journals, conference proceedings, techni- cal reports, etc.), management documents, and popular literature. In addition (and often more helpful), many hours of discussions with trail experts were undertaken, and examples from the field examined. Conducting the research and preparing this report have been a challenging and rewarding endeavor. It is our hope that the information that follows will help you, the trail manager, researcher, or trail user, to understand the dynamics of conflicts on multiple-use trails and the tools available to address this challenge. When addressed head on and openly, the seemingly negative challenge of trail conflicts can become a positive opportunity to improve trail sharing and enhance outdoor recreation oppor[unities for all users. This optimistic sentiment was echoed by several presenters at the Eleventh National Trails Sympo- sium, which had the theme "Trails for All Americans." Their comments are a fitting way to end this introduction and set the tone for the material that follows. "Communication and cooperation between and among user groups enhances the opportunity for enjoyable trail experiences for all users" (Henley 1992, 171). "All of us share these common goals: to protect access to public lands, protect the environ- ment and its beauty, to enjoy traveling and being outdoors, to encourage responsible recre- ation and tourism" (Macdonald 1992, 19). "Since funding for trails is scarce, we need to find ways of sharing what we do have in a manner which does not infringe upon any one group or groups of users" (Dingman 1992, 168). "Ignoring, or fighting, entire categories of trail users means losing a great deal of potential support. And it threatens funding and political power by tuming the trails community into competitors and enables us all to be dismissed as special interestgrouj�s"(Macdonald 1992, 19). "Splintering the outdoor user groups is playing into the hands of those interests that would exploit or destroy the resource we're all preoccupied with saving. The Davids of the world have a tough job already. If we continue to sling rocks at each other, the Goliaths will walk or ride all over us. Let's build trails, not walls, between each other" (John Viehman as quoted in Henley 1992, 174). "Sharing trails means sharing responsibility for, as well as the use of, our trail system. We can consider responsibility in three phases: my responsibility, your responsibility and our respon- sibility" (Filkins 1992, 175). "Reduction in user conflict comes with the recognition of other legitimate trail activities. In a time of increasing population and decreasing trail budgets we must work towards expansion of recreational trails for all rather than restriction of opportunity for some" (Filkins 1994). I. SYN'I'I�SIS OF THE MULTIPLE-USE TRAIL LITERATIJRE AND PRACITCE A. Challenges Faced by Muldple-Use Trai1 Managers The manager of any trail faces many challenges, usually within the context of too few staff and too little money. The underlying chailenges faced by trail managers, however, remain [he same regard- less of the type of trail and whether it serves a single group or many differeni ones. Trail managers V attempt to: 1) maintain user safety, 2) protect natural resources, and 3) provide high-quality user experiences. These issues can become more complex and more difficult to manage as the number and diversity of trail uses increase, but the challenges and the tools available to address them remain basically the same. Ma�nta�ning User Safety Unsafe situations or conditions caused by other trail users can keep visitors from achieving their desired trail experiences. This goal interference due to safety concerns is a common source of conflicts on trails. There are a number of threats to user safety that can occur on trails. Some of these include: Collisions and near misses among users and/or their vehicles. Reckless and irresponsible behavior. Poor user preparation or judgment. Unsafe conditions related to trail use (e.g., deep ruts, [racks on snow trail, etc.). Unsafe conditions not related to trail use <e.g., obstacles, terrain, weather, river crossings, etc.). Poor trail design, construction, maintenance or management. Other hazards (e.g., bears, lightning, cliffs, crime, etc.). To help maintain user safety on trails, planners and managers can attempt to control or influence many factors, incliading the following: User speed (often has more to do with speed differential than the speed itsel�. Mass of user and vehicle (if any). Sight distances. Trail width. Trail surface. Congestion (e.g., number of users per mile). Users overtaking one other silently/without warning. Trail difficulty <obstacles, terrain, condition, etc.). User skill level and experience. User expectations and preparedness (e.g., walkers who understand they may see bicycles on a particular trail can better prepare themselves for possible encounters). Emergency procedures. On-site management presence. Protect�ng Natural Resources �O Resource impacts such as soil erosion, damaged vegetation, polluted water supplies, litter, vandalism, and many other indications of the presence of others can lead to feelings of crowding and conflict. These feelings can occur even when there is no actual contact among difFerent trail users. A hiker's enjoyment might be reduced by seeing All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) tracks near a wildemess boundary, for example, or an eqUestrian user might be upset to see many cars with bike racks at the trailhead before beginning a ride. Minimizing environmental impacts is a high priority for resource and recreation managers. Natural resources include soils, wildlife, vegetation, water, and air quality. Historic, cultural, and archaeologi- cal resources are also wlnerable to impacts caused by trail use. A considerable amount of trail manager time and resources is spent attempting to minimize impacts affec[ing each of these re- sources. All trail use, regardless of travel mode, impacts natural resources. Reseacch indicates that the following factors influence the amount of resource damage caused by trail use: Soil characteristics: rype, texture, organic content, consistence, depth, moisture (e.g., muddy versus dry), temperature levels (especially frozen versus thawed), etc. Slope of surface and topography Position in land form (e.g., northern versus southern exposure) Elevation Type of ecosystem Type of wildlife Type of vegetation in trail Type of vegetation and terrain beside trail (influencing widening) Qualiry of trail design and construction Cespecially regarding drainage) Level of maintenance (e.g., effectiveness of drainage) Type of use Type of vehicle Level of use Concentration or dispersal of use Season of use Difficulty of terrain (to user) Up or down hill traffic direction Style of use or technique (e.g., skidding tires versus controlled riding) There is a large body of research regarding the natural resource impacts of outdoor recreation. Much of this research is reviewed in Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research, by Kuss, Graefe, and Vaske (1990). It provides an excelleni summary and synthesis of the findings of more than 230 articles related to the vegetation and soil impacts of recreation, 190 related to water resources im- pacts, and another 100 related to impacts on wildlife. Many of these deal directly or indirectly with trail use. Another excellent reference is a bibliography prepared by the National Off-Highway Ve- hicle Conservation Council (date unknown). It identifies more than 750 studies relating to off- highway vehicles and their use. A large number of these relate to resource impacts and resource protection. I Based on their thorough review of the literature, Kuss et al. (1990) conclude that evaluations of impacts should be made on a site-specific or area-specific basis due to the many interrelated factors affecting them. They do, however, offer the following generalizations regarding the impacts of various [rail uses: backpacking causes more damage than hiking without a pack; hiking and back- packing cause greater changes to trails than walking; horses and packstock cause greater damage than hiking; trail biking causes more damage than hiking; and track-driven vehicles cause more damage ihan wheel-driven vehicles. They note, however, that site-specific factors can lead to excep- tions to these generalizations. In a recent study of erosion damage caused by trail use, Seney (1991) concluded that horses produced more erosion than hikers, off-road bicycles, or motorcycles and that wet trails were more susceptible to damage than dry trails. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish trail damage caused by trail users from damage caused by nonusers. For example, equestrian trail use is often blamed for damage caused by livestock grazing on public lands. Damage that appears to have been caused by motorized trail users may have been caused by trail crews accessing work sites or by miners traveling to and from their claims. In many cases, the initial construction of the trail itself causes grea[er resource impac[ than subsequent trail use (Keller 1990). One aspect of protecting natural resources that is particularly relevant to multiple-use trail manage- ment is the relationship between amount of use and levels of natura] resource impact. Numerous studies of [he effects of camping indicate that the greatest environmental impact occurs with low use (see review by Kuss et al. 1990). In other words, the initial users of lightly used areas cause the most damage to soils and vegetation. The rate of degradation generally decreases after a certain amount of damage has been done. This has important implications for the issue of whether to concentrate or disperse trai] use. In trail settings where this same relationship holds, dispersing [rail use to relatively unused trails may greatly increase environmental impacts. Prov�ding Hfgb-Qualfty User Experiences Researchers believe that people who par[icipate in outdoor recreation activities do so because they hope to gain certain rewards or outcomes (Vroom 19G4; Driver and Tocher 1970). These outcomes consist of a wide variety of experiences such as solitude, challenge, being wi[h friends or family, testing skills, experiencing nature, and others (Driver and Knopf 1977; Driver and Brown 1978; Tinsley and Kass 1978). What experiences are desired vary a great deal across activities, among people par[icipating in the same activity, and even within the same individual on different outings (Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978; Gr,a.efe, Dit[on, Roggenbuck, and Schreyer 1981). In fact, recreationists are often seeking [o satisfy multiple desires in a single outing (Hendee 1974, Driver and Tocher 1970). So recreation behavior is understood to be goal-directed and undertaken to satisfy desires for parcicular experiences. The quality of these experiences is often measured in terms of users' overall satisfaction (Williams 1988). In a perfect world, land managers could provide nearby, high-quality opportunities for every type of experience crail users mighc possibly seek. This is rarely possible, of course. Lirnited budgets, limited amounts of land, and the sheer number of users with different preferences make it impossible to perfectly satisfy all the people all the time. Flexibility, compromise, and common courtesy on [he parts of all users are necessary to maximize the opportunities for high-quality experiences for everyone. 9 �'O �`1. Threats to Quality Experiences--Past research has consistently found that outdoor recreationists are well satisfied with their recreation experiences (Kuss et al. 1990, 191). However, recreation experiences are affected by many subjective as well as situational factors: the conditions encountered at an area, users' expectations, any discrepancies between what users expect and what they actually find or experience (Lawler 1973; Peterson 1974; Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978; Todd and Graefe 1989), social and personal norms (shared "rules" or "standards" of good or bad, right or wrong, e[c.), use levels (Kuss et al. 1990), and "social interference" (Brehm 1966; Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin 1970). For a complete review of research related to the recreation experience, see Kuss, Graefe, and Vaske (1990). Two of the most serious threats to quality trail experiences on multiple-use trails are discussed in more detail below. Crowding—Crowding is more than the objective density of users in a particular area. It is a subjec- tive judgment on the part of an individual that there are too many other people there. In other words, it is a negative evaluation of a particular densiry of people in an area (Stokols 1972; Rapoport 1975; Kuss et al. 1990). As such, crowding can reduce the quality of recreation experiences. Level of use does appear to affect feelings of crowding, but in most cases not directly. Levels of perceived crowding vary with such mediating factors as: Number of encounters Number of encounters preferred Number of encounters expected Discrepancy between ac[ual and expected encounters Motivations for participation (e.g., solitude versus social interac[ion) Preferences (desires) Expectations (what was anticipated) Behavior (as opposed to the number) of others Visitor attitudes Type of area (e.g., primitive versus urban) Location of contacts (e.g., trailhead versus campsite) Proximity of others Size of group Size of group encountered User's experience level Perceived environmental disturbance Type of encounter Obtrusiveness of visual impact (e.g., bright-colored versus earth-toned clothes, tents, and equipment) See Kuss et al. (1990) for an excellent review and synthesis of research related to crowding. Crowd- ing on trails can be the result of others participating in the same trail activity or different activities. Crowding can be related to feelings of conflict on trails. l0 Conflict—The verb "share" is generally defined as "to distribute pares of something among others; to retain one part of something and give the rest or part of the rest to another or others; to take or use a part of something with someone or something; to c!o or experience something with others; to join with others in doing or experiencing something." On the other hand, the verb "conflict" is defined as "to be at variance, ctash, to struggle, or contend" (New Webster's Dictionary 1992). Conflict can cause serious impacts to recreation experiences, to the point of causing some users to end their use and be displaced by other pre-emptive users (Schreyer 1979). According to recreation researchers, conflict is a special type of dissatisfaction. It is generally defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior" (Jacob and Schreyer 1980 369 Jacob 1977). For example, when a trail user fails to achieve the experiences desired from [he trip and determines that it is due to someone else's behavior, conflict results and satisfaction suffers. As defined by Jacob and Schreyer (1980), conflict is not the same thing as competition for scarce resources. If people attribute not getting a parking place at a trailhead to their oum lack of planning, there is no conflict. If [hey blame the lack of parking places on horseback riders who they feel have parked their trucks and trailers inconsider- ately (whether or not this is truly the case), conflict will likely result. In both cases, users did not achieve their goals, and dissatisfaction resulted, but only one was due to conflict as defined here. As with crowding, conflict is not an objective state but depends on individual interpretations of past, present, and future contacts with others. Jacob and Schreyer (1980, 370) theorize that there are four classes of factors that produce conflict in outdoor recreation; Activity Style—The various personal meanings attached to an activity. Intensity of participa- tion, sta[us, range of experience, and definitions of quality (e.g., exper[s and novices may not mix well). Resource Speciflclty—The significance attached to using a specific recreation resource for a given recreation experience (e.g., someone running her favorite trail near where she grew up along Lake Tahoe will not appreciate seeing a tourist demonstrate a lack of respect for her "special place" by littering). Mode of Experience—The varying expectations of how the natural environment will be perceived (e.g., bird watchers who are "focused" on the natural environment will not mix well with a group of ATV riders seeking speed and thrills who are "unfocused" on the environment). Tolerance for I.ifestyle Diversity—The tendency to accept or reject lifestyles different from one's own (e.g., some trail users "just don't like" people who do no[ share their values, priorities, trail activities, etc.). These four factors have been redefined by Watson, Niccolucci, and Williams (in press) as "specializa- tion level," "definition of place," "focus of trip/expectations," and "lifestyle tolerance." Their research suggests that these factors may be better at predicting predispositions toward conflict than predicting actual goal interference. Notice that none of the above factors thought to produce (or pred�spose some to) conflict are neces- sarily related to the particular activiry a trail user might be engaged in at the time. Also note that no actual contact need occur for conflict to be felt. Taking an approach similar to that of Jacob and Schreyer (1980), Owens (1985) attempts to differenti- ate more clearly between "conflicY' and "crowding" from a goal-oriented social and psychological L��V l. l �`O L`1. perspective. He defines "recreational conflict" as "a negative experience occurring when competition for shared resources prevents expected benefits of participation from accruing to an individual or group." He defines "sociai and psychological conflict" as "competition for shared resources amongst individuals or groups whose leisure behavior is mutually exclusive or has contrary objectives and as existing whenever two or more individuals or groups perceive the (recreational) utiliry of particular (countryside) resources in terms of opposing values or goals." In other words, social interrelation- ships and differences among users are more the root problem than the physical influences they might have on one another. Owens develops this concept by introducing two propositions: 1. "Conflict is a process of social interaction which is operationalized with the general motivational goal of eliminating environmental instability and restoring perceived equilibrium" (p. 251). According to Owens, all behavior settings have normative "rules." When competing groups view a setting and its purpose in different ways and/or there is inappropriate behavior, these rules begin to break down. In such cases people will employ various coping mechanisms (behavioral, cognitive, or affective) to try to eliminate the source of stress and try to return things to a more desirable state. Contlict occurs when these coping strategies are inadequate, unsuccessful, or unavailable in an acceptable period of time and alternatives seem to be unavailable (i.e., if a person's coping strategies don't work, his feelings of crowding can become feelings of conflict). 2. "Conflict is a cumulative process of social interaction which once established becomes an enduring psychological state guiding the behavior of individuals and/or groups" (p. 252)• Owens proposed that this is how conflict can be distinguished from crowding. Crowding is an immediate reaction to present conditions and thus transient. Conflict is more persistent and enduring, lasting beyond a particular outing. Owens sees conf7ict itself as an experience which can be viewed as a continuum from "simmering discontent and frustration" to confrontation. It may or may not alter actual behavior. If overt confrontation appears, much of the damage of conflict may have already occurred. Kuss et al. (1990) noted three types of coping strategies, all of which change the character of the experience for the user forced to cope: Users re-evaluate the normative definition of what is acceptable (i.e., they adapt and accept the conditions they find). Users change their behavior (e.g., use less frequently, use at off-peak [imes, etc.). Users are displaced altogether (i.e., conditions are unacceptable to them, so they stop the activity or stop visiting that area). In studies of recreationists on trails, rivers, and lakes, several themes and patterns have been found to relate to conflict. These themes tend to support the four theoretical propositions proposed by Jacob and Schreyer <1980) that were discussed above. These themes are: LeUel of Technology—Participants in activities that use different levels of technology often experience conflict with one another. Examples include cross-country skiers and snowmobilers, hikers and motorcyclists, canoe paddlers and motor boaters, and nonmotorized raft users and motorized raft users (Lucas 1964; Knopp and 'Tyger 1973; Devall and Harry 1981; Adelman, Heberlein, and Bonnicksen 1982; Noe, Hull, and Wellman 1982; Noe, Wellman, and Buhyoff 1982; Bury, Holland, and McEwen 1983; Gramann and Burge 1981). 12 Conflict as Asymmetrica�Many times, feelings of conflict are one-way. For example, cross- country skiers dislike encountering snowmobilers, but snowmobilers are not as unhappy about encountering cross-country skiers. This type of one-way conflict has been found be[ween many different activities (Stankey 1973; Schreyer and Nielsen 1978; Devall and Harry 1981; Jackson and Wong 1982; Adelman, Heberlein and Bonnicksen 1982). In general, trail users enjoy meeting their own kind, but dislike uses that are faster and more mechanized than their own (McCay and Moeller 1976; Goldbloom 1992). Attitudes Toward and Perceptions of the Environment—Users in conflict have been found to have different attitudes toward the environment (Knopp and Tyger 1973; Saremba and Gill 1991) and may perceive the environment differently. Perceptions may be influenced by when the user first visited the area, with long-time and frequent visitors being most sensitive to contacts with others (Nielsen, Shelby and Haas 1977; Schreyer, Lime and Williams 1984). People who view the environment as an integral part of the experience are more susceptible to conflict than those who see the environment as just a setting for their activiry. <Low Impact Mountain Bicyclists of Missoula (LIMB), for example, encourages riders "to use moun- tain bikes to enjoy the environment, rather than use the environment to enjoy mountain bikes" (Sprung 1990, 29). Some experiences are dependent upon very specific environments. Likewise, people can become attached to particular settings (Williams and Roggenbuck 1989; Moore and Graefe 1994). Some mountain bikers feel hikers are too possessive toward trails (Hollenhorst, Schuett and Olson 1993). Others as Different—Users experiencing conflict perceive others to be different from them- selves in terms of background, lifestyle, feelings about wilderness, activities, etc. (Adelman, Heberlein and Bonnicksen 1982). However, trail-user groups are sometimes more similar than they believe (Watson, Williams and Daigle 1991). Method of travel and group size are the most visible cues users can evaluate to determine their similarity to other groups (Kuss et al. 1990). One negative contact can lead some sensitive users to conclude that "all of them are rude." Violation of Norms—Individuals and groups with different standards of behavior <social and individual norms that define what behavior is appropriate) often conflict with one another Vacob and Schreyer 1980; Vaske, Fedler and Graefe 1986). Norms of behavior are estab- lished through social interaction and refined through an ongoing process. These norms influence how people behave and how they expect others [o behave. For example, many fishermen resent canoeists who shout and yell (Driver and Bassett 1975)• They apparently hold a norm that boisterous behavior is inappropriate in those situations. The strength of the norm violated (as well as the importance of the goal interfered with) will int7uence the magnitude of the conflict. Norms appear to be more useful than goals for predicting conflict <e.g., a hiker and a motorcyclis[ may share the same goals of experiencing nature and escap- ing from the city but may cause conflict for one another). Level of Toleranc�Level of tolerance for others is related to level of conflict (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Ivy, Steward and Lue 1992). Levels of tolerance vary widely among individu- als depending upon personal norms and situational facto;s such as group size, where the contact occurs, when the user first visited the area, motivations, and frequency of use (Vaske et al. 1986; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). Levels of tolerance are lowest in "wilderness" areas. Assumed images of activities and stereotyping influence tolerance as well (White and Schreyer 1981; Williams 1993)� This is consistent with the belief among members of LIMB that Missoula's "live and let live" attitude contributed to their success in nninimizing user conflicts on area trails. li Environmental Dominance—Users who differ in terms of the importance they give to "con- quering" the environment are likely to conflict. This is related to the importance of au- tonomy, control, challenge, and risk-taking goals (Bury, Holland and McEwen 1983). Another theme related to trail conflict often expressed by trail managers and trail users is the resent- ment toward newcomers that is often expressed by traditional trail users. This is similar to the "last settler syndrome" (Nielsen, Shelby and Haas 1977) where visitors want a particular place to remain the way is was when they first arrived. The first or traditional users want to be the last ones allowed C�� o access. Mountain bikers commonly complain that hikers want to unfairly exclude them from backcountry areas just because bicycle use is new and untraditional. This "last settler syndrome" is A par[icularly acute in areas where one user group has built and/or maintained trails which are later invaded by other types of uses. Managers and new users must be sensitive to the understandable ownership ihe traditional users feel toward irails they have built and care for. A similar sense of ownership and tradition makes it more difficult to close trails to a particular use once that use is established. The animosity felt by some long-time mountain bikers toward managers of the Mt. Tamalpias area (Marin County, north of San Francisco) is likely magnified by the fact that in the early days of mountain biking, all trails there were open to mountain biking. Single-track trails were subsequently closed to mountain bike use. In addition to the general causes of conflict summarized above, it is instructive to look at specific factors that lead to feelings of conflict on trails. Sources of conflict can be either willful or innocent. Some users are irresponsible and unfriendly. They behave in ways they know will annoy others or damage resources. Many, however, are simply not aware of how they should behave on trails. Examples of common sources of conflict among trail users reported by trail managers and users include noise, speed, smell of exhaust, surprise, lack of courtesy, trail damage (e.g., erosion, tracks, skid marks, etc.), snow track damage, different (and sometimes unrealistic) expectations, uncon- trolled dogs, horse manure, fouled water sources, littering, animal tracks in snow, wild behavior, and lack of respect for others. Flink and Searns (1993) believe conflict results from an increase in de- mand for trail resources, increased use of existing limited trails, poor management, underdesigned facilities, lack Qf user etiquette, and disregard for the varying abilities of trail users (p. 194). A study of readers of Backpacker magazine found that over two-thirds felt the use of mountain bikes on trails was objectionable (Viehman 1990). Startling other trail users, running others off the trail, being faster and more mechanized, damaging the resources, causing erosion, frightening wildlife, and "just being there" were the biggest concerns (Kulla 1991; Chavez, Winter and Baas 1993)• Keller (1990) notes that brightly colored clothes, a high-tech look, and the perception of a technological invasion can all be sources of conflict felt by others toward mountain bikers. Just as some physical damage to trails is not caused by trail users, some conflicts on trails are not due to other trail users at all. Aircraft noise from sightseeing planes and helicopters, for example, is a major irritant to trail users in Hawaii. Noise and smells from nearby roads or developments can have as much or mote impact on trail experiences than conflicts with other users. So, following this collection of items that can cause conflict on trails, the relevant question is, how big a problem is trail conflict? Certainly, conflict is a major problem on some multi-use trails (Flink and Searns 1993)• As mentioned earlier, however, past research has consistently found that outdoor recreationists are well satisfied with their recreation experiences (Kuss et al. 1990, 191). This has been found in a variety of settings, including trails. Because the con�lict studies noted above were designed to examine recreational conflict, many of them focused on areas where visible conflicts 1=+ were occurring. These studies do not give a clear picture of the scope of conflict that might be occurring on trails in general. ConRicts are certainly a serious threat to satisfaction, but serious conflicts may not be the norm. Several studies of multiple-use rail-trails have included questions related to user conflicts. In a survey of rail-trail managers conducted by the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy in 1991, over half of the 83 managers responding reported no conflicts or "few if any" conflicts on their trails. The most common type of conflicts reported were between hikers and bikers, fol(owed by conflicts between equestrians and bikers. Conflicts involving in-line skaters, cross-country skiers, and dogs were also reported. A study of three rail-trails in Iowa, Florida, and California found that users repoRed little problem with conflict on average. More than 2,000 users were asked to rate "conflicts with other activities" and "reckless behavior of trail users" on a 7-point scale where "1" represented "not a problem" and "7" represented "a major problem." The mean response was less than 2 on each irail for "conflicts with other activities" and ranged from 1.5 to 2.8 for "reckless behavior of irail users" (Moore, Graefe, Gitelson and Porter 1992, III-26). The same study included an open-ended question that asked "What things did you like least about the trail?" The top three responses were recorded for each user. Of a total of 2,128 comments, 316 (14.8 percent) related to the behavior of other users. The most common of these (239) were about bicyclists being inconsiderate, riding two-abreast, passing with no warning, going too fast, and other unspecified concerns about bikers. An additional 72 (3.4 percent) identified crowding as the thing liked least. Similar results were found in a study of trail users on 19 multi-purpose pedestrian and bike trails in Illinois (Gobster 1990, 32). "Use problems" (crowding, conflict, and reckless users) received mean ratings of less than 2 on a 5-point scale where "1" repre- sented "not a problem" and "5" represented a"major problem." A recent National Park Service study of backcountry recreation managennent provided information related to conflicts on backcountry trails in 93 national parks (Marion, Roggenbuck and Manning 1993)• Nine percent of the parks reported that conflicts between horses and hikers were a problem in many or most backcountry areas. Three percent of the parks reported that conflicts becween hikers and mountain bikers were a problem in many or most areas. Day users (apparently due to their large numbers), overnight users, horse users, and mountain bikers were all felt to cause visitor conflicts. Day users, overnight users, OHV/ATV users, horse users, and mountain bikers were also reported to create problems through inconsiderate behavior. Conflicts among trail users are a serious problem in some areas. On Mt. Tamalpias in Marin County, California, for example, "renegade" mountain bikers have allegedly built illegal trails and engaged in vandalism and sabotage to attempt to gain access to single-track trails closed to them. However, there are also areas where users are successfully (and apparently happily) sharing trails. Unfortu- nately, the existing research does not offer much insight into how widespread a problem recreational conflict is on trails. Many of the managers we talked to felt conflict was a problem. Several also volunteered that they expected conflicts to increase unless they could do some[hing about the problem soon. Summary Managers of multiple-use trails face many interrelated challenges. Most impor[ant, they must attempt to keep users safe, minimize negative impacts to natural resources, and provide For high-quatity visitor experiences. All of these challenges involve managing various types of impacts caused by recreational use. Conflicts among trail users are one of these impacts. After extensively reviewing the recreation literature, Kuss et al. (1990) developed five principles related to the impacts caused by outdoor recreation (pp. 5, 187-188). Although developed to explain the environmental and social �7 impacts of outdoor recreation in general, they apply equally well to the impacts (including conElict) that challenge managers of multiple-use trails in particular. They consider contacts between users and the damage users cause to the environment as "first-order" social impacts (p. 189). They feel these impacts interact to cause combinations of perceived crowding, dissatisfaction, perceived re- source impacts, as well as conflicts between users. Their principles can be summarized as follows: Recreational use can cause an interrelated set of impacts to occur (e.g., damage to natural resources caused by one group can lead to feelings of conflict or crowding in another group). There is no single predictable response to recreational use. Impacts are related to level of use, but the strength and nature of the relationships vary widely and are influenced by many aspects of use intensity and a variety of situational variables. Tolerance to impacts vary (e.g., all individuals do not respond the same way to encounters with other visitors, just as all soils or plants react differently to trampling). Impacts are activity-specific. Some activities create impacts more quickly or to a greater degree than others. Impacts even from the same activity can vary according to such factors as mode of transportation, characteristics of visitors, party size, and behavior. Impacts are site-specific. Given a basic tolerance level to a par[icular type of recreation, the outcome of use may still depend on the time and place of the encounter or disturbance. Conflicts on trails can be a serious, complex challenge, but one that must be addressed if users are to have safe, satisfying experiences. The next section details the tools available to address the challenge of conflict on multiple-use trails. B. Ways to Avoid or Minimize Contlicts on Muldple-Use TraiLs As noted earlier, most participants are satisfied with their outdoor recreation experiences. The challenges discussed in the preceding section, however, can lead to severe consequences if not managed properly. In addition, the nature of the recreation experience limits the manager's options in addressing the potential negative impacts of trail use. Freedom, and freedom of choice in particular, are essential for high-qualiry outdoor recreation on and off trails. Multiple-use trail managers must be sensitive to this fact and avoid restriction and manipulation whenever possible. The "minunum tool rule" proposed by Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas (1990) for wildemess management is an appropriate guideline for the management of most multiple-use trails as well. They advocate using the least intrusive measures (whether physical or managerial) [hat will still achieve area objectives. This sensitivity is critical to main- taining the freedom and naturalness so impottant to most trail-based recreaaon. A wide variety of possible responses to addressing conflict problems exists. For example, rail-trail managers responding to a survey by the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy listed the following as tech- niques they use to overcome conflict-related problems on their trails (listed from most to least fre- quently reported): signage education meeting with user groups 1(i expanding facilities police or ranger patrols enforcement of regulations brochures articles in newsletters or local newspapers imposing speed limits volunteer trail patrols partial closings bicycle bell give-aways In a recent National Park Service study of backcountry recreation management in 93 national parks (Marion et al. 1993), managers listed the following as actions they had taken to reduce visitor crowd- ing and con�lict in backcountry areas (the numbers following each indicate the percent of managers reporting that they used that technique): Inform visitors about crowded conditions they may encounter in certain areas (56 percent) Encourage quiet behavior and activities (45 percent) Inform visitors about conflicting uses they may encounter in certain areas (40 percent) Encourage use of less popular access points and backcountry areas (38 percent) Encourage off-season use (29 percent) Designate trails for different types of visitor use (27 percent) Encourage visitors to use natural-colored equipment and clothing (18 percent) Encourage weekday use (14 percent) Segregate different types of visitor use by geographic area (12 percent) Discourage use during peak seasons (12 percent) Discourage weekend use (4 percent) Encourage outfitters and large groups to use lesser used areas (2 percent). The following section discusses these and other possible responses managers can take when faced with one or more of the safety, resource protection, or user experience challenges noted in the previous section. These responses are grouped into two broad categories: physical responses and management responses. Management responses are fur[her broken down into three types: informa- tion and education, user involvement, and regulations and enforcement. There is considerable overlap between the physical and management responses as well as among the three types of man- agement responses. An effective program will include many different tools. Strategies will differ depending upon whether the trail is an existing one or one planned for new construction. There is no reason to wait for any problem to occur before taking steps to address it. This is especially true of conflict. It is always better to try to avoid conflict before it becomes a challenge rather than try to reduce it after it is entrenched. Responses may also be affected by factors outside the manager's immediate control. Occasionally sharing trails is not an option for managers or users such as when a private or corporate landowner agrees to allow only certain activities (e.g., snowmobile use). These situations may occur as conditions of a lease, easement, or other agreement. L �w� ]7 A more common situation that can limit managers' options is overall agency policy. See Keller (1990) for an excellent discussion of the two general policy approaches that guide decisions on mountain bike access (and access for other trail activities) to public lands. Keller identifies a"trails open unless declared closed" policy and a"trails closed unless declared open" policy. Although policies can be changed, they form the context within which managers and users must address conflict and promote cooperation. Note that although many of the following approaches are directed toward trail users, most require action on the part of trail managers as well as users. Some strategies will require training for the managers, staff, and volunteers who implement them. Conflict resolution training for individuals A facilitating initial meetings of different user groups would be very helpful, for example. As pointed out by Keller (1990) the land manager's approach to the issue can be every bit as important as the proposal itself (p. 24). Physical Responses Proper trail design, layout, and maintenance (or redesign and reconstruction when necessary) are essential for user safery and resource protection and are important contributors to user satisfaction as well. Proper design includes more than aesthetics and minimizing resource impacts. It can be used to encourage trail users to behave in more appropriate ways. Influencing proper behavior through the subtleties of design is preferable and often more effective than attempting to do so after the fact through education programs or regulations. For example, it is easier and more effective to prevent shortcutting of switchbacks by designing climbing turns in rugged, well-screened areas than by posting educational signs at poorly designed switchbacks. Different users often have very different needs and desires in terms of physical trail attributes such as surface, slope, length, safe sight distances, amenities, etc. Various standards and recommendations are available for different user groups (see American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 1991; USDA Forest Service 1991; Flink and Searns 1993; Ryan 1993; Seier 1990). These needs and preferences are far from universal even within one user group, however. Walkers, joggers, runners, hikers, people walking dogs, and people pushing strollers are all pedestrians, for example, but they do not have the same needs and desires in terms of physical trail attributes or trail settings. The best physical responses will always be dictated by specific local conditions. Managers and planners should identify the present and likely future trail users and determine the needs and desires of those users. Users of different ages, motivations, activity preferences, etc., will have different physical trail needs and preferences. Ryan (1993), for example, suggests hosting a"community design workshop" for proposed rail-trails to identify these needs and preferences. Options. Here is a partial list (in no particular order) of physical design, layout, and maintenance alternatives that can help avoid or minimize trail conflicts: Provide adequate trail mileage and a variety of trail opportunities in terms of terrain, diffi- culty, scenery, etc. Trail impacts, including conflicts, may be due more to the number of users on the trail than the types of users present or their behavior. Therefore, one important physical response option is to provide more trails and perhaps different kinds of trails where possible and appropriate. This will help disperse use and cnn�*+bute to user satisfac;:�n. Use the least intrusive physical manipulation that will achieve area objectives (Hendee, Stankey and Lucas 1990). Some physical solutions can reduce the opportunities for some lH experiences sought by trail users (e.g., manipulated or hardened surfaces can make solitude and enjoyment of natural surroundings less achievable). Provide separate trails when necessary and possible. This may be necessary only for problem sections. In other situations, whole trails or separate systems should be provided for different uses. Flink and Searns (1993) advocate designing trails with specific users in mind to avoid conflict and unsafe trail conditions. They propose the following six alternative layouts for land-based trails (pp. 208-210). Single Tread, Single Use—The Appalachian Trail, for example, is designed and managed primarily for hiking. Single Tread, Multiple Use—Almost any urban, multiple-use trail is an example of this type of configuration. The W&OD Trail west of Washington, D.C., for example, is open to walking, running, bicycling, in-line skating, and other uses on the same paved tread. Single Tread Time of Us�--(i.e., different types of use allowed on the single tread at different times of day, days of week, season of the year, etc.). This concept is similar to swimming pool regulations that set aside ceRain times for lap swimming only. Snowmobile trails in that are open for multiple use during parts of the year but are restricted to snowmobiling during winter months illustrate this as do multiple-use trails that are set aside for periodic special events such as "walk-a-thons." Beachside trails in southern California that are closed to biking when the lifeguard determines they are too crowded are a form of time zoning. At such times a red light is lit indicating that bikers must walk their bikes. Single Tread, Zoning forMultiple UsE�--(i.e., different types of use allowed on different sections of the trail). For example, the Heritage Trail east of Dubuque, Iowa, has one section set aside for cross-country ski use in [he winter while the rest is available for snowmobiles. This type of zoning is also accomplished through design on the Platte River Greenway near Denver. Urban sections are paved and open to most nonmotorized uses, while some more rural sections are surfaced in crusher fines and are unusable by in-line skates and narrow- tired bicycles. Multiple Tread, Multiple Us�--(i.e., different treads provided for different types of users within the same corridor). The heavily used Ojai Trail northwest of Los Angeles in Ventura County has adopted this approach. A 10-foot-wide paved trail for bicyclists and pedestrians runs parallel to a 10-foot-wide wood chip trail designed for equestrian use. The two are separated by a 42-inch-high wooden fence. The Venice Beach Trail south of Los Angeles separates two- way bicycle traffic from two-way pedestrian and skater traffic using a yellow center line and stamps on the pavement to indicate appropriate uses within each lane. Multiple Tread, Single Use--(i.e., provide different treads for various skill levels or preferences among the same user type). Urban trails that include a hard-surfaced trail for walkers wi[h a nearby dirt path for runners illustrate this configuration as do cross-country ski areas that provide a set track on one side of a wider platform groomed for "skating." ��w� 19 G�' O L� McCoy and Stoner (1992) feel that providing separate trails for different users groups has many drawbacks, however. They point out that it can be expensive, cause resentment, be difficult to enforce, and limit opportunities for communication and cooperation among users. When separate trails are necessary, they suggest encouraging rather than requiring single use and explaining the reasons for this strategy at trailheads. This approach combines physical design with information and education efforts. Advocates of multiple-use trails see providing separate trails as a last resort. They feel positive interactions among users on the trail is the best way to foster communication, under- standing, and a strong, cooperative trail community. Paint a centerline on heavily used multi-purpose greenways. This can help communicate that users should expect traffic in both directions (Flink and Searns 1993) and encourage users to travel on the right and pass on the left. Screen trails for sight, sound, and smells (e.g., exhaust fumes from motorized vehicles). Design in buffers (physical, visual, etc.) by using topography, vegetation, the sound of rivers, etc. to insulate users from one another when possible. Add buffers as needed on existing trails. Provide separate trailheads for different users. Separate uses at trailheads and for the first (most crowded) stretches of the trail. These separate segregated trails could then converge, perhaps a mile from the trailhead, after users are more spread out. On the other hand, Attila Bality of the National Park Service Southwest- ern Region advocates forcing all trail users to share the same trail for some distance (e.g., a mile) before having single-use or restricted-use trails diverge from the main trail if necessary. His feeling is that users will only learn to understand one another and share trails if encour- aged to do so. Some may not share unless forced to do so. Design in adequate sight distances. Build trails wide enough to accommodate the expected use. Many sources and recom- mended standards are available for various user groups (see American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 1991; USDA Forest Service 1991; Flink and Searns 1993; Ryan 1993). Build trails wide enough for safe passing, and/or provide pullout areas. Design and construct trails to minimize erosion. Resource damage attributable to a particular user group can cause conflict as well. Numerous excellent sources of information are avail- able regarding trail construction and maintenance techniques (See Flink and Searns 1993; Ryan 1993; Albrecht 1992; American Hiking Society 1990; USDA Forest Service 1991; USDA Forest Service 1984; Proudman and Rajala 1981; Birchard and Proudman 1981). Some recom- mended actions to control erosion are: Drain the surface—design for drainage, and install drainage structures where needed. Excellent suggestions for options on mountain bike trails are included in McCoy and Stoner (1992). Avoid steep grades. ZU Use full bench construction (full trail tread supported by undisturbed soil rather than fill) when possible. Design trails across slopes, not parallel to the fall line. Keep trails (especially inclines) in areas of erosion-resistant soils. Use trail-hardening techniques where appropriate (e.g., geo-tech fabrics, turf stone or tread support blocks, etc.). Minimize erosion at switchbacks on mountain bike trails by keeping surface rough (slow speeds prevent mountain bikers from locking brakes), providing rock and log barriers at edges to prevent shortcutting and speeding to outer edge, or using climb- ing turns instead. Design to control speeds where necessary (e.g., where mountain bikes are sharing trails with walkers). Obviously, these techniques should only be used in situations where they will not create a safety hazard. To control speeds, managers have attempted to: Vary the trail surface (e.g., add aggregate). Vary the trail terrain (e.g., no banked turns). Design to include frequent turns. But avoid sharp turns after long straight sections on mountain bike trails since fast riders may lock their brakes and skid into these turns. Add or leave barriers (e.g., rocks, roots, bumps, curves, washboard surfaces, downed trees, narrow sections, waterbars, and other drainage structures, bumps, or "roll and dip" sections as described by McCoy and Stoner 1992). Be aware, however, that the Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits building barriers that would make a facility less accessible to persons with disabilities. Where trail systems consist of a combination of single-track and road sections, design and manage so that single-track sections are traveled uphill and the roads downhill. This will slow mountain bikes on narrow sections and reduce skidding. Design entrances to and exits from loops at angles to encourage one-way traffic where desired. (This reduces the problem of signing for one-way traffic, which may lead some users to let down their guard and not expect the oncoming traffic which may still occur.) Provide adequate facilities (toilets, places to tie horses, etc.). Have an effective maintenance program appropriate to the type of trail and its use. Flink and Searns (1993, 298-299) consider such programs essential for users' safety and experiences and provide an excellent example for greenways. According to Ryan (1993), trail mainte- nance programs should address, at a minimum, the following: signs and markings, sight distance and clearance, surface repair, drainage, sweeping and clearing, structural deteriora- tion, and illumination. She suggests involving the public in these activities through adopt-a- trail or similar programs. ��w� 21 Management Responses Once a trail is physically in place, managers can still have a tremendous inFluence on user safety, natural resource protection, and user experiences. Management actions can take many forms, from doing nothing to closing areas. The alternatives can be grouped into three categories: information and education, user involvement, and regulations and enforcement. Considerable overlap exists among these three groups, of course. This is especially true of information/education and user involvement (e.g., a volunteer trail patrol provides information and educates users, involves users in taking responsibility for their own trails and use, and may well assist in communicating and enforcing regulations and preventing resource damage). Information and education, user involvement, and A regulations and enforcement are discussed separately below. Information and Education—Uninformed, unintentional, unskilled, and careless actions by users are often cited as the causes of many problems in outdoor recreation areas (Roggenbuck 1992; Roggenbuck and Ham 1986). Many managers feel that this is particularly true of trail-related prob- lems. If this is true, educating the public and persuading them to act responsibly should be effective strategies for improving behavior on trails. According to McCoy and Stoner (1992), "effective commu- nication is the best way to prevent user dissatisfaction and conflict." Ryan (1993) advocates educa- tion as the key to solving problems associated with mountain bike use and for promoting trail-user etiquette. Many others echo the importance of trail-user education (Merriman 1988). Whether the behavior being promoted is called trail etiquette, trail ethics, trail courtesy, or trail sharing, informa- tion and education efforts are almost universally supported as an essential strategy for providing opportunities for high-quality recreation experiences. Influencing human behavior through informa- tion and education is an attractive alternative to controlling or coercing compliance through more heavy-handed techniques that can impact recreation experiences (Manfredo 1992; Lucas 1981). This preference is strongly held by recreationists (Roggenbuck and Ham 1986) and seems to be shared by most managers. Like other good things, however, even information and education can be overdone. Lucas (1981) cautions managers against providing too much information, especially in backcountry settings where users may be seeking discovery and exploration. Considerable literature exists on the use of information and education in recreation settings. An excellent reference is Influencing Human Behavior.� Theory and Applications in Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Resources Management, edited by Manfredo (1992). Particularly relevant is the chapter by Roggenbuck entitled, "Persuasion to Reduce Resource Impacts and Visitor Conflicts." He notes that a user's motive for engaging in undesirable behavior will influence how effective persuasion will be in changing the behavior. In terms of the five types of undesirable visitor actions identified by Hendee et al. (1990), Roggenbuck proposes that persuasive communication has low potential for influencing illegal or unavoidable (e.g., human waste) acts, but has very high potential for changing uninformed acts. Similarly, persuasion has moderate potential to influence careless acts (e.g., litter- ing) and high potential of modifying unskilled actions. Gramann and Vander Stoep (1987) categorize violations of norms in parks into six types. Roggenbuck places them in the following order in terms of how effective persuasive communication would be in altering each. From the least likely to be influenced by persuasion to the most likely, they are: status-conforming (i.e., do it to be "in" with the group), willful, releasor-cue (e.g., seeing others do it), responsibility-denial, unintentional, and uninformed. Roggenbuck 992) identifies three distinct conceptual routes to persuasion and learning. Each has relevance to designing effective information and education efforts to promote trail sharing. Applied Behavior Analysis—This approach addresses the user's behavior itself and not beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, or values that may be associated with it. This is most frequently at- tempted through rewards, punishments, manipulation of the environment, or behavioral prompts (e.g., written or oral messages that state "Share the Trail"). Because this approach does not deal with underlying beliefs or attitudes, however, it is not likely to bring about long-term changes in behavior. Central Route to Persuasion (also called the "central route to attitude change" by Pe[ry, McMichael and Brannon 1992}—This approach attempts to change behavior by changing the attitudes and beliefs related to them. It attempts to get recipients to consider the message more carefully and then agree with it. If recipients consider the message and agree with it, they change their beliefs and then act accordingly (one hopes in more desirable ways). In other words, get users to consciously consider their actions rather ihan spontaneously engage in behavior [hat may be undesirable (Vincent and Fazio 1992). The central route to persua- sion shou�d have better long-term effects because users' new beliefs and attitudes guide their behavior now and in the future. For example, if a user considers and agrees with a campaign promoting an attitude of "Treat Other Trail Users the Way You Would Like To Be Treated," they might internalize the message and act more considerately in the future. To be effective, the user must be motivated to pay attention, be able to understand and process the message, and have the necessary skills and abilities to respond. According to Roggenbuck, the effec- tiveness of the persuasion will be influenced by characteristics of the recipient, the message, and the situation. Low-knowledge, first-time users are generally easiest to persuade. Strong, well-supported, specific, clear, relevant, interesting messages tailored to particular audiences are most effective. Well-timed situations with adequate time and few distractions are needed for central route persuasion. Peripheral Route to Persuasion (also called the "peripheral route to attitude change" by Pe[ty, McMichael and Brannon 1992�This approach applies when users are unable or unwilling [o give the message their attention or consideration. Therefore, lit[le attitude change or long- term effect is achieved. When users are overloaded with information, they often block out managers' messages or use simple decision rules (e.g., is the source credible or important?) to determine their response. For users in a crowded and distracting trailhead parking lot, for example, a poster of Clint Eastwood wiih the caption, "Good guys share trails," may be more effective than a carefully thought out, well-supported trail-sharing brochure. Timing and some (but not too much) repetition of the message are critical to the success using the peripheral route to persuasion. The following information and education advice offered by Roggenbuck and Ham (1986) applies well to any such efforts to reduce trail conflict or promote trail sharing: Programs become feasible and effective when managers are able to identify clientele groups and their characteristics, place information where people can easily receive it, provide infor- mation early in the decision-making process, and present the information in an interesting and understandable way (p. Management-62). Identifying the particular users in need of the information is a critical and often overlooked part of the education process. For example, Matheny (1979) found that 14- to 17-year-olds were the users most likely to shorccut switchbacks on trails. A successful campaign to reduce shortcutting of trail switchbacks would specifically target those users and do so in ways tha[ would be interesting and compelling to them. Similarly, information and education efforts to avoid or reduce trail conflicts should be directed at the par[icular users involved. Information and education programs related to promoting trail sharing should have one or more of the following objectives: Communicate why the trail is shared (Reese 1992). Communicate that cooperation can benefit all. Skye Ridley, executive director of the Pikes Peak Area Trails Coalition, notes that the challenge is to convince people that "it's cool to share trails." Teach about other users (especially similarities among users). One study found mountain o bike riders to be similar to hikers in many respects. Although the riders had fairly accurate perceptions of these similanties, the hikers did not (Watson, Williams, and Daigle 1991). A Determining the similarities among different user groups and documenting the extent to which trail users participate in multiple trail activities could ease "us and them" feelings and reduce conflict. Communicate the consequences af problem behaviors (e.g., from impact on other users to loss of access for offenders). Build consideration and trust. Teach trail ethics, including [he following: Courtesy toward other trail users and concern toward the environment (Keller 1990). Who should yield to whom and why. Respect and tolerance for others. Responsibility for resource protection. What interferes with other activities. Communicate physical and social trail conditions to help users have more accurate expecta- tions of what and whom they are likely to find on a par[icular trail: Difficulty (grade, length, tread, etc.). Trail length and location. What types and numbers of users might be encountered. Ivy, Steward, and Lue (1992) suggest communicating worst-case scenarios to boaters to allow users to adjust their goals more appropriately. Some managers point out that users have to be realistic and understand that they will sometimes run into the "few bad apples" that exist in every user group. Teach what causes resource impacts and how to minimize them (e.g., "stay on the trail," "don't skid down hills," etc.). Reach users as early as possible. Many managers feel conflicts are most severe near trailheads since users [end to be most congested there. They suggest focusing education efforts at trailheads and in the first mile or two of trail. Trail etiquette and trail-sharing guidelines are found in many brochures and other literature produced by a wide variety of trail organizations and management agencies. Appendix 4 contains a compre- hensive list of specific examples of written materials that deal directly or indirectly with avoiding or reducing trail conflicts by promoting responsible trail use, trail sharing, etiquette, use dispersal, low- impact use, etc. The names of the organizations producing them are included, and their addresses can be found in Appendix 2. In addition to the existing programs and literature just noted, trail managers and advocates use many other strategies for communicating with and educating trail users. Many of these are listed below. Some are noted by Kulla (1991), Ryan (1993), and Martin and Taylor (1981), while the majority were suggested in conversations with trail managers. Using a combination of the following approaches will produce better results than relying on only one or two techniques. Altematives include: Posters. Brochures, flyers, pamphlets, newsletters, and other printed materials. Maps, guidebooks, visitors' guides, etc. These can incorporate trail regulations, low-impac[ and shared-use messages, information to disperse use, alternative routes, as well as the reasons for the regulations. Interpretive rides/walks/etc., by land management staff. Presentations before clubs, retailers, school groups, etc. Videos (e.g., "In Their Shoes" produced by Arizona State Committee on Trails). Volunteer [rail patrols. •"User swaps." This concept builds on the very successfu] "ROMP and STOMP" events named after [he social gatherings between an equestrian group and a mountain bike club called Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers (ROMP) in California. These joint rides and social events promoted communication between the groups, gave users the opportunity to try the other's trail activity, and also desensitized the horses to mountain bikes. This concept can be extended to become user swaps belween any or all trail activities. Slide shows. Multi-use trail educational kits for schools (Isbill 1993). Joint planning meetings. Public meetings. Role modeling by rangers and others. Personal requests and information from peers. Leafletting on or off the trail (most appropriate at trailheads, equipment stores, etc., ra[her than on the trail itsel�. "Traii Days" events. •"Safety Days" on the trail for presentations, workshops (e.g., radar checks to teach bicyclists what the speed limit feels tike when they are riding), fun, and public relations. Information sent to recent purchasers of trail vehicles, bicycles, or equipment. Trained personnel (staff or volunteers) stationed at trailheads, visitor centers, campgrounds, etc. (e.g., use backcountry rangers or other irail staff/volunteers to inform and educate users about trail sharing). Fact sheets. Articles in magazines, newspapers, and other mass media outlets. Educational "roadblocks" on trails. Classes by retailers, land managers, or trail groups to teach trail techniques and trail ethics, communicate area policies, etc. Multi-use surveys at trailheads. i Similarities among user groups communicated and emphasized. The "Mountain Bike Action Kit," for example, suggests that bicyclists attending meetings or hearings "try not to look like bicyclists at all!" (Bicycle Federation of America 1990, 7). Understanding of other user groups' concerns. Attendance at other trail-user groups' meetings. One-on-one peer education on the trail. Bumper stickers or window stickers. •"Hang tags," developed by LIMB for bikes sold or repaired in its area, have a mountain bike r code of etiquette on one side and a"positive people interaction" or "care for the land" c� o message on the other. This approach is also used by Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI). Workshops on low-impact use, trail sharing, etc. Theme events to enhance activity image (e.g., "bike for birds"). New users recruited and educated. Public service announcements CPSAs). Informational signs. Signs with positive messages and images for spor[ (e.g., promoting responsible mountain biking). •"Burma Shave" signs (i.e., an entertaining, sequential series of signs). •"No Trace Race" or "No Trace Ride" even[s to provide a fun way ta communicate low-impact messages (Kulla 1991). Positive messageslimages promoted by equipment manufacturers in their advertising. This is done effectively by the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council. Accurate information provided to users so they know what encounters to expect on paRicular trails. Water bottles printed with "Rules of the Trail." Contests and awards for individuals or groups. When asked how they promoted trail etiquette, a survey of rail-trail managers conducted by the Rails- To-Trails Conservancy in 1991 found that numerous methods were being used on rail-trails. The 78 managers responding listed the following techniques. They are arranged here from the most to the least frequently reported: signs, brochures, ranger patrols, trail guides, presentations to civic groups, presentations to children, visitor contaci areas, volunteer patrols, surveys, striping the trail surface, press releases, and trail-user groupsJword of mouth. When asked which of these were the most effective, ranger patrols were mentioned most frequently followed by signs and brochures. User Involvement—In many respects, user involvement is a special, intensive kind of active, hands- on user educa[ion. By actively involving users in trail planning, management, or conflict resolution, they are forced to work [ogether and, as a result, can begin to better understand and appreciate one another's needs, expectations, and perspectives (e.g., user swaps such as "ROMP and STOMP" events). Trail advocates, planners, and managers should at[empt to work with unaffiliated individual users and/or with organized user groups before resorting to obtrusive regulations or [rail closures. There are obvious efficiencies in working with organizations, but attempts should also be made to involve unaffiliated users. These independents are often less informed and more in need of educa- tion. There may also be cases, however, where members of an organized group have negative attitudes toward other users or are uncooperative (Owens 1985). In these cases as well, working with unaffiliated users is essential. There are many compelling reasons to involve trail users in trail planning and management. Most 2G important, involving users does the following: Gives different users the opportunity to learn about and work with one another. Gives different users the opportunity to understand one another's needs and see their simi- larities with one another. Builds understanding, cooperation, and trust through working together. Gives trail advocates, planners, and managers an efficient channel to learn from users and communicate with them. There are numerous options for how to involve trail users. The following strategies are effective ways of involving users in any aspect of trail planning or management. They can be used to involve any trail-user group or can be used as ways to get different user groups to interact constructively. Options include: Public meetings (although this approach often is not seen as a means for involving users for the long term, it can be used as one way of initiating many of the approaches that follow). Trail advisory councils composed of representatives of various user groups. Joint trail construction or maintenance projects among different user groups. Joint trail construction or maintenance skills workshops among different user groups. •"Trail Days" events sponsored jointly by different user groups. Joint fundraising or lobbying efforts. "Adopt-a-trail" efforts. Volunieer trail groups. They can be organized around a particular trail (the Bay Area Ridge Trai] Council is an excellent example), a single trail activity, a coalition of different activities, etc. Cooperative lobbying for [rails. Cooperation among organizations on trail planning. Volunteer trail patrols. "ROMP and STOMP" events. Volunteer "Host" programs. Land manager trail walks with affected user groups to discuss problems and explore solutions (Keller 1990). Issues identification workshops, community design workshops, public hearings, citizen advisory committees, surveys, and mass media outreach are all suggested as effective public involvement tools for creating or managing multi-use trails (Ryan 1993). Wi[h any user invotvement effort, it is essential to involve the right users early on. Recruiting users who are open-minded, cons[ruc[ive, and willing to work together will make creative and successful solutions much more likely. The East Bay Regional Park District, for example, credits much of the success of its volunteer trail patrol to the hand-picked group of constructive equestrian and mountain bike leaders they recruited to head up the program. L��V 27 Involving trail users early on sometimes means that the users themselves must initiate their own involvement efforts. For example, the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and the Sierra Club, a vocal opponent of mountain bikes on trails, recently began a series of ineetings to try to resolve their differences. The meetings are being facilitated by professional mediators and will attempt to establish an ongoing dialogue, develop mutually agreeable standards and policies, and begin a joint public mountain biking education program. Recreation Equipment, Inc. (REI), is under- writing the meetings (IMBA 1993)• G'� o Regulations and Enforcement—There will always be some who cannot be influenced by positive, less forceful means of persuasion (Baker 1990; Watson, Williams and Daigle 1991). Most trail-sharing Programs will not succeed without regulations and effective enforcement for those whose lack of consideration could negate the positive impact made by the majority. Regulations and enforcement efforts are most effective when developed and implemented with the input and cooperation of affected user groups (Ryan ]993 Kepner-Trego Analysis 1987). It is also important to communicate to users the reasons for any regulations adopted. This will help minimize misunderstandings and confusion among those affected (McCoy and Stoner 1992). However, it is important to re-emphasize that excessive regulations and enforcement can spoil recreation experiences for many users. Conflict wi[h o[her users could be effectively reduced through elaborate surveillance systems and heavy- handed enforcement where all inconsiderate users were immediately "cuffed and stuffed" into await- ing police cruisers. But the freedom and sense of escape so many trail users seek would be lost. Only the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve area objectives should be employed. Regulatiorc�—Well thought out regulations provide managers and their staffs with the authority to enforce safe and courteous trail behavior (Flink and Searns 1993) and help clarify for users wha[ is expected of them. Regulations should be posted prominently at trailheads and other appropriate locations. There are three broad areas of regulations that managers often consider. Speed limits—Controlling vehicle speeds on trails is essential for user safety as well as the peace of mind of other users. Although education can be effective in this regard, speed regulations are sometimes necessary. Ryan (1993) cautions that speed limits should be used only as a last resort since they require consistent, ongoing enforcement, may not improve real or perceived safety on the trail, and may discourage bicyclists from using trails for commut- ing. Addressing mountain biking in particular, Kulla (1991) suggests that speeds must allow riders to stop in one-half the distance they can see. Keller (1990) considers a single speed limit for an entire trail unreasonable and advocates basing limits on sight distances and other trail features. Zonin�Separating users can be an effective way of minimizing contacts and reducing conflicts. This approach is not without its critics, however. Arbitrary zoning may unnecessar- ily restrict use if the potential for conflict is low (Owens 1985). Segregating, restricting, or prohibiting users is advocated only as a last resorc by Keller (1990), who suggests dispersing use to guard against concentrating mountain bikes on a small number of trails and possibly increasing impacts there. Where appropriate, zoning can be organized around: Time of use (by day/week/month/season/year/etc.). Trail section (e.g., snowmobiling on half of a trail and cross-county skiing on the other hal�. Activin,�. Type of trail experience sought. For example, some areas can be set aside where conditions are best for solitude, self-reliance, and challenge while other areas can be managed for more comfortable, secure, and social experiences. The USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management accomplish this by using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to plan for and zone a continuum of different settings areas where conditions are most conducive for achieving different types of experi- ences (Clark and Stankey 1979). The six classes of settings are "Primitive," "Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized," "Semi-Primitive Motorized," "Roaded Natural," "Rural," and "Urban." The following factors are considered and managed when assigning areas to particular classes and managing them to provide the desired experiences: access, remoteness, naturalness, facilities and site management, social encounters, visitor impacts, and visitor management. Acknowledging that the products of recreation (and trail) outings are e.�periences, and planning and managing to provide for a wicle range of opportunities for different experiences is more realistic than managing for different activities <e.g., hiking, off-road motorcycling, hunting, etc.). Trail users participating in the same activities do not all desire the same trail experiences. See Hammitt (1988) for use of the ROS as a means of analyzing and managing conflict potential. Right-of-Wa�Regulations on who must yield to whom are helpful. For example, the IMBA "Triangle" could be enforced, whereby bicyclists yield to pedestrians, and pedestrians and bicyclists both yield to horseback riders. Some managers would also like to see this modified into a"Yielding Square" that would include the responsibilities of motorized users to those they meet on the trails. The following are other examples of regulations that have been or could be established for multiple- use trails: Forbid cutting of switchbacks. Mandate one-way travel on certain trails. Require bicyclists to walk their bikes in congested or conflict-prone areas or during congested times. Require bicycles to have bells as is now the case on trails managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in California. Close trails or trail sections during sensitive seasons (e.g., muddiest times or wildlife breeding times). Charge user fees (to help fund trail programs or disperse use). Designate appropriate places to tie horses. Require completion of a trail-sharing and/or minimum impact course to be eligible for a mandatory trail permit. Require users to repair any impacts their use might have caused (e.g., after a major motor- cycle event or large group eg;.�estrian event). Require users to stay on the trails. Close certain sections, areas, or types of trails (e.g., no mountain bikes on crowded single- track trails). Enact a"Model Path User Ordinance" like that of King County, Washington, which contains 10 articles covering issues from littering to respect for other users. Enforcement—How to gain compliance with necessary regulations has been a great challenge in many trail areas. This is especially true where land areas are large and budgets are lean. The follow- ing are important considerations for determining how to enforce regulations on trails: Inform users of the regulations: Post regulations at trailheads and include them in trail brochures and on maps (Ryan 1993). Ryan also suggests communicating why and how the regulations will be enforced and what the applicable penalties are. Post and enforce regulations from the very beginning on newly opened trails. Estab- lishing desirable patterns of behavior from the start is far easier than trying to change A bad user habits later on. Some feel using wordings such as "Not Recommended" rather than "No" in messages produces a more cooperative atmosphere and better compliance (McCoy and Stoner 1992}. Many managers, however, feel that offending users will take advantage of more lenient wordings. Communicate the reasons for regulations to the users affected. For example, communicating to mountain bikers [hat "up [rail and down road" rules for travel directions are enforced to help keep speeds at safer levels and skidding at a minimum may help with compliance. Enforce rules and regulations consistently to assure [hat there is no perception of discrimina- tion among different user groups. Employ a variety of on-site enforcement personnel if possible and appropriate: Peer policing programs (e.g., peer pressure). Volunteer trail patrols. Uniformed enforcement officers. Cooperative agreements with local law enforcement and fire protection agencies. Consider sentencing trail offenders to work service on the trail as part (or all) of their penalty (Goldstein 1987 as cited in Keller 1990). Communicate emergency procedures for users and emergency personnel. Summary The previous section presents some of the many physical and management responses available to attempt to avoid and minimize conflicts on multiple-use trails. All of these have been employed on multiple-use trails with varying degrees of success. The right choice for any particular situation will depend on many local factors and involve some experimentation. General principles to guide responses are offered in the next section. In general, though, using a strategy that employs a combi- nation of techniques with a long-term perspective is best. The city of Edmonton, Alberta, for ex- ample, has had good results with an integrated program of design, social marketing, education, regulation, and enforcement for its trail system. Unfortunately, there are cases where conflict has degenerated to the point where the only feasible recourse is direct intervention by experts trained in conflict resolution. Even binding arbitration may be necessary and appropriate in some cases where the techniques mentioned above were employed too late or too tentatively. 30 C. Conclusion Multiple-use ("shared-use") trails are an efficient, economical, and increasingly common way to provide trail opportunities. Due to limited rights-of-way, multiple-use trails are sometimes the only alternative. Through thoughtful planning and diligent management, such trails can provide safe, high-quality recreation experiences without unacceptable damage to natural resources. However, the conflicts that sometimes accompany shared use of trails can be very emotional and are not issues that managers are likely to eliminate altogether. With time, patience, commitment, and cooperation among users and between users and managers (McCoy and Stoner 1992) as well as diligent and aggressive planning and management, shared-use trails can be an excellent way to accommodate many types of users with minimal conflict. There is no one best way to accommodate multiple uses on the same trail while at the same time avoiding (or at least minimizing) conflicts. The best approach will always be dictated by local condi[ions and ihe resources available. However, the literature reviewed and the trail manager input received do provide considerable guidance. Based on this information, 12 principles are offered for minimizing conflicts on multiple-use trails. 1. Recognize Conflict as Goal Interference—Recreational conflict can best be understood as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior" (Jacob and Schreyer 1980, 369). Therefore, trail con- flicts are possible among different user groups, among different users within the same user group, and as a result of factors (e.g., lack of tolerance for others) not related to a user's trail activity at all. 2. Provide Adequate Trail Opportunities—Offer adequate trail mileage and provide opportunities for a variety of trail experiences. This will help reduce congestion and allow users to choose the conditions that are best suited to the experiences they desire. As in the Recreation Oppartunity Spectrum (ROS), this will require a focus on trail experiences as opposed to trail activities. Opportu- nities for different trail experiences can be maximized by providing trails that vary in terms of terrain, difficulty, access, remoteness, naturalness, facilities and site management, social encounters, visitor impacts, and visitor management. 3. Min�mlze Number of Contacts in Problem Areas—Each contact among trail users (as well as contacc with evidence of others) has the potential to result in conflict. So, as a general rule, reduce the number of user contacts whenever possible. This is especially we in congested areas and at trailheads. Disperse use and provide separate trails where necessary after careful consideration of the additional environmental impact this may cause. Recognize that separating trail users may limit opportunities for communication, understanding, and eventual cooperation among different user groups. 4. Involve Users as Early as Possible—Identify the present and likely future users of each trail and involve them in the process of avoiding and resolving conflicts as early as possible, preferably before conflicts occur. For proposed trails, possible conflicts and their solutions should be addressed during the planning and design stage with the involvement of prospective users (Ryan 1993, 79). New and emerging uses should be anticipated and addressed as early as possible with the involvement of par[icipants. Likewise, existing and developing conflicts on present trails need to be faced quickly and addressed with the participation of those affected. 5. Understand User Needs—Determine the motivations, desired experiences, norms, setting prefer- ences, and other needs of the present and likely future users of each trail. This "customer" informa- tion is critical for anticipating and managing conflicts. This process must be ongoing and will require time, patience, effort, and sincere, active listening. �1 6. Identify the Actual Sources of Conflict—Help users to identify the specific tangible cavses of any conflicts they are experiencing (e.g., "teenagers partying and littering at Liberty Campground," "horses fouling the water at Peabody Spring," "mountain bikers speeding down the last hill before the Sills Trailhead," etc.). In other words, get beyond emotions and stereotypes as quickly as possible, and get to the roots of any problems that exist. 7. Work With Affected Users—Work with all parties involved to reach mutually agreeable solutions to these speciFic issues. Users who are not involved as part of the solution are more likely to be part of the problem now and in the future. For example, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council is considering "full and balanced representation" of key user groups on its county committees as it plans sections of A its new trail (Isbill 1993)• 8. Promote Trail Etiquette—Minimize the possibility that any particular trail contaci will result in conflict by actively and aggressively promoting responsible trail behavior. Use existing educational materials or modify them to better meet local needs. Target these educational efforts, get the infor- mation into users' hands as early as possible, and present it in interesting and understandable ways (Roggenbuck and Ham 1986). 9. Encourage Posidve Interaction Among Different Users--Trail users are usually not as different from one ano[her as they believe. Pcoviding positive interactions both on and off the trail will help break down baniers and stereotypes, and build understanding, good will, and cooperation. This can be accomplished through a variety of strategies such as sponsoring "user swaps," joint trail building or maintenance projects, filming trail-sharing videos, and forming Trail Advisory Councils. 10. Favor "Light-Handed Management"—Use the most "light-handed approaches" that will achieve area objectives (Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas 1990). This is essential in order to provide the freedom of choice and natural environments that are so important to trail-based recreation. Intrusive design and coercive management are not compatible with high-quality trail experiences. 11. Plan and Act I.ocally—Whenever possible, address issues regarding multiple-use trails at the local level (Keller 1990; Kulla 1991). This allows greater sensitivity to local needs and provides better flexibility for addressing difficult issues on a case-by-case basis. Local action also facilitates involve- ment of [he people who will be most affected by the decisions and most able to assist in their suc- cessful implementation. 12. Monitor Progress—Monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the decisions made and programs implemented. It is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions designed to minimize con- flicts; provide for safe, high-quality trail experiences; and protect natural resources. Conscious, deliberate monitoring is the only way to determine if conflicts are indeed being reduced and what changes in programs might be needed. This is only possible within the context of clearly understood and agreed-upon objectives for each trail area. Two exis[ing visitor impact management frameworks do consider area objectives and offer great potential for monitoring trail settings and trail use impacts: Visitor Impact Management System (VIM�This model, developed for the National Park Service by the National Park and Conservation Association, assists managers in setting objectives, selecting impact indicators, and monitoring impacts against measurable stan- dards set for each are� <Graefe, K:.i�s aad �'a;,ke 1�90). Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)—This system was developed by and for the USDA Forest Service and operates much like the VIM framework (Stankey, Cole and Lucas 1985). �2 II. RESEARCH NEEDS IN AVOIDING AND G CONFLICTS ON MLTLTIPLE-USE TRAIIS Part I of this document reviewed and synthesized the existing research and state of the practice regarding conflicts on multiple-use trails. This review revealed gaps in our present understanding of how to avoid and resolve conflicts on multiple-use trails. The following section identifies research questions that could be examined in order to fill these gaps in what we know. Some of the sug- gested research is theoretical in nature, and some is suggested for applied experimentation by man- agers in the field. Part II is organized around an outline similar to that used for Part I: A. The Challenges Faced by Multiple-Use Trail Managers Maintaining User Safety Protecting Natural Resources Providing High-Quality UserExperiences B. Ways to Avoid or Minimize Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails Physical Responses Management Responses Information and Education User Involvement Regulations and Enforcement Overall Approach Other Research Needs There is some overlap among the research topics suggested in these sections, and no attempt has been made to put the suggestions in any priority order. A. The Challenges Faced by Multiple-Use Tratl Managers Maintaining User Safety Develop a more uniform and acceptable "passing alert" word or phrase for faster users to use to alert others (regardless of their activity) of their desire to pass. "Passing on the left," "Excuse me," "Thank you," and many others are possibilities (Kulla 1991). How to pass other users (from ahead and behind) in the least intrusive ways possible should be examined. How to alert other users and when to do so should be examined from the perspective of the person being passed. This applies to passing other types of users or passing people engaged in the same activity. What are the stopping distances and safe operating speeds of various trail travel modes under various trail conditions? These data could be used to better establish or justify safe operating speeds and speed limits. It has been suggested that bells be supplied on new bikes as standard equipment (Kulla 1991). How L �w� i; accepted are bells by trail bicyclists? Are bells effective safety equipment when used? How should bikers be instructed to use bells to alert others of their intention to pass? Would a new, more stylish bell design (or other sound-making device) encourage more riders to install and use them? Would some other sound-making device be more effective or accepted? Protect�ng Natural Resources r Better studies of the environmental impacts (on soils, wildlife, vegetation, water quality, air quality, etc.) of various trail activities in different environments and under different conditions are needed. A Although some fear that such research would fuel unconstructive arguments about "who causes the most damage," a better understanding of what and how damage occurs under different conditions could help in designing and targeting physical and management strategies to minimize impacts. A"Statement of Principles Concerning Multi-Use Recreational Trails by Non-Motorized Users" (as presented in Keller 1990, 39) calls on Federal and State land management agencies to "undertake a cooperative research project to comprehensively analyze the impact of different users on different rypes of trails and other users, together with the development of a handbook on trail design practices that can help accommodate multiple user types" (Keller 1990). Guidelines and procedures for assessing environmental impact and public safety in an objective way are called for by Keller (1990). The Visitor Impact Management (VIM) (Graefe, Kuss, and Vaske 1990) and Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey, Cole, and Lucas 1985) approaches would be excellent frameworks to apply to trail environments. Test applications of these approaches should be undertaken for trail systems of different types in different parts of the country. More research and experimentation on the merits of dispersed versus concentrated use should be undertaken (Cole 1986). Experiments comparing these two strategies for trails are needed to better understand the relationship between trail use levels and impacts. Provfd�ng High-Qual�ty User Experiences More theoretical research is needed to understand and define what conflict is. The best definitions should be refined and applied specifically to trail-based recreation so that managers, users, and researchers can improve understanding and communication in this area. Better ways to actually measure and evaluate conflicts, as well as satisfaction, are needed. Meaning- ful comparisons across studies will not be possible until more valid and reliable instruments are available. Measurement tools more in line with the definition proposed by Jacob and Schreyer (1980) would be most helpful (Watson et al. in press). We need to understand how recreationists go about determining how satisfied they are with a certain experience. In particular, how and to what extent are their feelings and emotions attributable to the product, the individual, and the situation (Williams 1988). Stuuies that determine [t�e ty•pes of experiences different types of users are seeking would be uscful 34 to managers as they attempt to provide opportunities for those experiences. For example, are the users of a particular park more interested in solitude or challenge on the trails? What are the norms (standards of behavior) of various trail groups? How consistent and stable are these norms among participants in various activities and within various geographic trail areas? How different are these norms among conflicting groups? We cannot effectively attempt to modify behav- ior or influence norms until we have a better understanding of just what each group considers to be inappropriate behavior in various situations. How are the normative "rules" for trail areas established (Owens 1985)? Substituting another site or activity is thought to be a common coping strategy employed by trail users who experience conflict. More research, especially leading to improved theory, is needed on recreation substitution. What factors are most important to how sensitive a trail user is to conflict—individual differences, situational factors, or activity influences? Do individuals and groups that are experiencing conflict perceive trail areas and the purposes of these areas differently? In what ways? Existing theoretical models of what causes conflict need to be better tested so that managers can understand and thereby anticipate conflict before it becomes entrenched (Owens 1985)• What is the relationship between satisfaction (and conflict) and the density of other users? Is the behavior of other trail users more important than the number of others on the trail (Owens 198�)? Research involving long-term monitoring of areas is needed to see if conflict is really distinct from crowding. Owens (1985) suggests that this would be best undertaken in intensively used areas where some users are dependent upon that particular resource. More research should examine the relative importance of social and psychological aspects of conFlict versus the physical aspects (e.g., competition for resources) of conflict. What psychological processes take place when the normative "niles" of an area are broken (Owens 1985)? A better understanding of the coping strategies trail users employ is needed. What are these strate- gies; how and when are they triggered? How can we better predict displacement, substitution, and dissatisfaction caused by conflict so we can manage accordingly? Coping strategies to reduce conflict are thought to change the recreation experience for those need- ing to employ them. What are these changes, and how do they occur? More studies of conflict are needed in nonwilderness and nonbackcountry locations. Who are the most conflict-sensitive users, and what makes them different from others (Owens 1985)? What is happening to the most conflict-sensitive users? Are they being displaced, accepting second- rate places and times, or staying and having less satisfying experiences (Owens 1985)? Studies of the long-term users of an area might be revealing. Are they continuing to use the area L �w u 35 because they are the most tolerant and are experiencing little conflict, or are they experiencing high conflict and are just unwilling to substitute other times or places (Owens 1985)? C�9' O To what extent is conflict related to personal characteristics, level of commitment, and level of experi- ence (Owens 1985)? B. Ways to Avoid or Minimize Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails Pbys�cal Responses The best and most natural ways to screen trails for sight, sound, smell, etc., should be determined. This could help reduce the level, duration, and intensity of trail-user contacts. Better research should be conducted regarding the durability of different trail surface materials. More research into the best ways to control and repair erosion is needed along with a better under- standing of how to protect and restore vegetation. Important criteria for all these techniques are that they be natural-looking, safe, and as unobtrusive as possible. How are speeds and use patterns affected by different vail widths, surfaces, shoulders, signs, etc.? For example, what are the best widths for greenways in various environments and at various ex- pected use levels? A thorough review of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards should be conducted to determine if they can be improved to avoid and reduce trail-user conflicts more effecavely. Better empirical data on the behavior of trail users is needed to improve design and safety standards. Some of these could be modeled after studies conducted by the auto industry. Continued advances in reducing noise and pollution levels of motorized trail vehicles are needed. Management Responses Information and Education—What are the best and most cost-effective means of communicating with trail users? What are the most effective means of unobtrusively influencing the attitudes and behaviors of trail users? Research should be conducted on which modes <e.g., brochures, signs, volunteer trail patrols, uniformed officers, etc.) and what messages (e.g., positive, negative, short, long, etc.) are most effective in influencing attitudes and changing the behavior of trail users. Better ways to provide information to users early in their trips and during their trip-planning process should be developed. Computerized systems should be considered for this purpose (Roggenbuck and Ham 1986). We need to improve our understanding of users' characteristics, beiieviu�, and information needs. I This will aid in the development of information programs (Roggenbuck and Ham 1986). Who are the users within each user group who are most in need of behavior changes? Which users are most likely to be uninformed or commit unintentional, unskilled, or careless acts that lead to conflict? What are the characteristics of "renegade" users, and how can they best be targeted and reached? What are the best ways to break down false impressions different user groups often hold of one another? How can we get users to appreciate (or try) activities that are new to them? Research on the extent of crossover among different trail activities is needed. Watson, Williams, and Daigle (1991) found that mountain bike riders in certain parts of the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area were similar to hikers in many respects. Determining the similarities among different user groups and documenting the extent to which trail users participate in multiple trail activities could ease "us and them" feelings and reduce conflict. How can manufacturers of trail-related equipment and supplies be encouraged to become more involved in education programs, resolving conflicts, and helping to address other trail issues? Is a bike shop or manufacturer "tax" on new mountain bikes or a license fee feasible and acceptable (Kulla 1991)? More uniform trail ethics or etiquette guidelines should be developed (Kulla 1991). The perspectives of all major user groups need to be considered when drafting these. User Involvement—What are the barriers to users becoming involved in trail clubs and trail coali- tions? What are the best ways to involve the public in long-term, constructive trail efforts? How effective are trail outings, on-trail work projects, meetings, working groups, etc., in this regard? What skills do managers need to involve the public effectively in planning and managing trails for shared use? Reguladons and Enforcement—How can trail speed limits most effectively be enforced? Experiments with personal identification of trail users (suggested by Sharon Saare and re!: ted in Keller 1990) should be carried out. Name tags, license plates, or other means could be tried in problem areas to encourage accountability and responsibility. It might also be worth experimenting with messages similar to the "I'm a professional, how's my driving?" stickers on many commercial trucks. Trail groups might produce and market tee shirts, buttons, etc., with an "I'm a Responsible Trail User—How's my Riding (Walking, Skiing, etc.)?" statement. L �w� i7 Or�erall Approacb What are the tangible issues that result in conflict among and within trail uses? These facts could help users and managers get beyond stereotypes and identify the issues among and between activi- ties that most commonly result in conflict. Case studies should be conducted comparing approaches and conditions beiween areas where conflict has been avoided (or managed well) and areas experiencing severe problems with user o conflict. Such research could begin to objectively identify promising approaches and favorable conditions for successful trail sharing. Conflict resolution and conflict avoidance success stories for multiple-use trails should be better documented and publicized. Chavez, Winter, and Baas (1993) suggest a national exchange of ideas among land managers to help establish what works regarding mountain bike management in various areas and under various conditions. How effective would various professional conflict resolution and binding arbitration techniques be in cases of intense conflicts between user groups in particular areas? Otber Researcb Needs More accurate and cost-effective ways to measure trail use levels are needed (Krumpe and Lucas 1986). Similarly, more accurate and cost-effective ways to gather trail use and trail impact informadon need to be developed. These methods should gather information on manageable user characteristics such as party size, length of stay, activities, time of use, distribution of use, etc. (Kuss et al. 1990). What are the long-term participation patterns of trail users in terms of frequency, types of trips, and activities? How common is it for users to change activities over time? What are the trends in terms of trail activities and patterns of use? What will be the most popular activities at various points in the future? What new activities are emerging that managers will need to plan for? What are the best ways to anticipate how popular particular emerging trail activities will become? What are the best ways to predict the levels and types of use particular trails will receive? G Conclusion The research suggested above covers a very wide range of topics. Some of these topics will interest university-based researchers while others will be more intriguing to trail managers working in the field. Some will be priorities for both. Identifying the most pressing studies and forging the partner- ships necessary to carry them out will require communication, cooperation, and time. It will also require resources in terms of staff, money, and equipment. Improving our ability to avoid and manage conflicts on trails will not be easy, and it w;l: n�t �e qui::k. However, improved trail safety, natural resource protection, and trail experiences for users will make it worth the effort. �x ��w� Appendix 1 National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee all Government (Chair) Stuart H. Macdonald State Trails Coordinator Division of Parks Outdoor Recreation 1313 Sherman Street, Rm 618 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3203 ext 306 F� (303> 866-3206 4-Wheel Driving Henry Agonia North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 392 2000 FAX <805) 392-2041 Disabilities Jeffrey L. Butson State of Wisconsin, State Trails Council 5002 Sheboygon Avenue #148 Madison, WI 53705 (608) 266-9600 FAx (608) 266-3957 Snowmob�ling Donald M. Carlson 2649 Randy Avenue White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (612) 429-1041 Bicycling Bill Flournoy Chief, Environmental Assessment North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 715 4191 FAX (919) 733-2622 Water Trail Bruce T. Kerfoot 750 Gunflint Trail Grand Marais, MN 55604 <218) 388-2294 FAX (218) 388-9429 All-Terrain Vehicle Riding George M. Lear 15119 Old Dale Road Centreville, VA 22020 (703) 818-7169 Equestrian Roberta "Bobbi" Lipka American Horse Council Director 6171 Chili Riga Center Rd. Churchville, NY 14428 <716) 293 2561 Cross-Country Skiing Anne Lusk Vermont Trails Greenways Council 1531 River Road Stowe, VT 05672 (802) 253 7758 FAX (802) 244-1481 Hunting Fishing Loren Lutz 3113 Mesaloa Lane Pasadena, CA 91107 (818) 797 1287 Hiking Bernice E. Paige Idaho Trails Council P.O. Box 1629 Sun valley, ID 83353 (208) 622-3046 Off-Road Motorcycling Roger C. Pattison Clovis Sportcycle Association, Inc. P.O. Box 2007 Clovis, NM 88101 (505) 389-5269 FAX (505) 389-5357 I L �w� r� L��V Appendix 2 Organizations to Contact for Add.itional Information �O -+-i Adventure Cycling Associadon (formerly Bikecentennial) P.O. Box 8308 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 721-1776 American Hiking Society P.o. Box 20160 Washington, DC 20041 <703) 255-9304 American Honda 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90501-2746 C310) 783-3786 American Horse Counc�tl 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 296-4031 Appalachian Mountain Club 5 Joy Street Boston, MA 02108 (617) 523 Appalachian Trail Conference P.o. Box 236 Harpers Ferry Wv 25425 (304) 535-6331 Arizona State Parks 1300 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-4174 Back Country Horsemen of America P.O. Box 597 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 (406) 755-2014 Backcountry Horsemen of Idaho P.O. Box 513 Salmon, ID 83467 Backcountry Horsemen of Washington P.O. Box 563 Leavenworth, WA 98826 (509) 763-3470 Backcountry Horsemen of Washington Olympic Chapter P.O. Box 434 Burley, WA 98322 Bay Area Ridge Trail Council 311 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 391-0697 Bicycle Federadon of America (BFA) 1506 21st Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 463-6622 Bicycling Magazine C/O Rodale Press P.o. Box 6098 Emmaus, PA 18098 (800) 845-8050 Blue Ribbon Coalidon P.O. Box 5449 Pocatello, ID 83202 (208) 237-1557 California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 (916) 653-9072 Cascade Bike Club (206) 522-3222 Forrecording,206-522-BIKE East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 (510) 635-0135 Greenways, Inc. 121 Edinburgh South, Suite 210 Cary, NC 27511 (919) 380-0127 L �w� �O Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Statehouse Mail Boise, ID 83720-8000 Idaho Trails Council P.O. Box 1629 Sun Valley, ID 83353 (208) 622-3046 International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) P.O. Box 7578 Boulder, CO 80306-7578 (303) 545-9011 International Snowmobile Council 3975 University Drive, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 273 International Snowmobile Industry Association 3975 University Drive, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 273-9606 Izaac Walton League of America 1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 528-1818 Izaac Walton League of Amerlca Milwaukee Chapter 3�40 N. Maryland Avenue Shorewood, WI 53211 League of American Bicyclists (formerly League of American Wheelmen) 190 W. Ostend St., Suite 120 Baltimore, MD 21230 (410) 539-3399 Low Impact Mountain Bicyclists of Missoula (LIMB) P.O. Bo� 2896 Missoula, MT 59806 Metro Trail System Conunittee 6631 South University Blvd. Littleton, CO 80121 (303) 795 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 (415) 691 Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. 2 Jenner Street, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92718 (714) 727-4211 National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council P.O. Box 2225 Torrance, CA 90509-22'L5 (310) 783-3888 National Off-Road Bicycling Associadon (NORBA) 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (719) 578-4717 National Park Service—Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 800 North Capitol St. 1VW, Suite 490 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 343-3780 National Outdoor Leadership School (NOIS) 288 Main Street Lander, WY (307) 332-6973 National Snowmobile Foundation 3975 University Drive, Suite 310 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 <703) 273-9606 New England Mountain Bike Associadon (NEMBA) 69 Spring Street Cambridge, MA 02141 Pima County Parks and Recreation 1204 West Silverlake Tucson, AZ 85713 (602) 740-2690 PIMA Trails Association 5660 Paseo de la Tirada Tucson, AZ 85715 <602) 577-2095 4(, Rails-to-TraiLs Conservancy 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 797-5400 Recreadonal Equipment, Inc. P.O. Box 88125 Seattle, vUA 98138 (800) 426-4840 Responsible Snowmobiling Program (Steer Clear Campaign) 735 North Water Street, Suite 618 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (414) 276-4242 Southern Arizona Mountain Bike Associadon (SAMBA) 3232 East Speedway Tucson, AZ 85715 <602) 327-3232 Specialty Vehicle Insdtute of America 2 Jenner Street, Suite 150 Irving, CA 92718 (714) 727-3727 Steer Clear—Responsible Snowmobiling Program 625 North Milwaukee Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (414) 276-4242 Tread Lighdy! Inc. Suite 325-C 298-24th Street Ogden, Utah 84401 1-800-966-9900 <801) 627-0077 United Four Wheel Drive Associations, Inc. 4505 W. 700 So. Shelbyville, IN 46176 United States Ski Associadon Box 777 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Urban Edges 1401 Blake Street, Suite 301 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 623-8107 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service America's Great Outdoors, Suite 726 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20090 U.S. Department of Agrlculture Forest Service Northern Region P.O. Box 7669 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 329 U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Unlimited Outdoor Adventure Washington, DC 20240 Utah Department of Natural Resources 1636 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Utah Mountain Bike Association (LJMBA) 476 East South Temple, Suite 246 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 531-7703 =i 7 L �w� C.� L��m �i��• „i ��hv1i 14' v ��V Appendix 3 Persons Contributing Information for This Report Steve Anderson PIMA Trails Association (602) 296-2260 Harry Baker CA 4WD Clubs Inc. (818) 705-3930 Attila Bality National Park Service (505) 988 Mike Barrow Boulder Off-Road Alliance (303) 924-2730 Ron Blakemore Ventura County, CA (805) 654-3962 Peter Bluhon Bay Area Ridge Trait (510) 236-7435 Brent Botts USDA Forest Service <202) 205-1313 Jude Carino Bureau of Land Management (307) 261-7600 Debbie Chavez Pacific SW Experiment Station—USDA (909) 276 Clark Collins $lue Ribbon Coalition <208) 237-1557 Dan Collins Trails Waterways Unit DNR St. Paul MN (6�2) 296-6048 Adena Cook Blue Ribbon Coalition (208) 522-7339 Jeff Cook Idaho Parks and Recreation <208) 327-7444 Jun Cooper Bureau of Land Management (707) 462-3873 Tom Crimmins USDA Forest Service Region 5 OHV (415) 275-2361 Cynthia D'Agosta Los Angeles Parks and Recreation (213) 738-2973 Rob Dingman Motorcycle Industry Council (703) 416-0444 Robert Doyle East Bay Regional Park District (510) 635 Steve Elkinton National Park Service <202) 343-3776 George Ely Rails-To-Trails Conservancy of Pennsylvania <717) 774-2929 John Escobar MidPeninsula Open Space District (415) 691-0485 Steve Fiala East Bay Regional Park District <510) 635-0135 Mylon Filkins Backcountry Horsemen of America (805)-832-1150 Chuck Flink Greenways, Inc. (919) 380-0127 5 ��v �O Chris Frado Cross Country Ski Areas Association (603) 239-4341 Barrie Freeman (ROMP and STOMP event organizer) (415) 949-3137 Pam Gilmore Arizona State Parks <602) 542-1996 Alan Goldman Bike Council of Marin <415) 543-3749 Alan Graefe Pennsylvania State University (814) 863-8986 Nora Hamilton USDA Forest Service (707) 275-2361 David Hammer Wisconsin State Parks, DNR (608) 264-6034 Bob Hammond N. Virginia Trail Riders <202) 258-1098 Randy Harden National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (414) 458-3000 Bill Harris CO Plateau Mountain Biking Trail Association (303) 249-8055 Jim Hasenauer International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) <818) 704-7396 Susan Henley American Hiking Association (703) 255 Susan Henry Oklahoma Tourism Recreation Dept. <405) 521-2973 Charles Huppuch USDA Forest Service (404) 347-7392 Scott Iverson East Bay Regional Park District (510) 635-0135 Mark Ivy Delaware Div. of Parks Recreation <302) 739-5285 Michael Kelley International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) <510) 528-2453 Bill Kruszka George Washington National Forest (703) 984-4101 Alan Lane Indiana 4WD Association C812) 477-7871 Ursula Lemanski National Park Service (202) 343-3766 Bob Lilly San Juan National Forest (303) 385-1201 Amy Mann American Horse Council (202) 296-4031 Bill Manning Trails 2000 C303) 259-4682 Mike McCoy Adventure Cycling Association (formerly Bikecentennial) (406) 721-1776 y Pennie McEdward-Rand t .Catamount Trails Association <802) 864-5794 Roy Muth Coalition for Recreation Trails (703) 273 Katherine Nichols Texas Parks Wildlife (512) 389-4680 Elizabeth Owen Bureau of Land Management (202) 452-7796 Hank Park Rails-To-Trails Conservancy (202) 797-5400 Wayne Pelkey V'f Association of Snow Travelers (802) 229-4202 Paul Peterson Professional Ski Instructors (209) 753-2834 El�zabeth Porter National Park Service (202) 343 Bob Proudman Appalachian Trail Conference (304) 535-6331 Reuben Rajala Trailworks (603) 466-3668 Barbara Rice Bay Area Ridge Trail <415) 391-0697 Karen-Lee Ryan Rails-To-Trails Conservancy <202) 797-5400 Jim schmid Coronodo Nationa! Forest (602) 670-4513 John Schmill Dept. of Parks and Recreation, CA (916) 653-4976 Jeanne Scholl Boulder Mountain Parks (303) 441-3408 Robert Searns Urban Edges (303) 623-8107 Barbara Sharrow Bureau of Land Management (303) 239 Michael Schuett South West Texas State University (512) 245-3480 Mike Singleton KTU A Consulting (619) 452-2828 Paul Slavik American Honda (310) 783-3786 Dean Swickart Bureau of Land Management Folsom Resource Area, CA Merle Van Horne National Park Service (202) 343-3780 Bob Walker Montana Fish Wildlife (406) 444-4585 Bruce Ward American Hiking Society (703) 255 ��b We4ae! Stanislaus National Forest (209) 795-1381 Lauren Whitehead Saguaro National Monument (602) 670-6680 j� ��w Charlie Willard Califomia Department of Parks and Recreation (916) 653-8803 Jim williams Motorcycle Industry Council (714) 727-4211 o� o G�rtis Yates A Nor[h Carolina State Bicycle Program (919) 733-2804 S.i ��V Appendix 4 List of Existing Trail-Sharing Guidelines and Other Educational Materials coo L� L>Gl The following are examples of trail-sharing guidelines and other educational materials designed to help reduce conflict on trails. The type of material and the organization from which it can be ob- tained are listed after the title of each. The addresses and phone numbers of these organizations are included in Appendix 2. "A Snowmobiler's Code of Ethics" Ten snowmobile use guidelines available from International Snowmobile Industry Association. "Back Country Horsemen Commandments" Seven guidelines available from Backcountry Horsemen of Washington, Olympic Chapter. "Backcountry Trail Etiquette—Minimum Impact and Common Courtesy" Brochure available from Idaho Trails Council. "Be a Credit to Our Sport" Ten mountain biking guidelines contained in Mountain Bike Destinations Guide 1990 (1989, by the editors of Mountain Bike Magazine, Rodale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA 18098). "Crested Butte's High Country—To Share and Enjoy" Brochure available from USDA Forest Service and local ranchers. "Horse Sense on National Forest Pack Trlps" Brochure available from USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. "In Their Shoes" Video and accompanying written scenarios for role-playing and small group discussion. Available for a fee from Arizona State Committee on Trails (ASCOT) through Arizona State Parks. "Keeping the `Wild' in Wilderness" Brochure available from USDA Forest Service, Norchern Region. "Know the Right Way to Bicycle Off-Road" Two-sided "rack-card" available from the Utah Mountain Bike Association (UMBA) and the Utah Depar[ment of Natural Resources. "Leave No Trace Land Ethics" Brochure available from the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS). "Low Impact Mountain Bicycling Education Packet" Video and other materials available for a fee from Low Impact Mountain Bicyclists (LIMB) of Missoula "Mountain Bicycling Etiquette" Flier available from Low Impact Mountain Bicyclists (LIMB) of Missoula, USDA Forest Service, and Adventure Cycling Association (formerly Bikecentennial). "Mountain Bike FYI" Brochure available from Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI). ��w� >7 "Mountain Manners—A Stock User's Guide to Common Sense and Courtesy in the Back Country" Brochure available from Backcountry Horsemen of Idaho, Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho Horse Board, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association. O°''O "Multiple Use Trail Guidelines" Sign presenting the "IMBA Triangle" of which users should yield to whom. Available from Interna- tional Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). "Off-Road Cyclist's Code" Ten guidelines available in various forms from National Off-Road Bicycle Association (NORBA). "Operation RPM: Riders Pledge Moderadon" Educational program and snowmobile etiquette guidelines available from International Snowmobile Council. "Pathways Are for Everyone" Two-sided "rack-card" available from Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and Idaho Trails Council. "Recreadon Code of Ethics" Eleven recreational use guidelines available in several forms from Blue Ribbon Coalition. "Responsible Trail Use Rules" Card available from East Bay Regional Park District, Metropolitan Horsemen's Association, and Bicycle Trails Council. "RightRider Trail Edquette" Brochure (No. 1 in a series) available from Motorcycle Industry Council, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, American Horse Council, and Specialty Vehicle Institute of America. "Rules of the Trail" Six traii use guidelines available in many forms from International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). "Rules Off the Road" Brochure available from Bicycling Magazine. "Share the Trail—Enjoying Your Mountain Bike, Preserving the Land" Brochure available from International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. "Share the Trail!" Brochure available from The Izaak Walton League of America, Wisconsin Chapter. "Share the Trails" Brochure available from New England Mountain Bike Association (NEMBA). "Sharing the River Park Trail System" Brochure available from Pima County Parks and Recreation Department, AZ. "Sharing the Traill A Brochure on Wise Trail Use" Brochure available from Arizona State Parks, Arizona Hiking and Equestrian Trails Committee, USDA Forest Service, and Recreational Equipment, Inc. "Sharing the Trails—�uidelines for: Bicycllsts, Dog Owners, Equestrians, Hikers and Runners" Brochure available from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, CA. "Steer Clear—ltesponsible Snowmobiling Program" Brochure available from Responsible Snowmobiling Program, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. "The Rules of the Trail" Flier available from PIMA (SAMBA). Trails Association and Southern Arizona Mountain Bike Association "Trail Mix" Brochure available from California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. "Trail Safety" Brochure available from East Bay Regional Park District, CA. "Trail Safety and Ethics Guidelines" Contained in Arizona State Trails Guide available from Arizona Hiking and Equestrian Trails Commit- tee, Arizona State Parks. "TraiLs Are for Everyone" Brochure available from Meuo Trail System Committee, Denver. "Tread Lightly Crew" Brochure available from Backcountry Horsemen of Washington. "TREAD LIGHTLY on Public and Prlvate Lands—A Land Use Ethics Program" Booklet available from TREAD LIGHTLY! Inc. °Winter Recreadon Code of Ethics" Ten guidelines available from the International Snowmobile Council. C��N BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman, B. J., T. A. Heberlein T. M. Bonnicksen (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leuure Sciences, 5(1): 45-61. Albrecht, J. (1992). Trail Planning, Construction, and Maintenance: A Bibliography Supplement. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Miscellaneous Publication 76-1992, pps. 30. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1991). Guide jor the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 44 pps. American Hiking Society (1990). Directory of Technical Assutance Materials for Trails Development and Maintenance. Washington, D.C.: American Hiking Society, 43 pps. Baker, N. <1990). Mountain bike management: A tale of three cities. Western Wildlands, 16(3): 36-39. Bicycle Federation of America (1990). Mountain Bike Action Kit. Washington, DC: The Bicycle Institute of America. Birchard, W. R. D. Proudman (1981). Trail Design, Construction, and Maintenance. Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian Trail Conference, 166 pps. Brehm, J. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press. Bury, R. L., S. M. Holland D. N. McEwen (1983)• Analyzing recreational conflict: Understanding why conflict occurs is requisite to managing that conflict. Journal of Soil and Water Conseruation, Sep.-0ct.: 401-�03. Chavez, D., P. Winter J. Baas (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(3): 29-36. Clark, R. N. G. H. Stankey (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, management and research (General Technical Report PNW-98). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Cole, D. N. (1986). Resource impacts caused by recreation. In A Literature Review, The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (pp. Management 1-11). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Devall, B. J. Harry (1981). `w"'no hates whom in the g;ea� outdoors: The impact of recreational specialization and technologies of play. Leisure Sciences, 4(4): 399-418. 61 Dingman, R. (1992). Sharing back country trails. In Proceedings 11th National Trails Symposium (pp. 168 American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Driver, B. L. J. R. Bassett (1975). Defining conflicts among river users: A case study of Michigan's Au Sable River. Naturalist, 26(2): 19-23. Driver, B. L. P. J. Brown (1978). The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation supply inventories: A rationale. In Proceedings of the Integrated and Renewable Resource Inventories Workshop (Gen. Tech. Report RM-55) (pp• 24-31). Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station. Driver, B. L. R. C. Knopf (1977). Personality, outdoor recreation and expected consequences. Environment and Behavior 9: 169-193. Driver, B. L. S. R. Tocher (1970). Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreation, with implications for planning. In B. L. Driver (Ed.), Elements of OutdoorRecreation, (pp. 9-31). Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Filkins, M. E. (1992). Sharing back country trails. In Proceedings 11th National Trails Symposium, (pp. 17>-178). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Filkins, M. E. (personal communication, May 6, 1994). Flink, C. A. R. M. Searns (1993)• Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 351 pps. Gobster, P. H. (1990). The Illinois Statewide Trail User Study: Final Report. Springfield, IL: Illinois Chapter, Rails-To-Trails Conservancy, 61 pps. Goldbloom, A. (1992). The 1991 Texas Trails Study. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 17 pps. Graefe, A. R., R. B. Ditton, J. W. Roggenbuck R. Schreyer (1981). Notes on the stability of the factor structure of leisure meanings. Leisure Sciences 4(1): 51-66. Graefe, A. R., F. R. Kuss J. J. Vaske (1990). Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association, 106 pps. Gramann, J. H. R. J. Burge (1981). The effect of recreation goals on conflict perception: The case of water skiers and fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1): 15-27. Gramann, J. H. G. A. Vander Stoep (1987). Prosocial behavior iheory and natural resource protecaon: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management, 24: 247-257. G� Hammitt, W. E. (1988). The spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation. In A. H. Watson (Compiler) Outdoor Recreation Benchmark: 1988 Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum (Gen. Tech. Report SE-52). Cpp. 439-450). Tampa, FL: USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experimental Station. Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2(3): 104-113. Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey R. C. Lucas (1990). Wilderness Management. Golden, CO: North American Press, pps. 546. Henley, S. (1992). Sharing back country trails. In Proceedings 11th National Trails Symposium (pp. 170-174). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Hollenhorst, S., M. Schuett D. Olson (1993)• An Examination of the Characteristics, Preferences, and Attitudes of Mountain Bike Users of the National Forests: A Prelimi- nary Analysu. Riverside, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. International Mountain Bicycling Association (1993, November). REI awards grant to IMBA for mediated sessions with Sierra Club. IMBA Trail News, 6(5): 1 11. Isbill, J. (1993)• Report on the Multi-Use Discussion with the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council County Committees. San Francisco, CA: The Bay Area Ridge Trail Council. Ivy, M. I., W. P. Stewart C. Lue (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recreational conflict. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(4): 348-360. Jackson, G. R. R. A. G. Wong (1982). Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(1): 47-62. Jacob, G. R. (1977). Conflict in outdoor recreation: The search for understanding. Utah Tourism and Recreation Review, 6<4): 1 Jabob, G. R. R. Schreyer (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12: 36�380. Jefferson County Open Space Department (1994, March). Jefferson County parks set proactive policy on mountain bicycles. Colorado State Trails News, p. 10. Keller, K. (1990). Mountain Bikes on Public Lands: A Manager's Guide to the State of Practice. Washington, D.C.: Bicycle Federation of America, 68 pps. `Kepner-Trego Analysis"Mountain Bicycle Situation on Santa Barbara Front Trails (1987). Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Santa Barbara Ranger District: Los Padres National Forest, CA. Knopp, T. B. J. B. Tyger (1973). A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling versus ski-touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 5(3): Cr17. i Krumpe, E. E. R. C. Lucas (1986). Research on recreation trails and trail users. In A Litera- ture Review, The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (pp. Management 151-163)• Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kulla, A. (1991). A New Perspectives Approach in National Forest Recreation and its Application to Mountain Bike Management. Unpublished paper prepared for Utah State University's Professional Development for Outdoor Recreation Managers/Planners Shortcourse, 56 pps. Kuss, F. R., A. R. Graefe J. J. Vaske (1990). VuitorlmpactManagement: A Rer�iew of Research. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association, 256 pps. Lawler, E. E. (1973)• Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lloyd, K. (1992). Sharing back country trails. In Proceedings 11th National Trails Symposium (pp. 179-183). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Lucas, R. C. (1964). The Recreational Capacity of the Quentico-SuperiorArea (Research Paper, IS- 15)� St. Paul, MI: USDA Forest Service, Lake States Forest Service Experiment Station. Lucas, R. C. (1981). Redistributing wilderness use through information supplied to visitors (Research Paper, INT-277). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimeni Station, 15 pps. Macdonald, S. (1992). Forging alliances among trails users. In Proceedings I Zth National Trails Symposium (pp. 18-21). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Manfredo, M. J. (Ed.)(1992). Influencing Human Behavior. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing, Inc., 371 pps. Marion, J. L., J. W. Roggenbuck R. E. Manning (1993)• Problems and Practices in Backcountry Recreation Management.• A, Suruey of National Park Seruice Managers. Denver, CO: USDA Nadonal Park Service, Natural Resources Publication Office. 65 pps. Martin, B. H. D. T. Taylor (1981). Informing Backcountry �sitors: A Catalog of Techniques. Boston, MA: Research Department, Appalachian Mountain Club, 104 pps. Matheny, S. J. (1979). A successful campaign to reduce trail switchback shortcutting. In Ittner, R. (Ed.) Recreational Impacts on Wildlands: Conference Proceedings (R-6-001-1979) (pp. 217-221). Seattle, WA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. McAvoy, L., J. H. Gramann, R. J. Burdge J. D. Absher (1986). Understanding the cause of conflict between commercial and recreational users of the Mississippi River. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 4(3): 49-�0. McCay, R. E. R G. H. Moeller (1976). CompUtibility of Obio Trai! Use�s (Research Nore NE-22j). Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service. McCoy, M. M. Sroner (1992). Mountai�z Bike Ti�uils: Techrai�aces for Design, Construction and Maintenance. Missoula, MT: Bikecentennial i9 ��ns. Merriman, K. (1988). Multi—use trails: A question of courtesy? Outdoor Ethics, 7(3)� 1, 6-7. Moore, R. L. Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments ro recreation settings: The case of rail—trail users. Leisure Scie�2ces <1�1: 17-31. Moore, R. L., A. R. Graefe, R. J. Gitelson R E. Porter (1992). The Impacts of Rail-Trails: A Study of the Users and Property Owne�s F��om Three Trails. Washington, D.C.: Rivers 8: Trails Conservation Program, National Park Seivice. National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (Date l�nkno�vn). Off-Highway l�ehicle Resource Bibliography/Abstrc�ct. P.O. ]3ox 222>, 1'orrance, CA: National Off-Highway Vehide Conservation Council, 98 pps. New Webster's Dictionu�y and Thesuurus (1992). Danbury, Connecticut: Lexicon Publications, Inc. Nielson, J., B. Shelby J. E. Haas (1977). Sociological carrying capacity: T11e last settler syndrome. Pacific Sociological Review, 20(OctJ: 568-581. Noe, F. P., R. B. Hull J. D. V✓ellman (1982). Nonnative response and norin activation among ORV users within a seashore environinent. Leiszu Scie��ces, 7(2):127-142. Noe, F. P., J. D. Wellman G. Buhyoff (1982). Perceptions of conflict between off-road vehicle and non off vehicle users in a leisure setting. �ournal of Environmentul Systenu, 11(3): 2?3-233. Owens, P. L. (198>). Conf7ict as a social interaction process in environment and behavior research: The e:cample of leisure and rea�eation research. Jozernal of E�zuironmental Psycholo�y, 5: 243—?�9. Peterson, G. L. (1974). Evaluating the quality of t11e �vilderness envii•onment: Congruence between perception and aspiration. Erzvi�ronmer�t a�zd 13e1�uUior, 6<2): 169-193� Petty, R. E., S. McMichael R L. Brannon (1992). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Applications in recreation and tourisin. In M. Manfredo (Ed.), I�afluencing Hzrman Behavior (pp. 77-101). Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing, Inc., 371 pps. Proshansky, H. Wm, W. Ittelson L. Rivlin (1970). Freedom of choice and behavior in a physical setting. In H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson L. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental Psychology. Ne�v York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Proudman, R. D. R. Rajala (1981). Ticril Ba�ilding and Nlai�zte�aa��ce. Boston, MA: Appalachian Mountain Club, 286 pps. J Rapoport, A. (1975). Toward a redefinition of density. Environmeizt and Behavior, 7(2): 133-157. Reese, G. A. (1992). Sharing back country trails. In Proceedi�zgs 71th National Trails Symposium (pp. 184-188). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992) Use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. In M. J. Manfredo (Ed.), I�zflacencing Hu�nan Behavior (pp. 149-208). Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing, Inc., 371 pps. Roggenbuck, J. W. S. H. Ham (1986). Use of information and education in recreation man- agement. In: A Literature Review, The P� Co�nmission on Americans Outdoo�s (pp. Management 59-71). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ryan, K. L. (Ed.) (1993). Trails for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 213 pps. Saremba, 1. A. Gill (1991). Value conflicts in inountain park settings. Annals of Tourism Research, 18: 4>5�72. Shcreyer, R. (1979). Successio�a u�zd displacement i�z river recreation: Problena definition and analysis. St. Paul, MI: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Schreyer, R., D. W. Lime D. R. Williams <1984). Characterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Jozernal of Leisure Research 16: 34 Schreyer, R�C M. L. Neilson (1978). Westwater and Desolations Canyons: Whitewater Recreation. Utah State University. Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Logan. Schreyer, R. J. W. Roggenbuck (1978). The influences of experience expectations on croa�ding perceptions and social-psychological carrying capacities. Leisure Sciences 1(4): 373-394. Seier, D. (1990). Urban trails. GRIST, 34(3):1, 26-28. Seney, J. (1990). Erosional lnapacts of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles and Mountain Bikes on Mountain Trails. Unpublished master's thesis, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Boseinan, MT. Shelby, B. T. A. Heberlein (1986). Currying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, Oregan: Oregon State Press. Sprung, G. (1990, December). Rocky Mountain update: LIMB. Mountain Bike, p. 29. Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor Pe� of Wilderness Recreatio�z Carrying Capacity (Research Paper INT-142), Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Ser.��ce. Ir.term�untair. Pores; and Range Experiment Station. 66 Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Peterson R S. S. Frissell (1985)• 77�e Limits for Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planni�zg (Gen. Tech. Report INT-176). USDA Forest Service, Interinountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinc[ion between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79: 275-277. Tinsley H. E. A. R. A. Kass (1978). Leisure activities and need satisfaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Leisure Research 10(3): 191-202. Todd, S. L. A. R. Graefe (1989). Level of experience and perception of conflict among canoeists on the Delaware River. In T'. More, M. Donelly, A. Graefe J. Vaske (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1989 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposiacna (Gen. Tech. Report NE-132), �pp. 147-156). Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service (1984). Standard Specification for Constructio�z ojTrails (EM-7720-102). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service (1991). Trails Management Handbook (FSH 2309.18). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculttire. USDA Forest Service (1992). Leave No Trace.i (FS-521). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and MotiUation. New York: Jolin Wiley and Sons. Vaske, J. J., A. J. Fedler A. R. Graefe (1986). Multiple determinants of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting trip. Leisure Sciences, 8(2): 149-166. Viehman, J. (1990). Let's build trails, not walls. Backpacker, August: 3 Vincent, M. A. R. H. Fazio (1992). Attitude accessibility and its consequences for judgment and behavior. In M. J. Manfredo <Ed.) Influencing Human Behavio� (pp. 51-75). Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing, Inc., 371 pps. Watson, A. E., M. J. Niccolucci D. R. Williams (in press). The nature of conf7ict bet�veen hikers and recreational stock users in [he John Muir Wilderness. �our�Zal of Leiszrre Research. Watson, A. E., D. R. Williams J. J. Daigle (1991). Sources of conf7ict bet�veen hikers and mountain bike riders in [he Ratdesnake NRA. ,Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3): 58-71. White, R. G. R. Schreyer (1981). Nonu uses uf the National Parks. Leisure Scie�zces, 4(3): 325-341. 67 Williams, D. R. (1988). Great expectations and the limits of satisfaction: A review of recreation and consumer satisfaction. In A. H. Watson (Compiler) Ou.tdoor Recreation Bench- mark: 1988 Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum (Gen. Tech. Report SE-52)• Cpp. 422-438). Tampa, FL: USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experimental Station. Williams, D. R. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Pa��izs a�zd Recreation, September: 28-35,122. Williams, D. R. J. W. Roggenbuck (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary Paper presented at the Symposium on Leisure Research, National Recreation and Parks Association Congress, San Antonio, TX, October 22-27 1989. *U.S. G.P.0.:1994-387-549:70 Page 1 of 2 A Trail of One's Own? ---Separate trails divide; shared trails unite. by Jim Hasenauer, IMBA President IMBA activists have often heard proposals for separate mountain bike trails. The idea seems to appeal to a number of people because it purports to eliminate user conflict with other trail goers. Bicyclists confronted with the choice between separate trails or total closure have sometimes accepted a separate trail solution. I think mountain bicyclists should think carefully before endorsing this idea. It perpetuates the myth that bicycling is incompatible with other uses. It threatens access to existing multiple use trail systems. Often, it unnecessarily leads to the too many trails in an ecosystem best left wild. Sometimes, the pressure for separate trails comes from other users who don't want bicyclists on "their trails". They may be hikers who feel their sweat equity has given them ownership, or motorcyclists whose green sticker money has actually paid for trail opportunities. Hoarding the thousands of miles of existing trails, some users have told bicyclists to go build their own. This country club mentality has no place on the public lands and while bicyclists are willing to build and maintain trails, it makes sense for us to do it with and for the benefit of all trail users. Some land managers think separate trails will eliminate user conflict. IYs commonplace in recreational land management to separate incompatible uses. This philosophy need not apply. Responsible bicycle use is compatible in most cases. When users know that a trail is multiple use, they expect to encounter others. When users follow trail protocol, they can safely negotiate their trail encounters. Besides being unnecessary, monitoring and enforcing separate trails is a management nightmare. Even if bicyclists and other users had separate but equal mileage (something I've never seen proposed), they'd covet their neighbors' trails. Everyone would still want to see what the other users were enjoying. Trail users like to explore. Twenty miles of multiple use trail is worth more than two separate ten mile sections. From day one, IMBA has advocated multiple-use trails. This position is based on the following beliefs: 1. Multiple-use trails can best accommodate the needs of the most users. A generally open backcountry disperses users across an entire trail system. Single use or restricted use trails tend to concentrate users. This increases environmental and social impacts. 2. Multiple-use trails help build a trail community by increasing the need for all users to cooperate to preserve and protect a common resource. Encountering other users on a trail offers the opportunity to meet and talk. Without that opportunity, itOs difficult to establish mutual respect and courtesy. Separate trails breed ill will, territoriality and rivalries. 3. Multiple-use trails are most cost effective for land managers. They require fewer signs and less staff. Monitoring and enforcement is simplified. http: //www. greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imba/infoacti on/library/trailofown_clean. html 4/3 /00 Page 2 of 2 4. Multiple-use trails enable responsible, experienced users to educate outlaws and novices. Because they share the same trail system, the opportunity for peer regulation is enhanced. IMBA is aware that local conditions vary and that sometimes separate trails are a legitimate compromise solution to a management problem. There are a couple of cases where separate trails make good sense. Large trail systems with very crowded trailheads could have separate feeders. A designated mountain bike area could allow experts to race train without the inconvenience of other users. Some very technical, trials type sections might be set aside for mountain bikers to hone their skills. Similarly, trails designated for mountain bike beginners might allow for individuals to develop their trail riding abilities before joining other users on the multiple use trail systems. It's hard to think of many other situations where separate trails offer any advantages. Copyright International Mountain Bicycling Association. Permission to reprint granted, provided credit is given to IMBA and article author (if noted). http://www. greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/trailofown_clean. html 4/3/00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University 4 9 �?Y. y �I:'lti� :\�F�F': x:il��.:\ar�.VFYl{:'� Horse Trails in Forest Ecosystems Bikes and Horses: A Cas� for Sharing f'age 1 of 11 Clemson University October 1998 Prepared by Michael Kelle� Sea�ch This presentation vvill cover aspects of relations between equestrians, their horses, cyclists and their bikes. My basic thesis is that horses and bi�es can, and must, share trails together with all other non-motorized users. I hope to showr that "problems" are often matters of perception rather 4han reality, and those that are real can almost always be solved with a proactive approach. The basic tools to accomplish this are educ�tion and joint experience. Our biggest challenge is to build the community of frail users and open space advocates into a proactive force to enable all of us to use trails together, and to ensure that trails will be available for fu4ure generations of trail users. V�/e must do this together, and the consequences may be severe if we do not. In some people's minds, horses and bikes canno4 co-exist on trails together. We have all heard "horror stories" of encounters wi4h bi�es, and any equestrian would be understandably appalled at the thought of any of these incidents occurring with a horse in their barn. We mus4 deal wi4h this. At the same time, we have other concerns. The amount of public land is decreasing rapidly due to development and population pressures. The number of trail users is increasing geometrically. I'm 4old 4hat the number of equestrians is decreasing. It strikes me that we all need 4o act 4ogether as one trail family. The Horse IMBA teaches cyclists rudimentary things about 4he na4ure of the horse. We know that horses were originally plains animals, with a"fligh4" or "fighY' http://www.greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses.html 4/3/00 National Symposium o� Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 2 of l 1 response to danger, A sudden or unfamiliar stimulus will spark this instinct. Self-preservation is the first law of nature for the horse. It has an inbred fear of being eaten, and although it may be the fastest animal in the world at distances over 50 yards, it is vulnerable within that space. So it has an instinctual fear of small, tight, dark spaces, like the single track trails that all trail users crave. The horses' alarm system operates well through sight, smell and instinct. They have uncanny eyes. Although they allegedly cannot distinguish between colors and have poor depth perception, their eyes are independent, and they are capable of using both binocular and monocular vision. They also have a 340 degree field of vision. Horses are also quite fragile and, like human athletes, are subject to popped tendons, torn ligaments, broken bones or miscellaneous twists of joint. These can result in tremendous pain to horses, huge vet bills, long term recovery and even euthanasia in the case of serious injuries. Even a slight injury can leave an indelible memory of terror in a horse. We also know that horses have a very distinguished history. They have hauled cannon, ambulances, fire engines, and even Charleton Heston into the most chaotic of circumstances. Horses can be trained to do almost anything. Conflicts: Perception or Reality? Obviously, the biggest concern expressed by equestrians deals with both real and perceived dangers of horses being scared by cyclists. Accidents have occurred causing injuries, and even a few horse fatalities. Sometimes these have been caused by inconsiderate rude behavior on the part of cyclists. Sometimes by inexperienced horse riders or spooky horses, and sometimes by a combination of all three. Land managers find that the actual number of significant incidents involving bikes and horses are few, relative to historical use of all users. Serious accidents have been occurring for centuries on trails used by horses. The advent of mountain bikes didn't change the horse's basic nature, and the risk that equestrians take when riding on narrow trails has always been present. Deer, quail, bee hives, other horses with rude riders galloping up and inciting a herding reaction—these things have always been a risk to equestrians. Now there's just one more potential risk thrown into the melee. This is a consequence of the changing demographics of our times. While we often hear of the conflicts, we usually don't hear of the thousands of trail enthusiasts who have no problems with bikes or horses. We tend to remember the dramatic, and forget the everyday. Horror stories are told, retold, and embellished, but commonplace trail rides where equestrians and cyclists interact without incident are forgotten and never mentioned. Adjoining areas can have completely different attitudes towards horse and bikes. In Marin County, in northern California, equestrians and cyclists have seemingly been at war for 10 years. Many equestrians from that area are uncompromising in their belief that multiple-use of trails is an impossibility. Yet a mere trot away across a valley is China Camp State Park, where the Superintendent refused to be swayed by the "conventional wisdom," and opened multi-use singletrack trails. There have been no incidents there over several years. The Superintendent had the benefit of http://www.greatoutdoors. com/IocaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses.html 4/3/00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University years of experience with bikes and could be proactive. Page 3 of 11 Conejo Open Space District (COSD) north of Los Angeles is another example where informed land managers ignored dire warnings of perceived danger, and told the users that they would have multi-use trails. Horses had been there for a long time, when nearby jurisdictions began closing trails to bikes. COSD refused. Again, they had the benefit of several years of national experience with bikes, and were able to be proactive rather than reactive. The users were not offered the choice of bickering among themselves, and in fact got together to create a multi-use trail system that continues to function well today. Trail Impact Environmental concerns must play a large role in guiding the ways we all enjoy the outdoors. Cyclists have often taken punches on the issue of erosion. We have even had equestrians launch attacks at public hearings, indicating that bikes would somehow cause too much damage and destroy trails. This is not appropriate. It has been shown by studies that the impact of hikers, bikes and horses is relatively similar, compared to the impact of building the trail in the first place. It is foolish for equestrians and cyclists to be at all divided on this issue. Keep in mind that horses have been justly and unjustly under attack for trail damage for decades. In reality, the impact of all users is significantly less than the impact of water. A poorly designed trail that geYs zero use will erode more than a well designed trail that receives heavy use by anybody. What we should all care about most is building and rebuilding trails to make them sustainable. Trails designed for bicycling, equestrian, or motorcycle use need more thorough engineering than a hiking trail. It is important for land managers to realize that the impacts of non-motorized use are relatively the same, and to construct trail to handle the heaviest use. Any trail strong enough to handle horses, can handle bikes. Trail width necessary to accommodate both uses is subject to controversy. Some jurisdictions, particularly those which formed regulations during the early days of mountain bikes, require road sized-trails in order to accommodate both uses. Nowadays, more information and experience indicates that significantly smaller trails are better for multiple use. Narrow trails tend to slow users down, and in that respect, are less dangerous. The narrower the trail, and the more features such as turns, rises and falls, obstructed views, and occasional protruding rocks or roots, the slower mountain bikers will go. Most experienced mountain bikers would rather ride these challenging trails than smooth, wide open trails that encourage high speeds. Width of trails can depend upon proximity to urban areas. In the San Francisco Bay Area, China Camp State Park is very close to large population centers. Its multiple use trails are four to five feet wide, become narrower as vegetation fills in, and accommodate horses and bikes very well. In the backcountry, any trail wide and tall enough for a horse, can also accommodate a bike. So, what are the problems in more detail, and what solutions will work? I've divided the approach into three areas: the cyclist's responsibility, the equestrian's responsibility, and our collective responsibility. http://www.greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses.html 4/3/00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 4 of 11 Cyclist's Responsibility Education works very well to solve trail conflicts. IMBA has developed the Rules of the Trail for cyclists, which, if followed, almost always eliminate problems. In their short form, they are distributed world-wide. Our rules for dealing with horses are as follows: All cyclists must continually watch for horses, and slow down when the sightlines are poor. Cyclists must make sure that the horse knows they are there, and that they are human, not predators. A backpack or a bike may appear to a horse to be a hungry animal. Voice communication is the best way to provide this assurance, though in some areas, bells work well. Since people (with voices) feed horses, and bells don't, voice contact is generally better. Cyclists should also speak with the equestrian. This encourages positive relationships between users as they greet one another on the trail. The approach to the horse is the most critical moment. From the front, the cyclist should stop, and check with the equestrian, if necessary stepping off the trail on the downhill side to allow the horse to pass. When approaching from the rear, we urge care to alert the horse and rider that we are coming, in sufficient time to avoid spooking either. Once communication is established, the equestrian will often have the best suggestion about how to pass. It may be necessary to wait for a wider spot in the trail. Often the cyclist will leave the trail (on the downhill side) to allow the horse to move to the rear. When passing, it goes without saying that cyclists should proceed slowly and steadily, while still talking to the horse to help it relax. We suggest that cyclists not pet horses, without guidance from the equestrian. We do have a variant on that. We sometimes carry carrots, and give them as treats, always with the permission and instructions from the equestrian. We have had local "Carrot Days". One of my horsey pals suggests that equestrians with spooky horses carry carrots themselves. When encountering cyclists, the horseback person tosses the carrot on the ground, and asks that the cyclist give it to the horse. With this approach, we can get the horse to think of cyclists as food providers rather than predator. Perhaps this will be a step in the right direction. But it isn't always a perfect solution. Many equestrians don't feed their horses when the horse has a bit in its mouth. Sometimes nose bands are too tight for the horse to open its mouth and accept a treat. There is a specific way to feed a carrot to a horse without losing ones fingers. Again, this depends upon the horse and upon clear communication with its rider. Equestrian's Responsibility This discussion about education would be incomplete without mentioning education within the equestrian community. Any kind of riding requires skills. This includes both stadium and trail riding. Trail riding requires learning the skills necessary to be outside of the arena, including riding http://www. greatoutdoors. com/locaVpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses. html 4/3/00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 5 of 1 1 with bikes and other users. We are all aware of instances where riders attempt to ride animals that are beyond their skill level. Some horses can spook at any time. I remember one example where a horse jumped at a piece of paper during a public trail dedication and threw its rider. This was a combination of a borrowed horse and rider error. An equestrian friend reacted strongly to this incident, arguing that people who borrow horses and can't stick on when the horse spooks should be considered just as irresponsible as mountain bikers who can't control their bike's speed. The consequence of a loose horse galloping away from a dumped rider on a singletrack trail can't be ignored. Equestrians must be subject to the same level of responsibility as mountain bikers, and it's unfair to accuse a mountain biker of being always at fault when a horseback rider is thrown. One equestrian acquaintance has also strongly suggested that some horses simply don't belong on the trail at all. As mountain bikers, we are willing to acknowledge that there are some reckless riders in our community, and we are working to educate them. We think it reasonable to request the same level of conscientiousness from the equestrian community in training horses and riders to ride trails. As stated earlier, most horses can be trained to withstand almost anything. We have developed programs to assist in this. We often have horse desensitization clinics, not unlike the obstacle course events that equestrians are familiar with. Cyclists maneuver repeatedly around the horse, in as close quarters as circumstances permit. Where appropriate, we ask that the cyclist act rudely, so that the horse gets used to that. The results can be spectacular. Some equestrians perform this type of training frequently to make their horses brave on the trail. A few years ago, Sharon Gibson suggested rules horsemen could follow, which would increase their safety and enjoyment of trails. These appeared in Eauestrian Trails on October of 1991, and included: 1. With some slight changes in terminology, follow the IMBA rules of the trail. They make sense and show common courtesy. 2. Understand that bikers, like riders, are individuals. The actions of one do not typify the actions of all. 3. Get to know the mountain bikers in your area. Explain to them that you are aboard 1,000 pounds of unpredictable animal and how horses react to fear. Remember that many non-equestrians are actually afraid of horses, and may also react unpredictably, out of that fear. Tell them about your horse if they express an interest. 4. Take responsibility for your horse's education. Let it see a bike close up, at rest and without a rider aboard, preferably on a trail you normally ride. Many horses accept bikes on city streets but spook at seeing them on the open trail. Let your horse get used to the sight of bikes, helmets, walking sticks and backpacks. 5. Contact your local bike shop for information and referrals to groups who may be willing to work with you. 6. Contact our local mountain bicycling groups. Let them know about the specific trails, situations and conditions that concern you. You will find some of them very helpful. You may even be able to do some joint trail maintenance activities to increase safety for all. http://www. greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses. html 4/3 /00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 6 of 11 7. Be polite to the people, (horsemen, hikers and bikers) you meet on the trail. Let them get to know you and your horses. People are always more considerate when meeting friends on the trail. Both equestrians and cyclists can also learn to withstand just about anything—even each other, despite often heard protestations to the contrary. When the dust clears, we find that we agree about almost everything, and that at the heart of it all, we want the same basic experience. We share the wonder at what we are able to experience on our chosen steeds. We love the beauty of the outdoors and the joy of life we breathe as we travel through wild lands. We revel in sports which require exquisite balance and self-control, and which inherently involve a certain amount of risk and exposure to injury should we loose our balance or control of whaYs under the saddle. We get saddle sores and sore backs. The more time we devote to our respective sports, the more likely we are to put every spare dollar into it. We grow attached to our mounts, give them names, groom and maintain them. We relish the wind whistling in our ears from a swift run along an open trail. We whine about the relative paucity of the opposite sex in our chosen sport. So take a cyclist to lunch. Collective Responsibility Our combined responsibilities are even greater than those owed to our own user groups. We can only succeed as a united community. There are several ways we can fulfill these responsibilities. We've got to share responsibility for our irresponsible members. Trail patrols are proven methods of easing tensions and educating users. Combined patrols, which involve all user groups, are particularly effective. Patrollers receive training, often including CPR and first aid instruction. They may work with public safety departments. They act as a peer group, giving advice on proper trail behavior, and being role models. IMBA has a National Mountain Bike Patrol, patterned after the National Ski Patrol. Joint events are proven ways to encourage a happy trail community. Dramatic evidence of this comes from the Peninsula south of San Francisco. Imagine this scene: A well meaning equestrian sees a pack of horses riding towards him, and not far behind, some cyclists. He rushes forward to warn his pals that bikes are coming. He is met with the reply, "That's OK, they're with us." This happens during the annual Romp and Stomp ride. "ROMP" refers to the Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers, a mountain biking group, and "stomp" refers to the horses that participate in the ride. Every year the group meets for a picnic and a joint ride. They go on the same trails, to the same destinations, in mixed groups. Cyclists and equestrians get positively giggly with sentiment and good feelings for each other during the course of the ride. Perceptions after participating in that event have changed dramatically. One equestrian who actively and vocally detested mountain bikes attended a Romp and Stomp event, perhaps only to prove that it would not work. After the event, she completely reversed her stance. She became completely enthused with bikes and wanted them on the trails with her. Sure, most situations will not result in a"conversion" such as this—the trail to Damascus isn't always easy—but it does illustrate the subjective nature of the problem. Events also can include competitions. A few years ago, a cyclist beat a http://www. greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses. html 4/3/00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 7 of 1 1 horse on a 100 mile trail ride for the first time, which was exciting news for me and my cyclist and equestrian friends. We have heard about relay races and poker runs that have combined teams. There have been ride and tie events, and relatively athletic events where equestrians and cyclists have switched mounts in mid event. We find it best if these events take place on the same route, which is entirely possible if the participants are prepared. Horse groups often invite cyclists to participate in their events. For example, cyclists often provide obstacles for horses to negotiate in safe style in trail trials events. They also help with crowd control and alerting other users during equestrian endurance events. That old standby event, the trail project, is one of the best ways to build community among users, and at the same time give something back to the land that serves us so well. We build our trail community by working together with land managers on trail and open space advocacy. We have all seen instances where different user groups enter advocacy situations at each other's throats. This almost never works. It leaves bitter feelings, and often a net loss to the trail family. In fact, our diversity of use ought to be our main strength. A while ago, we completed a multi-year effort to obtain access to a water districYs land. We wanted access for bikes and increased access for other users Horses and hikers could already use it under a permit system. We made a big effort to go in with a united community, and the multi-use trail council presented a proposal for this increased access. During the hearing, most testimony favored the increased access, but a few equestrians bolted from the trail council, and said that the land in question was "too special" for bikes. They even used the trail council's name, indicating that they were the minority view. We all lost. No bikes were allowed and the equestrians did not get the access they wanted. After that hearing, the board members had a few things to say. Most indicated that not only did they not like bikes, they also wished there were no horses on the water districYs land. The rebel horse people made faces as long as their horses'. They were next! To top it off, the rest of the trail council was very irritated at this public display of a lack of unity, and it took a while to get back on track. All trail users lost this round. In another case involving access to nearby water district land, the same trail community presented a cohesive and united approach. Virtually everyone who spoke at public hearings was in favor of equal access for bikes, horses and hikers. This included a strong coalition of trail users, the same trail council referred to above, the environmental community and the press. This time the trail community won in important aspects. It emerged united, prepared to advocate for trails and open spaces with renewed vigor. It got over 12 miles of trail for bikes and horses that would not have happened without this collaborative effort. It also got the promise from the district board to examine the issue again. So, on the advocacy front, we urge cyclists, hikers, equestrians and land managers to band together to achieve our goals. In so doing, we must keep in mind that these are indeed mutual goals—we share much more than we disagree on. Keep in mind that advocacy involves a multi-way http://www. greatoutdoors. com/IocaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses. html 4/3 /00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 8 of 11 trail. Users and land managers should be sensitive to each other's needs. We also must be sensitive to the needs of land managers. We've got to collaborate to keep track of the myriad of legislative, funding and maintenance matters that impact our trails and open spaces. Multiple or Shared Use There are many general, yet persuasive reasons to favor multiple use trails wherever possible. Sometimes there is pressure from other trail users who don't want bicyclists on "their" trails, perhaps because they feel their sweat equity gave them ownership, or simply because they were there first. This country club mentality has no place on the public lands. Mountain bikers now form a huge tax paying group—the largest in many areas, and it is unjust to exclude them from land that is purchased and maintained by their tax dollars. To the extent these views predominate, land managers feel forced to provide separate trail opportunities to cyclists who represent a significant percentage of trail users. This can lead to trail saturation in ecosystems best left wild. It is truly a loss for everyone when social management of different user groups negatively affects the wildlife that calls those lands home. Over the years, IMBA has devised several points in favor of a trail system that is generally multiple use 1. Shared-use trails can best accommodate the needs of the most users. A generally open backcountry disperses users across an entire trail system. Single use or restricted use trails tend to concentrate users. This increases environmental and social impacts. 2. Shared-use trails help build a trail community by increasing the need for all users to cooperate to preserve and protect a common resource. Encountering other users on a trail offers the opportunity to meet and talk. Without that opportunity, iYs difficult to establish mutual respect and courtesy. Separate trails breed ill will, territoriality and rivalries. 3. Shared-use trails are most cost effective for land managers. They require fewer signs and less staff. Monitoring and enforcement is simplified. 4. Shared-use trails enable responsible, experienced users to educate outlaws and novices. Because they share the same trail system, the opportunity for peer regulation is enhanced. Conclusion To sum up, I hope I have convinced you to support shared use as a preference. That doesn't mean all trail must be shared use—equestrian only trails are certainly appropriate some times, particularly on private property. But we do feel strongly that at least non motorized users ought to generally share the trails together, and act together as family members in the trail community. If we don't do this, consider the consequences. Developers are constantly after our trails and open spaces. Huge resources for the environment, such as the potentially $900,000,000 Land and Water http://www.greatoutdoors. com/locaUpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses. html 4/3/00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 9 of 1 1 Conservation Fund will be lost without collaborative effort. Both equestrians and cyclists have been unjustly under attack, and there is always the risk that both groups will be picked off in access disputes. So let's work together and make it better for us all. Appendix A: MOU between cyclists and equestrians. Oregon Equestrian Trails Oregon Mountain Bikers Memorandum Of Understanding Problem Statement: Currently there is minimal coordination between the user groups in the on- going battle to ensure our continued use of the back country recreational areas. Goal: Create a partnership to aid each others' organization in this regard. Statements: Shared trails benefit both equestrians and mountain bikers. It is in our mutual best interests to work together to encourage land managers and owners to develop and open multiple use trails for non-motorized recreational users. We recognize that some trails are not suitable for multiple use, and Oregon Mountain Bikers does not advocate, for example, allowing mountain bikes in wilderness areas and that OET does not advocate equestrian uses in or near environmentally sensitive areas. In other areas, safety concerns and environmental sensitivity, may not allow bicycles and/or horses together on certain trail areas. Conflict between users has not been a significant problem in Oregon. Conflict is more frequent where congestion is an issue, and the best way to avoid conflict is to ensure adequate trails exist to serve the users. OET and Oregon Mountain Bikers realize the need to become proactive in the on-going perception of user-conflicts. It is understood and agreed upon that we will: Invite members of mountain bike and OET clubs to speak at one another's meetings, and even to join each other's clubs to have ongoing liaison. http://www. greatoutdoors. com/locaVpartners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses. html 4/3 /00 Bikes and Horses: A Case for Sharing, Clemson University Page 10 of 1 1 Keep both clubs informed on current and/or future trail planning opportunites that will be designated as shared use. Exchange newsletters and any other informational pertinent to our causes. Conduct joint events, such as trail work parties and fundraisers for trail systems. Establish a trail advocacy listserv, open to all individuals who support multiple use of trails. Work together to develop awareness of each other's needs and requirements on the trail. By communicating closely, OET and Oregon Mountain Bikers will become proactive in dealing with conflict. If, during the planning, design, and construction of trail facilities, shared use is not identified by the land managers as being the preferred alternative or design, then the two groups will make attempts to work together to remove obstacles or identify alternatives so that the trails can be rerouted or redesigned to be safe for shared use. Recognizing that problems on the trails generally stem from individuals who are not members of groups like OET and IMBA, local mountain bike advocacy clubs and Oregon Mountain Bikers, education of non-members and recruitment of inembers to both groups is critical to the success of shared trail use. OET and Oregon Mountain Bikers will exchange membership recruitment ideas and will encourage membership in each others' organizations. To continue making Oregon a model of cooperation between equestrians and mountain bikers, this agreement is entered into between: Oregon Equestrian Trails Oregon Mountain Bikers This presentation was comp/eted with the kind assistance of Mark Flint, Patty Cielsa, and Gary Sprung. http://www.greatoutdoors. com/local/partners/imba/infoaction/library/clemson_horses.html 4/3/00 N Ru� 24 99 11:36a Jemes Baron 406 8E7-6100 p.3 3.7 Trail Design Staadards aad Dei�ails TRAII:�' DE.AGI�I S?ANDARDS AND DE?AII.S F1=we Alkla�/Bl�laf s�d Fqu�trisn Path Des��n Coacepb a a ,6 .e o a�-a� mm. i 0'-0� p.eeerr.Q 3.7-1 Gradient 0-596 Optimu� 5-1596 Acceptable 15•2396 For shart disrances, to be appmved on a site spec�c ba4is Use switchbacks on steeper grades. Slt�n� Signage at hazards aad inta:sections; diractiona! signage; Ttail Etiquette" si�nage for bikes/hikiag and equestrian. Based on topography iaclude picnic tables and shade trea. Feacing at bazards; feacing or plantiag to prevent cutoffs at switchbactcs. 10'-0" minimnm clearance necessury over treil ��er�: Trai1• compected dirt; decomposed granite, coropacted gravel, woodchips/barkchips, aad aspbalt where heavp use or erosion problem or as roquiicd by city engineer. LandscaEae: drought tolerant� native, low maintenance species ihat provide barriers. shade and screening. Right of Way. 14'-0" Prefetred, !2'-0" Minimum LrvstvY eoII�01 mECOIIII1fmS b'-O' mie. required o■ steep slopes. ��u� 2� 99 11:36a Jame3 BAron 3.7 Ttail Desiga Standards 2Dd Uetails Pi�ure 8 Surlace Constructioa Det�tla r 4� r f�. ��C r �j o c� C.� t,,. ��,J i �.�i �,J c.� Materiats: ;V �96 slope to drain 4' ;ayer decomWsed grar.iee Z x 4 redwood header at trail edg� where required 2 x 4 z 18 stakcs, 15^ o.c. 9090 compacted subgr3de Deeampoaed Graaite/Wood Chips Mateziais: �'t.%� 2" asD�►aIt conere*e 296 alope to drain 4" cocapact:d dacomposed gxanice. Use native soil wherc it �w daterminad by soil engineer tt�at it can support load a: 9G35 relative compactioa. 9096 con�pacted subgr�de Asph�lt Concrete 3.7-2 Au� 24 99 11:39a ii f� Jame3 Aaran F�=an 72 T'rail IdentlflcaHon Post �I 408 �E7-6]QU 3.7 Trail Design Standards and Deca;ls di. i ra o a T� 6 L r� 7181� �6 8Dd �1� 10g0 IIIfOtmStlOII pZBQU�I 'll Distanoe Direction Activities R J Regulationa 8 x 8 zedvvoad past Slops to draia v finish grade Cancrete footing i ..1 1: f� ti�� i► l �4-- 'o a 2 n a Compacted subgrade 1 /2 cy. par grade Frnat Sectiou/Elenataoa dS degree beve! cut Side Etevatloa o, 4 3.7-5 CPRS CONFERENCE THURSDAY Park Facilities in the 21 S Century-Thursday A.M. Turf management at 3Com Park-Thursday A.M. General Session with Dr. Maya Angelou "Charting our Future" —Thursday P.M. Exhibit Hall Welcome Reception-Thursday Evening FRIDAY The Brown Act relating to Commissioners, Board Members-Friday A.M. Role of Commissioners and Board Members-Friday A.M. SESSION OUTLINE i i ==�Si Role of Commissioners and Board Members Welcome/Introductions Goa1s of this Session Role of Commissioner/Board Member Shari.ng Experiences e�.�.:_•.: C�ar�w•�::�� IA �.�t��J Do's Don'ts of Commissioners Board Members Guideline for Volunteer Directors Commissioners The Brown Act Parliamentary Procedures Advocacy/Selling Benefits of Recreation Paxks Wrap-Up -1 ��1_ Questions Answers Announcements ��A'�8� A� o�NrA�oN l. Almost all volunteers serving on a park and recreation advisory co�xunission ask themselves the following quesrions: a. What is my role. b. What are my responsibilities. c. How do we deal with another commission member? d. What is my relationship with the staff? e. How do I relate to the oommunity? 2. Advisory commissions are established to provide a communication link between the community and the City Council and the Recreation (Community Services Division) and Parks (Public Works Department) staff as xhe agency strives towards contributions to a better quality life. The commission is advisory in nature and its input, usually is in the form of recommendations to the City Council or staff, is considered in evaluating effectiveness of programs and policies 3. The source document for comnussion authority is the ordinance. In addition you have the "Introduction to Recreation and Parks Commissian" and the Rules of Operation. 4. Relationship with fellow commission members: a. The association with fellow commi.ssion members will probably be your nwst unportant relationship as you serve on the commission. b. Before tallang about relationships, it is well to point out that each of you comes from various backgrounds educational, occupational, religious, social, economic, physical and cultural and we should be aware thet these differences do exist. c. We must also recogniz�e that the rea.5on for serving on the comniission will vary and, perhaps, some will have a special interest. Each member will contribute in his own way and is an important part of the decision process. We should not expect every conznzission member to give his time, talent, and l�owledge to the same degree. Some will give more and others will give less, but in the end the community will benefi� Beari.ng t�is in mind, the following relationships may serve as a guideline: a) We must always respect the other individual's viewpoint even though it may be opposite our owa. b) We must allow the other ind.ividual t,o articulate his or her views and then attempt to make an objective evaluation of those views. c) Evaluation of our fellow comm,ission member's viewpoint should be based on what is best for the total communit}r and what is best for all concerned. d) There will be tunes when political action among the commission is apparent and we must strive to minimi�e that whenever pc�ssible. e) We must be open and honest at all times. Each commi.ssion member has a responsibility to recognize new commission members and see that they are made welcome, become oriented, and receive training. 5. Relationship with City Council a. Individual contacts with the City Council to discuss problems are neither encouraged nor discouraged. This will have to be handled on an individual basis. Should a controversy arise within the comm,i.ssion, counsel and guidance are available from staff as well as from individual members of the City Council. However, it would be unethical for an individual commis�ioner to attempt to influence or persuade the City Council to assume a posture which may be in opposition to the commission as a whole. Should a split opinion exist on commission action, it would be appmpriate for a majority and minority report to accompany the recommendation to the City Council. c We expect the individual conunission member to recognize the following: a) The commi.ssion members are appointed by the City Council. n) Tne c,�mmission member hds an obligation to �rve the public. c) The contact with the City Council should always be open and never used to circumv�nt th� staff or comrnission. d) 'Ihe oommi.ssion shnuld not knowingly and openly embarrass the s�taff or the City Council. e) 'Ihe commi.ssion should render as much assistance as pc�cssible to the City Couneil and staff and avoid placing them in an imtenable position The comm.ission should assist the City Council in developing publie tnist in the advisory commission system. g) The commi.ssion should be sensitive to City priorities and lmow when to take a stand. There are ti.mes when, for the good of the overall City, it may require adjustment of the priority level of a particular p�ject. h) The conunission falls under the restrictions of the Brown Act whereby decisions and recommendations can only be made at a duly constituted meeting which is open to the public. 6. Relationship with Human Services Department Staff a. Misunder;,tandings and problems can develop in the relationship between the staff and commi�ssion if an enthusiastic member attempts to take aboard those duties whieh are not within the framework of the commi.ssion action. Each commission must be alert to the d.i.fference between advisory, policy-setting, and doing work. b. At tunes a commissioner may be asked to Ndo" the work as volunteer. It is doubly important that when this oecurs the difference be recogniu,ed and be communicaLed to assure there is no question about the role on the advisory body and the individual's volunteer assignment. With this in mind, the followi.ng commission role, supportive and advisory to staff and City objectives, f may be used as a guideline: a) Contact should be with the City staff member assigned to the eommission rather than to other staff people. The individual commissioners should feel free to make a contact with the higher level supervision, such as the City Manager, and/or City Council, providi.ng the assigned staff person is aLso notified of this contact� b) Official contacts with staff inembers should clearly be in the framework of the comntission assignmenG c) It is important for eommissioners to l�ow the recreation facilities. A visitation progranz both on an unseheduled and a scheduled basis will allow members to become fully knowledgeable of the program, park areas, equipment, faeility use, ete. d) Co�m��ions should not ask for individual reports, favors, or special consideration. e) Commissioners should realize the assigned'staff person works with the commi.ssion and reports to the Director of Human services. The Director reports d.irectly to the City Manager. He or she is limited in t. scope of authority to earry out recommendations. 7. Intra-Agency Relationships a. The success of the Human Services Department effort in a eommunity is directly proportional to the level of priority it attains in the City operation. Governing body and administrative perceptions on the importanee and contribution of recreation services to the community's quality of life will inevitably influence decisions on budget, planning, manpower, land use, polieies and procedures. Therefore, the interdependence among City departments/comm.i.ssions cannot, nor must not, be ignored or taken lightly. b. The advisory eommission is in a position to provide for significant positive relationships that can contribute to an understanding of recreation and parks services and its role in contributing to a better quality of life. Guidelines include: a) Know relationships and role of various departments within City. b) Be willing tA provide leadership for developing and �r��in�aining a �lim�te for cooperation among various City commissions. 8. InteT-Agency. Relationships a. No persc�n is an island. Nc� on� p�rson, family, group, or govemment agency is sufficient by themselves. Interdependence is not only a way of life but necessary for survival. So it is with recreation, parks, and conservation foroes. b. An effective commission will reeognize the relationships outside the City periphery ean oontribute to improving the quality of community life. Interaction may include: a) Similar PazkJRecreation agencies at local, county and state levels. b) Govemmental agencies responsible for Park/ Recreation in constituency area; i.e., school, city, eounty, disuict, state, 'federal. e) A.SSOCiations of groups with similar goals and objectives Califomia Park and Recreation Society, National Recreational and Parks Association, League of Califomia Cities. d) Private enterprise. c) Financial groups. fl Non-profit and charitable organizations. 9. Commission Relationships with the Public a. It is unportant to reeognize that as a com*ni��ion member your actions and eomments are often interpreted to be that of the commission, the staff, or the City. A commission member's comments to the press or other public utterances are sometimes mic interpreted even though you state that you are s�peaking for yourself. It may become at odds with the commission goals, objectives or overall poliey. r b. 'Ihe advisory commission is eapected to fill the two major functions: serving as a coaununication link between community, staff and City Council; and providing feedback to th�e public with respect to City philosophies and policies, as well as issues that are being cor.sidered by the City Council. The following guidelines are offered: a) Ther� should be no promi�Ses to the public ihat are binding on the comm,i.ssion, staff, or City Council. b) Comments to the public and to the press must be factual. c) 'Ihe co�n.m��on members have an obligation to listen to comments or complai.nts of the public. Original: Febmary 25,1980 Amen�d�ed: August 10,1990 LS/Is KEY POINTS FOR COMMiSSiOiVFRS DON'T8 no�s 1. RUN THE SHOW 1. ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY 2. DO STAFF'S JOB 2. LEARN JOB DUTIES 3. MAKE RECREATION A POLITICAL 3. LEARN ROLE OF ISSUE COMMISSIONER 4. MAKE PROMISES YOU CAN'T KEEP 5. BREAK THE CHAIN OF COMMAND 6. TRY TO ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY 7. BECOME A ONE-INTEREST COMMISSIONER 4. PARTICIPATE AT MEETINGS 5. ASSOCIATE WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS 6. BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ENTIRE PROGRAM _BENEFI'I'S 7. �IISIT FACILITIES IN IN OPERATION 8. VOICE OPINION 1 9. BE FIRM, FAIR, FACTUAL 10. AN ACTIVE.�.BENEFITS- �F RECREATI0�1 REPRESENTATIVE 11. BE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT RECREATION 12. BE A POLICY SETTER GUIDELINE FOR VOLUNTEER DIRECTORS/COMMISSIONERS 1. Don't participate in every skirmish Stay neutral on some issues Choose sides very carefully 2. Pick the battles that: Are most important to you You know the most about 3. Let them have the small stuff Particularly if you have no real feeling for the idea being discussed If it is truly a minor issue 4. Learn the importance and value of "tin cupping"- finding funding 5. Maintain your sense of the appropriate Don't exaggerate emotion just for attention 6. Don't try to get. Always give: Credit for a job well done Ideas that can give other people's projects and programs Support Encouragement 7. Be an effective communicator Specific Something you've earned the right to talk about Be brief when being interviewed by the press, focus on your issue 8. Be an even better listener 9. Assume leadership 10. Remember perpetual "seconders" rarely make it to the top and are never perceived as idea generators 11. Be sincere. Be careful of: Condescending or patronizing behavior Passive aggression Guideline for Volunteer Directors/Commissioners page 2 12. Know, understand and adhere to the agenda and the agreed upon rules of conduct such as Robert's Rules of Order know your commission/board's authority in accordance with enabling legislation 13. Periodically audit your relationship account with the other board members Orientation of a new member is important Periodic retreat with board and Director is vital 14. Question everything Read you meeting packet and ask questions prior to meeting if possible 15. Understand your position and the limits of your commission/board authority 16. Let the paid director and staff do their job: Don't second guess them Don't undermine them 17. Be your agency's biggest fan Tour the facilities on a regular schedule 18. Participate in the programs offered by your agency Summarized from 1993, A1 Wal}:ers and Associates, Inc. board or to che membership meeting and are not authorized to act on their own in the name of che otganization. Officers The president 0 supervises the conduct of the organiza- tion's business and activities; O serves, ex of/'icio, on all but the nominat- ing committee; and presides ac meecings. The vice-president acts in place of the president when neces- sary and presides ac meecings when the presi- denc cemporarily vacates the chair. In che absence of the president, che vice-president should noc change rules, cannot fill vacan- cies required co be filled by the presidenc and dces noc serve as an ex offscio member of committees; O upon che death or retirement of the presi- dent, assumes all the duties and privileges of che president, unless the bylaws provide an- ocher mechod of filling che vacancy. In organizacions with more than one vice- presidenc, these duties and responsibilicies are assumed by the first vice-president. The secretary is the recording officer; handles correspondence; D issues notices of ineecings; O informs chose elected or appoinced co of- fice or committees; receives and files committee reports; and O keeps the minuces of ineetings. Ac each meecing the secretary should have the minute book, a copy of the bylaws, a book on parliamentary procedure and a list of the unfinished business ftom the previous meeting. The treasurer receives funds; 4 ..�n If any appreciable sums of money are in- volved, the treasurer should be bonded to protecc che organizacion from loss. lc is customary for che creasurer to report to che board at each of its meecings and to make a full financial report to the annual meeting or convencion. (In larger organizacions this re- port should be reviewed by an independent auditor. If the audicor's reporc is available ac the time of the annual meeting or conven- tion, ic should be presented immediately afcer the treasurer's repore. Adoption of the audicor's report, on mocion, signifies accept- ance oE che treasurer's repore. Meetings Ac all meetings (referred eo in Roberc's Rules as "assemblies") it is up co che presiding offi- cer co use the rules of parliamentary proce- dure appropriacely so thac g�d order and reasonable decorum are maintained and che business of the meeting goes forward. At times, che technical rules of parliamencary _1�-•.ki��-�,: 6 E O deposics them in banks approved by the board; and pays bills for expenses chae have been authorized. r.�..._ CSL�1w. ._...""a..+....�.......►_��._ .a..: 3 procedure may be relaxed as long as the meet- ing accomplishes its purpose and the rights of absentees and minoricies are protected. Conventions and large meetings are con- ducced more formally chan the meetings of small boards and committees. The role of the presiding officer. The presiding officer (chair) should: O Be ready to call the meeting to order at the time set. O Follow the agenda and clarify what is happening and what is being voted on at all times. 0 Deal fitmly wich whispering, commotion and frivolous or delaying debate and mo[ions. See that debate is confined to the merits of the question and that personal comments are avoided. No one should speak more than twice on a subject, and no one should speak a second cime until all who wish to speak have had a chance to do so. O Talk no more than necessary. Excepc in small boards and committees, the presiding officer should not enter the debate without giving up the chair to a substitute until the motion under debate has been voced on. Remain calm and deal fairly with all sides regardless of personal opinion. To pre- serve this impaniality, che presiding officer abscains from voting except by ballot or to cast the deciding vote on an issue. Order of business A minimum number (quorum), as prescribed in the bylaws, must be presenc before busi- ness can be legally transacted. The presiding officer should determine that there is a quorum before beginning the meeting. Every organizacion is free to decide the order in which its businesswill be conducted.but most agendas follow a standard patcem: 1. Call to order. 2. Minutes are read by the secrecary and corrections requesced. The presiding officer says: [f there are no corrections the minutes stand appro�ed as read. 3. Treasur�r's Report is given and questions called for: The Treasurer's Repon wiU be filed 4. Reports of officers, the board and stand- ing committees. Recommendations in re- ports should be dealt with as motions at this point. 5. Reports of special committees. 6. Unfinished business. ltems left over f�om the previous meeting are brought up in tum by che presiding officer. 7. New business: Is chere any new business? 8. Program. The program chairperson is called upon to inaoduce a speaker, film or other presencacion. 9. Announcements. 10. Adjournment: Is there any furcher busi- ness? Pause) The me�. ting is adjourned. Motions Business is conducted by acting on motions. A subject is introduced by a main motion. Once this has been seconded and scaced by the presiding officer, nothing else should be taken up until it is disposed of. Long and involved motions should be submitted in writing. Once a motion has been staced, the mover may noc wichdraw ic wichout che con- senc of che meeting. Most motions musc be seconded. i� While a main motion is being considered, other parliamentary motions, which affect i either the main mocion or the general con- duct of the meeting, may be made. The ones most frequently used are described in gen- eral below, but it should be noced that there are excepcions and modifications chat cannoc be included in this brief text. 1. Amend. Debatable; majority vote Used when the intencion is to change, add or i,ivl+��.1J.i..a 'i ..�r`��. omic words in the main motion. Amend the amendment: Used to change, add or omit words in the first amendment. This motion cannot itself be amended. Method: The fnst voce is on the amendment to the amendment. The second vote is on the first amendment eithet as changed or as orig- inally proposed, depending on the first vote. The chird voce is on the main motion either as incroduced or as amended. 2. Refer. Debatable; majority vote If a mocion becomes too complicated chrough amendments or if more information is needed, a motion may be made to refer it to a committee for study or redrafting. This commiccee musc report back or act as in- strucced. 3. Postpone. Debatable; majority vote Consideration of a motion can be delayed uncil a more suitable time, until other deci- sions have been made or until more informa- tion is available by a motion co postpone to a scated future time. 4. Lay on the table. Not debatable; majority vote I mo�e chat we cable chi.s modon. This post- pones consideration in such a way that the mocion can be taken up again in the neaz future if a majority decides to "take it ftom the cable." 5. Tne previous question. Not debatable; two-thirds vote 1 move the previous questian. This motion is used to end debate that has become lengthy or repetitious. When it is seconded, the pre- siding officer immediately puts the question on closing debace. If this receives a two- thirds vote, the pending mocion is voted on ac once without further discussion. 6. Reconsider. Usually debatable; majority vote A vote may be reconsidered through this motion, which musc be made on che same day or the day following the vote by someone who voted on the prevailing side. A motion can be reconsidered only once. The first vote is on whether the motion should be recon- sidered. If this passes, the second vote is on che motion itself. 7. Point of order and appeal. A member who feels the rules are not being followed may call attention to the breach by rising and saying: Point of order. The chair says: State your point of order. Upon hearing it, the chair may say: Your point is weU tc�ken, or Your poinc is not weU taken. One dissatisfied with the ruling may appeal to the meeting for a final decision: ShaU the decision of the chair be suscained? This appeal is debatable, and the presiding officer may enter the debate without giving up the chair. A majority of no votes is necessary co reverse the ruling; a tie sustains it. 8. Questions and inquiries. Whenever necessary, advice may be asked as to correct procedures (parliamentary in- quiry), facts may be requested (point of in- formation), or a change may be soughc for comfort or convenience (yuesdon of privi- lege). The presiding officer responds co the question or refers ic to the proper person. 9. Adjourn. Usually not debatable; majority vote If the cime set for adjoummenc has a�rived or there is no further business, the presiding officer declares the meeting adjoumed with- out waiting for a formal motion. A member may move to adjoum at any time except when a speaker has the floor or a vote is in process. If the motion carries, the meeting is immediately adjoumed. Voting ?he vote needed to pass a motion or elect an official is based on che voces accually cast, 0 unless the bylaws or rules provide otherwise. Thus, a majoriry is more than half of those vocing; abstenrions and blank ballots aze dis- regarded. By using general consent, a formal vote can be avoided on rourine matters where chere is no opposicion. T'he presiding officer says:If there is no objecdon (pause) and declazes the decision made. O A voice vote (aye and no) is common praccice but should not be used where more than a majority is needed. O A show of hands is a good altemative in small groups. If unsure of the result, the presiding of�i- cer should order a rising vote or an actual count. If this is not done, a mem�er can insisc upon a rising vote by calling out "divi- sion"; a count can be forced only by a motion made, seconded and approved by a majority voce. O A mocion for a ballot (secrec written vote) can be made if the bylaws do noc al- ready require one. This morion is not debat- able and requires a majoriry vote. Nominations and elections Normally, a nominating process is used for elections, although any eligible member may be elected whether nominaced or not. Most organizations use a nominating committee to prepare a slate of nominees for the offices to be fiiled. Service on a nominating commit- tee does not prevent a member from becom- ing a nominee. Afcer presentation of the nominating com- mictee's report to che assembly, the presiding officer calls for nominations from che floor. Many organizations require that the consent of the nominee be obtained in advance to avoid a futile eleceion. Seconds are not nec- essary for eicher committee nominations or nominations from the floor. 10 ..�C When all nominations appear to have been made, the presiding officer declares that nominations are closed—�r a motion to this effecc may be made. It +s not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote. A morion to re- open nominations requires a majority vote. The method of voting is usually fixed in che bylaws. A hallot is the normal procedure if there is more than one nominee for an office. If there aze several nominees and the bylaws do not provide for election by a plurality vote (that is, the largest number, but not necessar- ily more than half of the votes cast), several ballots or votes may be needed before one candidate achieves a majority. Where eleccion is by ballot, the presiding officer appoints tellers (or an election com- mittee) to collecc and count che voces. 1�e tellers' report, giving the number of votes cast for each nominee, is read aloud and handed to the presiding officer. The presid- ing officer rereads the report and declares the election of each official separately. A postscript to the presiding officer: The rules of pazliamentary procedure aze meant to help, not hinder. Applied with common sense, they should not frusrrace the meeting or entangle it in red tape. Retain control at all times, give clear explanations, and keep things as simple as possible. Good advice from the chair as to the wording of motions and the best way to proceed will avoid needless complications. When in doubt, your rule should be: Respect the wishes of the majority, protect the minority and do what seems fair and equicable. Order fcom League of Women Voters of the Uniced Scaces, 1130 M Saeec, NW, Washing con, DC 20036. Pub #138, 75a (SOa for mem bets). �oa-�-�.y-/�6s �E 11 1 k ::sy l. :.��4'�''. -,�•L 1': 1'... RELATIONSNlP WITH GOVERNMENT OF�ICtALS "PAR1C AND RECREATZON SERQICEB 1PZLL NOT BE `TIEWED AB A NEEDED BER�ICS WZTB HIGH PRZORITY CONCBRNB IINTZ7+ POI.ITICAL DECI8ZON8 I�AlCffitB ARB COZIVINCBD TID1T PARR AND RECREATION R$80URCE8 ARS I�IORB, �CH l�ORB, THAN PL71C88 TO HAVE A LITTLE FIIN AND aAMEB OR TO LEARN TH$ �A�SSB OF BDTTERFLIBB AND DEAD G8N8RAL6." The quality of life within a specific community is greatly affected and often limited by the political environment. The commissioner's persuasiveness and influence on the legislative process, whether local, county, state or national, can enhance recreation's place in the total milieu of provided public services. The commission should be aware that elected officials are sensitive to political involvement which may be viewed as their prerogativa.and within their purview. Clarif ication and understanding of these sensitivities should be considered to avoid misunderstandinq: OIIIDBLI�EB FOR INOOLVB?iENT ZNCLIIDE: 1. Contacts with elected officials on should be made only with knowledge the appointing authority. behalf of the agency and approval of 2. Personal political involvement should be inf luential and supportive of aqency objectives. 3. Commission members should support legislative efforts favorable to parks, recreation and conservation through: a. b. c d. Active participation in election, initiatives, referendums. Group and individual contacts with local legislators. Appearances before legislative bodies; i.e. hearinq committees, etc. Beinq available to make presentations to local groups and orqanizations. 4. The commission should not be used for personal political gain, favors, or influence. 5. Commission members may act as liaison with city, county, state and national elected officials on behalf of the agency when coordinated through the appointing authority. ar 5an ecreati n-- 0 �he �er�efits are �nd�eSST"' �=HEA�L�HJ; _CONSlRUCT/Vf ACT/V/T/ES ��OR:YOUTH BfNfF/T PUBL/C SAFfTY �-�:�r.�. arks and recreation programs benefit public safety by giving youth a number of positive, healthy, constructive activities. Consider that 40% of a youngster's time is open to choices— positive or negative. There are more than 10 million households in California, 36°b of them with children under 18 years of age. Park and recreation agencies provide more activities for youth than anyone else in town except the public schools. :PR/SON OR PARKS? �RfCRfAT/ON OR RfST/TUT/ON? arks and recreation programs are an effective alternative to help deter rising crime and gang activity. Experts agree that a lack of positive alternatives is one of the KEY reasons why young people join gangs. Gang-related problems currently cost California taxpayers about $1 billion each year. One in 13 youths is a victim of a violent crime and are at greater risk of violence than adults. In one district, five recreation centers and a sports complex used $13,000 of a court grant to keep 231,405 youths busy evenings and weekends. A documented midnight basketball program caused as much as a 55% reduction in juvenille crime calls to the police. And with 170,000 participants, the program cost pennies per youth. ;��.HfALTHY PARKS PAY D/V/DENDS :B�4CK TO lHE COMMUN/TY ommunities receive the economic benefit of providing positive alternatives and contributing to a healthy community. Youth and young adults are employed by parks and recreation agencies in numerous ways. For many, it is their first venture into the workplace, teaching beneficial lifelong skills. Well-maintained parks substantially improve property values of nearby residents and contribute to the community's sense of identity and pride. Park recreation agencies network with other service providers to develop healthy children, neighborhoods and communities. For what it costs for the California Youth Authority to incarcerate youth, reasonably financed recreation and counseling could save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually. 'Parks and Recreatlon—The Benellts are Endless is a trademark of the National Recreation and Park Association InFormation pr°ovided by CaliFa��a=.��ark Recreatron Society e oes ou e r� o a a e onnec e o e ar�r� ou ave o �ss omorrow t RALPH M. BROWN ACT The Ralph M. Brown Act is California's sunshine law for �ocal governments. The law basically requires that all business of local agencies be conducted in an open and public setting. In 1993 the Legislature made significant changes to the Brown Act which take effect on April 1, 1994. Below is an overview of some of the provisions of the Brown Act which you should be aware of. 1. Le4islative bodv. Under the Brown Act, the City Council and all City boards, commissions or committees ihereinafter referred to as "City boards") that are created by charter, ordinance, resolution or other formal action by the City Council are deemed to be legislative bodies and must comply with all of the provisions of the Act. Moreover, standing committees of City boards (committees consisting of less than a majority of the members of the board) which have a continuing subject matter ;urisdiction or a fixed meetina schedule are also deemed legislative bodies. 2. Meetincrs. A meeting is any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body convened to hear, discuss or deliberate upon any item of business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. A meeting can be face-to- face, over the telephone, by fax or by any othe.,- technological device. Furthermore, a quorum need not be all involved in the discussion at the same time for there to be a meeting for example, a series of telephone calls to poll the City board members on an issue?. On the other hand, the attendance by a majority of the members of a City board at conferences, seminars, retreats, or social or ceremonial events does not constitute a meeting, provided that the members do not discuss among themselves specific business within the board's jurisdiction. With certain exceptions, all meetings of a City board must be held within the City. 3. Aaenda for reqular meetinqs. At least 72 hours before a regular meeting the board must post the agenda containing a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed by the board. NO ACTION shall be taken and NO DISCUSSION shsll take place on anv item not apDearina on the oosted acrenda, exceDt that board members may (11 brieflv respond to statements made or auestions posed bv the �ublic. (2) make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her own activities and (31 refer matters to staff, ask auestions for clarification or schedule matters for future aQendas. There are three circumstances in which non-agendized items can be added to the agenda, but the avenda should not be modified after it has been posted without consultation with the City Attornev's office. 4, Snecial meetinas. Special meetings can be held by delivering personally or by mail written notice to each member of a board of the special meeting and to the newspaper, radio or television station requesting notice in writing of the special meeting. Such notice must be received by the members of the board and the media and a copy of the notice must be posted in a location that is freely accessible to the public at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting. Special meeting agendas may not be changed and only those items appearing on a special meeting agenda can be considered by the board. (A study session is a form of a special meeting and should be treated as such.) 5. Closed sessions. Closed sessions may only be held for one of the enumerated reasons set forth in the Act (i.e. potential or actual litigation, real property transactions, labor negotiations, personnel matters, threat to public safety). There are specific rules pertaining to how the closed session item must be described on the agenda and what public disclosure must be made by the board following the closed session. Before convenina a closed session, vou should contact the City Attornev's office in order to avoid any violations of the Act. 6. Public �articir�ation in meetinas. The public is entitled to a�3dress City boards on any item on the agenda, and each regular meeting agenda should provide an opportunity for the public to address the board on any item of interest to the public. However, City boards may adopt reasonable regulation limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony and the amount of time for each individual speaker. Further, City boards may not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs or services provided by the board or the acts or omissions by the board members. Nevertheless, City boards should not permit anyone or any group to disrupt the meeting. In the event of disruptions, the board may order such persons to leave the meeting or may clear the room and continue with the meeting. 7. Recordina meetinQS. Any person attending a City board meeting is entitled to record the proceedings on a tape recorder, video tape or still or motion picture camera, unless the board reasonably determines that such recording would disrupt the proceedings (i.e. due to the noise, illumination or obstruction of view by the recording device). If you have any questions regarding the above or any other aspects of the Brown Act, do not hesitate to call Y�1 Ci�y Attorney. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC S011THWEST RECREATION AND PARK TRAINiNG CONFERENCE uNDERSTANDING THE BROWN ACT Prepared by: Debra Corbett City Attorney, City of Tracy Kathteen Faubion Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver 8� Wilson r table dealing In practice, tension between efficient conduct of business and open conduct of business; Brown Act resolves tension in favor of knowledge and accountability y I •"Legislatnre bodies" defined in statute as permanent committees with continuing subject matter jurisdiction and hold regular meetings City Councils, Planning Commissions, Parks and Recreation Commissions these are all "standing" committees Ad Hoc or "special purpose" committees Creation of �committees, task forces, etc. Committees with delegated authority or who receive money and have voting members from City Council (i.e. Chamber of Commerce) What are the b�c re uirements of the Brown Ac�? By-laws or other similar rules must establish regular meeting time, place Meetings must be held in jurisdiction (i.e. the City limits), subject to certain exceptions Notice of the meeting before it occurs 72 hours for regular meeting 2 1 Meeting defined in statute Adjourned meeting (items carried over to next �egular meeting and notice of adjournment must be posted no new items can be added) Continued meeting procedures same as adjourned unless less than 24 hours Changing location of ineetings after posting (size of crowd,. availability of facility) Switching meetings due to holidays or vacations Reminder of posscble relation to By-laws or local poticies that may exist When �r "closed" door discussions nermitted? "Closed" or "executive" sessions are permitted for various reasons such as persor�nel, property acquisition, claims and litigation usualty only held by City Council or similar bodies that have litigation or personnel matters Closed sessions were a focus area of the last major overhaul of Brown Act in 1993; revisions strictly limit authority for closed session Very specific agenda descriptions and reporting out procedures spelled out in statute aA/hat ha�nens if the Brown Act is not followed �vhat remedies exist? If there are complaints about violations of the 4 r� r �IVhat tvues of situations are not violations? Examples can be park openings/dedications, promotional events, concerts in the park, fund- raisers, parades, high school graduations, sports events Chamber of Commerce mixers, Boys and Girls Club auctions Caveat don't have a quorum together talking about commission business! Informational meetings one on one contacts with staff or proponents/opponents �_i i _i_�_ i_ i. .i i i_ _i i Only discuss and take actions on items on the agenda Always provide for items from the audience Be careful about agenda items outside the pubtic meeting (communications which are not "on the record" Appearances are important Take it seriously! Prevention of violations is best solution General fund gets the bill for violations that result in attorneys fees 6 R SESSION OUTLINE THE BROWN ACT COMMISSIONERS/BOARD MEMBERS 8:00 8:10 Welcome/lntroductions Lecture/Skills/Tools: 8:10 8:15 Goals of this Session 8:15 8:25 What is a Legislative Body? 8:25 9:00 How does the Act apply to Commissioners/Board Members? 1. Meetings 2. Special Meetings 3. Closed Sessions 4. Public participation in meetings 5. Recording meetings 6. Agenda for regular meetings 7. Serial meetings 8. Secret Ballots Wrap-Up 9:00 9:10 Review 9:10 9:30 Questions Answers Announcements i est est-�� rle er LLI �..�...v...... g THE BRO`�VN ACT 2000 Presented To: CALIFORNIA PARKS AND RECREATION SOCIETY MAxCx 17, 2000 JEFFRY F. FERRE BEST BEST KRIEGER LLP 3750 Ut�tIVERSITY AvENUE SUI� 400 RIVERSIDE, CaI,IFOw3IA 92501 (909) 686-1450 (909) 686-3083 (FAX) JFFERRE@BBici..Aw. coM Riverside Ontario Rancho Mirage San Diego R V PUBUFF15410I 6 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6� KRIEGER LLP OUTLINE OF BROWN ACT INTRODUCTION A. Development The Brown Act developed as the result of a 1951 San Francisco Chronicie investigation into the plethora of secret meetings despite diverse codes and statutes prohibiting them. The League of California Cities drafted the original act which was later promoted through the legislature by Modesto Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown. The bill was signed into law in 1953. The Act has been amended several times, with the most recent amendments effective January 1, 2000. B. Purpose The purpose is to ensure that almost all aspects of the decision-making process of iegislative bodies of local agencies be conducted in public and open to public scrutiny. II. BROWN ACT A. Application of Act The Act applies to "local agencies", generally defined as political subdivisions and districts including, for example, general law and chartered cities, counties, school districts and other special districts. 2. The Act applies to "legislative bodies", generally defined as (a) governing bodies of local agencies, (b) commissions and cammittees of local agencies, either permanent or temporary, either decision-making or advisory, created by formal action of a legislative body and (c) boards, commissions and committees governing a private entity created by an elected governing body, or receiving funds from a local agency and on whose governing body sits a member of the local agency's legislative body. The Act applies to persons elected to serve on a legislative body, even prior to assuming office. LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST KRIEGER LLP 4. The Act applies to "meetings", defined generally as a congregation of a majority of legislative body members to hear or discuss items within that agency's subject matter jurisdiction, or the use of communication or intermediaries employed by a majority of legislative body members. The Act generally does not apply to social events, seminars and educational conferences, or community organized meetings, at which agency business is not discussed by a majo�ity of agen_�y members. 5. The Act does NOT apply to (a) an advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of the governing body unless it is a standing committee which has continuing subject matter jurisdiction or a meeting schedule fixed by formal action of the legislative body; (b) mere attendance at a standing committee meeting, if only as an observer; or (c) attendance at open and noticed meetings of other local agencies. B. Agency Posting and Notice Requirements The Act requires posting an agenda accessible to the public at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of a regular meeting, with a brief general description (generally need not exceed 20 words) of each item of business to be transacted or discussed in both open and closed session. For special meetings, written notice may be provided by any means at least 24 hours in advance to members of the legislative body and to anyone who has requested notice in writing. The notice must specify the time and place of the meeting and the business to be discussed. Notice may be waived in writing delivered to the secretary before the meeting. No action or discussion is allowed for any item not listed on the agenda (except for brief response to persons exercising public comment rights at meeting). 2. Exceptions: Adding an item by 2/3 vote deternuning an emergency situation e�cists (work stoppage or crippling disaster impairing the public's health and safety). b. Adding an item by 2/3 vote of those present determining a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the agency subsequent to posting the agenda. c. An item was earlier posted pursuant to the seventy-two (72) hour requirement, but the agenda item has been continued to a subsequent meeting within five (5) calendar days of the original meeting. R V PUE3UFF1540988 1�' LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6 KRIEGER LLP C. Opportunity for Public to Speak Every agenda must provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the body on items of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of that item, or concerning items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body (exception: need not allow public to speak if an ite� was pre�ously considered at a public hearing by a committee composed exclusively of inembers of the legislative body). The legislative body may adopt regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each speaker. The legislative body may order the meeting room cleared (except nondisruptive news media) of persons willfully interrupting the orderly conduct of the meeting. III. SOME EXCEPTIONS TO PUBLIC SESSION REQUIREMENTS (Closed Sessions) A. Real Property Transactions the legislative body may go into closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange or lease of real property to give instructions to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payments for purchase, sale, exchange or lease. Prior to the closed session, the local agency must identify the real property and persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate. B. Pending Litigation the legislative body may discuss in closed session "pending litigation" if: There is litigation pending involving the agency; or 2. There is "significant exposure to litigation" against the local agency; or The local agency has decided or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. Prior to the closed session, the local agency must state on the agenda or publicly the statutory basis under the Act for discussing pending litigation in closed session. RVPUE3UFF�540988 -«i" LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6 KRIEGER LLP C. "Personnel" the legislative body may go into closed session to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against such employee unless such employee requests a public session. For complaints or charges brought against an employee, the employee must be given 24 hour notice of the right to have the matter hand(ed in open session. Closed session may NOT be held to �isci!�s the agency's available funds, funding priorities or budget. "Employee" does not include elected officials. "Employee", however, does include officers and independent contractors who act as officers or employees. D. Salaries and Compensation of Employees the legislative body may discuss in closed session with its designated representatives salaries, salary schedules, or compensation in the form of benefits of its represented and unrepresented employees. These closed sessions can take place prior to and during consultations and discussions with representatives of employee organizations and unrepresented employees. The same definition of "employee" and prohibition against funding or budget discussion applies as set forth in Section III. C. -"Personnel", above. E. Joint Powers Insurance Authorities; Multi jurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement Agencies insurance claims pertaining to tort or workers compensation iiability and drug law enforcement criminal investigations may be discussed in closed session by applicable agencies. F. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Sessions the legislative body must publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote of every member as follows: Approval of a real estate agreement must be reported at the public meeting during which the ctosed session is held or, if final approval of the agreement rests subsequently with another party, the local agency must disclose approval of the agreement upon inquiry by any person subsequent to final approval of the agreement by the other party. 2. Approval to defend litigation, or to seek or refrain from seeking appeliate review, or to enter litigation as amicus curiae must be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. 3. Approval of a settlement of pending litigation must be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held, provided that if final approval of settlement rests subsequently with another party, then the disclosure of approval shall be given following inquiry by any person after the settlement becomes final. RVPUI3UFF1540988 '�V' LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6� KRIEGER LLP 4. Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held (except that the report of a dismissal or of the non-renewal of an employment contract shall be defened until the first public meeting following the exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any). Approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations must be reported after the agreement is final and has been accepted by the other party. The legislative body must provide copies of contracts, settlement agreements or other documents that were approved in closed session to any person who submits a written request for them to the legislative body within twenty-four (24) hours of posting of the agenda (and to any person who has made a standing request for all documentation as part of a request for annual notice of ineetings). G. A local agency may by ordinance or resolution designate a clerk or other employee to attend each closed session and keep in a minute book a record of topics discussed and decisions made in closed session. The minute book must remain confidential and may, but need not, consist of a recording of the closed session. IV. Miscellaneous Provisions A. Location of Meetings All meetings of a legislative body must be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, subject to limited exceptions. A legislative body may not conduct a meeting in any facility that prohibits admittance of any person on the basis race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex, or which is inaccessible to disabled persons, or where members of the public may not be present without making a payment or purchase. B. Form of Open Deliberation A legislative body is prohibited from taking any action by secret ballot. A legislative body may use video or audio teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body to receive public comment or testimony and to deliberate. If teleconferencing is used, the legislative body must post agendas at all teleconference locations, and each teleconference location must be identified in the notice and the agenda. R V PU[3UFF1540988 V- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST KRIEGER LLP C. Openness of Meetings A member of the public may not be required to register his/her name or provide other information as a condition to attendance. Any person attending a public meeting has the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video tape recorder or a still or motion picture camera unless the legisiative body reasonably finds that such recording cannot continue without noise, illumination or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings. A legislative bod.y ma;t not grohibit or restrict the broadcast of its proceedings unless it makes similar findings. Any tape or film record of a public meeting made by the local agency is subject to inspection under the California Public Records Act, but may be destroyed thirty (30) days after the taping or recording. V. Penalties and Remedies A. Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of such legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of the Act, with wrongful intent to deprive the public of information to which it is entitled under the Act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. B. Violations of the Act may be prevented or stopped by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief. C. Actions by a legislative body which are not in substantial compliance with the open meeting, notice or agenda requirements may be invalidated (exceptions to invalidation generally pertain to actions approving bonds or contracts, or relating to the collection of taxes). D. Court costs and reasonable attorney fees are recoverable in an action brought to enforce the Act. The costs and fees shall be paid by the local agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency. RVPUI3UF[\540988 -Vi- To: Saratoga City Council From: Parks and Recreation Commission Trails Sub-Committee, Sheila Ioannou, Sandra Dodge and Nick Seroff Date: March 17, 2000 Trails in the Mt. Eden Valley Area Below is a list of trail improvement priorities that the commission has voted to approve. We recommend that up to $30,000 of Park Development Funds be spent on these items. The trails are listed with the appropriate segment number from the Saratoga Parks and Trails Master Plan. Both the commission and Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts member, Teri Baron, would also like to take interested council members on a tour of the trail system. 1. Trail Segment #12 This segment is one of the most heavily used in the Mt. Eden Valley area. It was originally a trail that existed along Mt. Eden Road that connected the Teerlink Ranch up to Garrods. When the Teerlinl: Ranch was subdivided, it was required of the developer to improve and dedicate a trail easement. The 1991 Parks and Trails Master Plan had this to say about the segment: This segment has been developed but little maintenance is evident. The surface width varies and in places the bordering property owner has encroached on the easement. Because the drainage was improperly installed, with every rainfall the path floods and the surface washes away. The City needs to clear the area, improve the drainage and post signage." Most of the above is still true today. Signage has been posted though and due to the efforts of the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts volunteers, the surface has been somewhat maintained by spreading wood chips and gravel. The drainage is still a problem. The developer put in a drainage system but it was installed incorrectly and is way above the grade of the trail. Several homeowners have installed pipes that dump their runoff water directly on the trail. Recommendations: Fix drainage problem by reconstructing the drainage system. We have talked to John Cherbone in Public Works and he indicated he could do this. In fact, he has another project, the Mitchell culvert right down the street that he can do concurrently with this. Then install decomposed granite surface (gold fines) per Parks and Trails Master Plan standards. Cost Estimate: $15,000 It is possible that the monies for this could come out of Public Works rather than Park Developmeot/trail fund. This issue should be looked at. 2. Parker Ranch, Trail segments 3-8 The whole Parker Ranch trail system is a wreck. Most of this trail network is heavily used. Segment #3 (the Tank Trail) was recently temporarily closed until it could be fixed. A slide had occurred on the trail approx. 6 years ago. There is a segment in Parker Ranch that goes up a steep hill that somebody has actually cut steps into the side of the hill. The trail did not originally go here. People started using this because the original segment was allowed to disintegrate as it was not cleared properly and maintained. The ori�inal trail needs to be relocated and graded and the hillside put back to its original state. Also, this trail system is for Pedestrian and Equestrian use only. Bike barriers were installed, however bikes have been using the trails. We need to either approve bikes here or redo the bike barriers and add appropriate signage. Recommendation: We believe the Tank Trail project should be deferred to another time. That correction or rerouting is too expensive and difficult to address without procuring additional funding. The rest of the segment needs to be graded. Also, there are several open large pipes that appear to be the property of the Santa Clara Valley Water District that have been left unattended with front grates missing. A child could easily crawl into these pipes or somebody could easily step into them by accident. This situation should be remedied immediately. The rest of the segments in this trail system need grading and water control measures installed. Cost Estimate exce�ting Segment 3: $10,000 3. Trail Segment #44 This trail connects Parker Ranch to Fremont Older Open space. It is heavily used. It was installed about 8 years ago. Jan Garrod cut the trail at the request of the City. It has quite a bit of erosion problems. Recommendations: Improve surface, providing water bars for erosion control. Cost Estimate: $4,000 4. Trail Segment #13 This segment connects Saratoga Heights to Segment 12, which is mentioned above. Part of it has not been used for a while, but is a dedicated trail easement. We believe it has not been used for several reasons, it has overgrown, was never properly graded and there is no signage Recommendations: Reinstall trail path and provide signage. Cost Estimate: $1,000 Finally, we understand that there is currently no money budgeted for trail maintenance. The Public Works staff has been instructed to maintain the trail heads only. We believe that our trail system merits an ongoing investment. If the above trail segments had been properly maintained, part of this money would not need to be spent now to get the trails back in shape. We will be asking Public Works to budget for trail maintenance with the Councils approval. Cost estimates for this will be forthcoming. FEIR REPLY FROM SARATOGA TRAIL ENTHUSIASTS Subject: FEIR REPLY FROM SARATOGA TRAIL ENTHUSIASTS Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:02:02 -0800 From: Dennis Paboojian <DPaboojian@thelindygroup.com> To: "CARY BLOOMQUIST (E-mail)" <cityhall@saratoga.ca.us> PLEASE FORWARD TO JUDY AND SHEILA. «FEIR response_.doc» Dennis Paboojian The Lindy Group Dpaboojian@thelindygroup.com 408-255-4300 Name: FEIR response_.doc �FEiR resnonse_.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) Encoding: base64 i of 1 3/1/00 1:01 PM February 29, 2000 Santa Clara County Planning Commission Attn: Santa Clara County Planning Commissioners Don Peterson Terry Trumbull Nicolas Holguin Chuck Reed Jack Bohan Lorraine Barke Ed. Voss 70 West Hedding Street, 7` Floor San Jose, CA 95110 As part of the process for the CUP application by the Mountain Winery, you will be asked to certify as complete the FEIR at the hearing on March 2 Although the document responded to our comments to the DEIR submitted, the responses are perfunctory and unresponsive to the substance of our comments. The Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts spent many hours analyzing the DEIR and presented extensive comments at the open hearing in December as well as prepared a 27-page write up of our comments. While the FEIR details 53 responses to our comments, most of them are superficial, self- serving and not substantive to the issues we raised. For the Commission to certify that the FEIR is complete would leave the County in possible legal jeopardy. There are still open issues as the following comments indicate. The traffic study did not assess the impact of the traffic from the site on the safe use of the road system which will be used by visitors to the Mountain Winery and which is now used by other motorists, equestrians and bicyclists. You were presented with both oral and written evidence at the public hearing on Dec. 2, 1999 of the danger of this mixed use of these narrow roads. That the danger will increase as the auto traffic increases is without credible contradiction. There is a safety impact, but it can be mitigated by granting off-road trails through the Mountain Winery property to decrease the frequency of horse vs. auto conflicts. Specifically, the owner should be required to grant a trail easement through the property to the City of Saratoga as an extension of Segment 53 of the City's Trail Master Plan as a condition of approving the CUP. The owner should also grant to the County a trail easement consistent with The De Anza trail. 03/01 /00 The presentation of our reply to the responses in the FEIR references them by number and page. REPLY OF SARATOGA TRAIL ENTHUSIASTS TO COUNTY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON FEIR II, Page 17: For the EIR to simply assess the impacts from the NOP condones the illegal activity that has been conducted on this property for the acknowledged 40 years. Since the "no-alternative" presented on Page 1-3 indicates that the activity would cease, a fair comparison is to assess impact over the "no-alternative". The EIR is covering an unusual circumstance in its attempt to legalize a current activity. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply measure the impact from the NOP (January 1998). The response references the CEQA Guidelines and claims the Guidelines were followed in determining that the baseline included the existing impact of the Mountain Winery Concert operation. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n vs. University of California, 47 Cal. 3� 376, 391 at n.2 made it clear the Guidelines are just that, Guidelines, and not mandatory rules. The second sentence of CCR Sec. 15125 makes that obvious. It says, referring to the existing conditions at the time the NOP is published, "This environmental setting will normallv constitute the baseline physical conditions..." (Emphasis added.) Since this application is to attempt to legalize a 40-year-old illegal operation, clearly this is not the normal circumstance. To treat it as the normal circumstance allows the applicant to capitalize on his and prior owners' failure to abide by the County's ordinances. The County is not bound to treat the conditions existing at the time the NOP was published as the baseline. The County staff has chosen to do so, but whether that choice was appropriate is ultimately the Planning Commission's decision. We contend that the only legitimate approach would be to view a"No Project" alternative as the baseline since anything less gives the applicant the benefit of his and his predecessors' 40 years of illegal operation being considered as if it had been permitted from the beginning. At this point, the Planning Commission should ask itself why this applicant should be given that benefit when another applicant, seeking approval for a new use and not having carried on its business in violation of the law, would not receive a similar benefit. I2, Page 18: As pointed out in our Appendix VI through numerous examples, the traffic study was incomplete and did not address the impact of the traffic on pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. The response says it did not identify roadway and traffic impacts with regard to trails. (Response #D17) Of course it didn't. That was our point. It never focused on safety as an issue. It only looked at numbers of cars (at the wrong time of day and day of week) and that the applicant was proposing a concert venue, which didn't seem to have any relationship to trails. Nevertheless, an even cursory review of the conditions of the roadway at the intersection with the designated trail crossing of Segment 13 to Segment 54 of the Saratoga Parks and Trail Master Plan or along the edge of Mount Eden Road would identify the inherent safety hazard associated with a significant amount of traffic. 03/01 /00 I3, Page 18: This response is unresponsive and cavalier. Appendix III specifically cites references in the DEIl2 that demonstrate the inconsistent application of county policy. In the subsequent responses to the particulars of Appendix III, the respondent simply back references to I1. 14, Page 19: This response is unresponsive to the issue identified. As testimony documented in Appendix IV indicates, trail users have for some time in the past had access to trails on this property. If more evidence were required it could be provided. When reviewing an application for a change in land use, the County has not confined its purview on trails to "dedicated public trails". In the case of the Orchard Meadows Estates Development, the County acknowledged that the property had been used as a trail access for a number of years and thus required the developer to provide an easement to legalize the use before the development was approved. If the intent of the County Master Plan is to have any meaning, the County must not restrict its purview to "dedicated public trails". IS, Page19: For the respondent to state "that is a statement of opinion and does not require a response" ignores the many statements of personal experiences contained in the record of the oral testimony given at the hearing before the Planning Commission on Dec. 2, 1999 and the written testimony found in Appendix IV of Comment Letter I appended to the FEIR itself. These are not opinions. They are descriptions of events that happened to these individuals. They provide clear evidence of the unsafe conditions created when auto traffic and horses come together. The nexus between the traffic from this project and the need for off road trails is SAFETY. This evidences makes that abundantly clear, and this EIR simply ignores the issue rather than addressing it and seeking ways to mitigate the adverse impact arising from the traffic. The County Trails Master Plan acknowledges the nexus between increasing traffic and the need for trails due to the decline in safety, and our Comment (Appendix V) quoted it for the benefit of the staff: "Additional trails are needed in Santa Clara County. This is particularly true in selected areas where a concentration of horse owners exists [Pierce Road and the Mount Eden Valley certainly meet this criterion] and safety issues are mounting as those areas develop and traffic conditions intensify making it less safe to travel along rural roadways." I6, Page 19: See Response I S above. This response refers directly to D 17, Page 12 in which the respondent suggests that the City should negotiate "when and if" the owner seeks approval from the City. While this may be appropriate "if" it ever occurs, the City of Saratoga should not be forced to bear the impact of the traffic without having the recourse to mitigate. The County is taking a very narrow view of its responsibilities in granting this CUP if it only assesses the impact on "County-only" resources. The County 03/01 /00 Parks and Recreation Department exhibits the same approach in its analysis of a nexus to the proposed activity. Since the public safety impact is not in the County, but in the City, they seem to choose not to identify it. Clearly, the De Anza Trail and the extension of Segment 53 would mitigate the safety impact of the proposed activity. The response's cross-reference to D-17 is inadequate and does not address the issue raised by the comment. D-17 simply says: "The DEIR does not identify significant roadway and traffic impacts with regard to trails; therefore, no mitigation, such as a trail easement, is recommended." The point not addressed is that evidence has been presented to the Planning Commission in the form of both written and oral testimony at the Dec. 2, 1999 hearing of traffic/equestrian conflicts along the roadways in the vicinity of the project. This demonstrates the nexus already recognized in the County's Trail Master Plan cited above and the need for offroad trails to separate horses and cars. This evidence has not been addressed, except to call it "opinion" and dismiss it. The FEIR is therefore not complete and should not be certified as such. I7, Page 20: This response clearly indicates the myopia of the County and its unwillingness to work with the City to solve a problem. The traffic analysis only identifies what it is looking for and that's volume of traffic. It does not consider the actual conditions of Pierce Road that were identified and the effects of the mixture of traffic on this rural, winding roadway. Although there is no "official" acknowledgement of Pierce Road as a"dangerous roadway", a casual interview with the city personnel would identify it as such, as well as taking a drive on it. The primary inadequacy of the response is in its failure to acknowledge that the traffic study only focused on a time period, 4-6 p.m. on weekdays, when no project related traffic of any significance would be generated. Table 4.1 of the traffic study says only 2 outbound cars are anticipated to be related to any concert activity between 4 and 6 p.m. on weekdays._ When a concert lets out, 1147 cars will leave in a half hour period. That, however, wasn't studied. On the other hand, the DEIR did study the noise impacts at the time of a concert. Why was it appropriate to study noise when a concert was going on but not traffic? The County cannot profess ignorance of when the traffic would in fact be generated and would cause an adverse impact if any. Apart from it's being obvious, it was also pointed out to the County at the Scoping Meeting on Feb. 18, 1998 (See Appendix A to the FEIR, item #7) and by the City of Saratoga in its letter of Feb. 20, 1998 (See Appendix A to the FEIR). Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n vs. University of California, 47 Cal 3` 376, 396 held that an EIR must include an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of a project. Studying the traffic impact from 4 to 6 p.m. was irrelevant. The reasonably foreseeable consequence of this project is that 1147 cars will be dumped onto Pierce Road and filtered between Highway 9, Mount Eden Road and Sunnyvale Saratoga Road every summer weekend afternoon when the equestrians and bicyclists are out and that wasn't studied. This FEIR is therefore deficient and should not be certified. I8, Page 20: This response is not responsive, in that it refers to prior comments that are non-responsive. 03/01 /00 19, Page 21: This is a self-serving response. Although it identifies that no "significant" impact on trails will occur, it fails to define "significant". Since the impact wasn't even studied, which is our point, it seems that it is a statement of opinion by "someone". The response falls back on the County's claim that it was not aware of an auto/horse conflict safety issue and says nevertheless the DEIR concluded there was no problem. Now, through the public hearing process, the County has been made aware of the issue. Without any evidence that it has conducted any further analysis, the County simply says the DEIR saw no problem. What the County's response should have been was to acknowledge the evidence it had been presented, tell what analysis and further research it conducted to allow it to determine if the problem was significant, state its conclusion and thus provide the information to the Planning Commission from which it can make an informed decision. No such effort seems to have been undertaken, and the FEIR is therefore incomplete. II1, Page 21: This is a self-serving response. To conclude that the project description is used consistently is a matter of opinion since our comments have referenced many inconsistencies. Rather than to respond specifically to these inconsistencies the response cavalierly dismissed our commen:. I12-I14, Page 22-23: This response is not responsive. It is not a justification to say that the change of ownership has led to a lack of detailed information about past activities. This information is required and the DEIR is incomplete without it. The response claims that even though it has been difficult to get reliable data on past use, "Nonetheless, the DEIR evaluates the impacts associated with the current level of use of the property...". Understandably the County gives no citation to where this information is to be found in the DEIR, because regardless of the County's statement, NO current use information for the "other events" is included in the DEIR. The response is misleading and the FEIR is incomplete. The response says that the information it obtained from the current owner that in 1999 there were 403 "other events" and that the owner seeks approval for 500 "other events", rather than the 200 mentioned in the Project Description circulated at the time of the NOP, is not a"substantial material change". An increase to 2.5 times the number of "other events" is not a"substantial material change". Clearly the scope of the project has changed radically. Now it is admitted that there will be more than one other event per day, rather than one every other day. Now perforce there will be both concerts and "other events" on the same day. If it is determined that the other events tend to clump during the week or on weekends, rather than being evenly spaced throughout the week, the impact on those days will be even greater. Since that information has apparently not been provided the County, or if provided has not been shared with the public and Planning Commission, the County is not in a position to opine whether a significant adverse impact will or will not occur as a result of these "other events". 03/01 /00 Any environmental document that "shifts among different project descriptions...vitiates the...EIR process as a vehicle for intelligent public participation." (County of Inyo vs. City of Los An�eles, 71 Cal App 3 185 at 197.) Without an accurate (and this was not), stable (and it admittedly has not been) and finite (the details are left to the future 4 or 5 years out from now and 6 or 7 years from when the process began) project description an EIR is inadequate. (Citv of Santee vs. County of San Die�o, 214 Cal App 3 1438). II 5-16, Page 23: Simply to refer back to I1 is unresponsive to the content of our comment. I17, Page 23: The response is correct. The project description does not state that there will be 400 to 500 "other events" per year with up to 1500 people attending. That didn't come out until later (See DEIR 2-9). See last paragraph of comments above at I 12 to I 14. Since the traffic study said the worst-case scenario would include overlapping events, why didn't the noise study also analyze the same worst case? I18, Page 24: 7he traffic study says the worst-case scenario should be studied. The response ignores that and takes a representation by the applicant that the worst case will never happen and performs a new analysis based on the applicant's representations. While the applicant may be correct, unless the County can show that it has been able to verify that the representations are demonstrably correct, it should not ignore the methodology established by the traffic expert it retained to advise it. I19, Page 24: The comment assumed that the ultimate worst case was full utilization of all the Mountain Winery's facilities simultaneously. The real problem lies with the fact that regardless of whether the Winery is having a single function or multiple functions occurring simultaneously, the traffic study only looked at the impact during the 4-6 p.m. peak hour when essentially no traffic was being generated. No one argues that the project will have anything but an insignificant impact during that period. The County proclaims that therefore there is no significant environmental impact as a result of the project's traffic. Clearly the County has ignored three important traffic related issues: (1) when the project is generating traffic, Pierce Road is grid locked from the Winery entrance to Hwy 9 and that involves only 75% of the traffic coming out of the Winery; (2) the other 25% of the traffic turns the other way on Pierce and spreads out onto Mount Eden Road and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road; and (3) unsafe auto/horse conflicts and auto/bicycle conflicts along these narrow roads are a recognized result of the increased traffic. (See Santa Clara County Master Plan, Appendix V to Comment Letter I appended to FEIR) I20, Page 25: It is unresponsive to simply refer back to I1. A specific result of the chosen scope is identified by the comment, which the County chooses to ignore. 03/01 /00 I21, Page 25: (See response to I6). IZ2, Page 25: To simply dismiss this comment by referring to the response I1 ignores the substance of the circumstances being generated by the proposed activity. To repeat, the "no-alternative" would reduce the noise to zero. Thus the project is not consistent with County policy. I23, Page 26: It is not appropriate for the County to ignore the effect of the proposed activity on Pierce Road. That's the justification for the traffic study. However, the traffic study did not try to identify safety hazards. For the County to approve this activity without working with the City to remedy this hazard is unjustified. I24, Page 26: This response is unresponsive to the conditions cited. That the County has no definition of what constitutes "low-intensity" use doesn't mitigate the effect of the proposed activity's consistency with County policy. The DEIR analysis did not reveal any information relative to zoning or General Plan conformance because this issue was not studied. I25, Page 26: (See I20). I26, Page 26: This response is unresponsive to the last sentence of our comment. I27, Page 27: Perhaps circumvent was not the appropriate verb. "Capitalize" might be a better description of what the current owner is being allowed to do by grandfathering the illegal operation until January 1998 (NOP). The intention of comment I27 is clear. I28, Page 27: This response is unresponsive. No trail impacts have been identified because they were never studied. It's an insult to claim that they don't exist. I29, Page 27: This response highlights the inconsistency of the scope chosen for the EIR process. If the Mountain Winery ceases operation, the traffic impacts do not occur. If the CUP is approved, there are major traffic impacts. These should be mitigated. I30-I34, Page 28: The net of these responses is that either the Planning Commission or the City of Saratoga will deal with this issue. Since the City of Saratoga has no authority in this process, the Planning Commission must take a broader perspective to ensure that the safety hazard identified is mitigated with a trail easement. Appendix IV to Comment Letter I appended to the FEIR contains a number of letters, which were submitted to the Planning Commission for the hearing of Dec. 2, 1999. These letters describe the personal experiences of the writers with unsafe auto/horse conflicts, all of which could have been avoided had off road trails been available. That is clear evidence of the safety nexus between traffic and the need for trails. I35-I36, Page 28-29: (See response to I6). 03/01 /00 I37, Page 29: This response is very self-serving. The Saratoga Trail Master Plan was finalized in 1991 and identified the need to develop more off-road trails through the Mountain Winery property. As the County Master Plan indicates, the application for CUP is a prime opportunity for such trail easements to be negotiated. For the County to give up this opportunity because it believes it to be in the City's purview, not the County's is a lost opportunity. For the response to repeat the claim that the DEIR does not identify traffic impact to local trails is an insult. The comment was attempting to get the County to study an issue, which it ignored. I39, Page 29-30.• See I 6 and I 19 above. I40, Page 30: The response's reference to D-6 does not address the fundamental problem that the traffic study's analysis did not study the time period when the traffic will be a problem. Everyone acknowledges that when a concert lets out, 1147 cars will hit the road in about 30 minutes. The worst case that the traffic study proposed reflected not 1147 cars leaving a concert in 30 minutes, but 2 cars leaving from a concert activity over a 2 hour period from 4-6 p.m. That's interesting, but of no value in determining if the actual impact, i.e., 1147 cars coming out of a concert late on a Saturday afternoon, will be to increase the danger of auto/horse or auto/bicycle conflicts on Pierce and Mt. Eden Roads. The FEIR is therefore incomplete. I41, Page 30: See I 19, I39 and I 40 above. I42, Page 30-31: The Comment I 42 referenced the traffic that the traffic study identified as related to a concert event, i.e., 2 cars departing over a 2 hour period, (See Table 4.1, first row, in the Traffic Study appended to the FEIR) and compared that to the actual traffic that no one denies will be leaving following the end of a sold out concert, i.e., 2525 people in 1147 cars. The response to this comment is simply misunderstood the effort to compare apples to apples and provided an apples to oranges response. I 43, Page 31: In the absence of a County accepted definition of a low intensity use, the Planning commission will simply have to use its common sense. Does pouring 1147 cars onto a winding 2-lane rural mountain road in a 30-minute period sound like low intensity to you? I 44, Page 31: See I 6, I 7, I 9, I 14, I 19, I 39, I 40, I 42 and I 43 above. I45, Page 32: See I 44 above. I46, Page 32: See I 44 above and I 5. I47, Page 32 and 33: See I-46 above. The response's comment that since Pierce Road is not a dedicated and maintained bicycle path, the bicyclists who choose to use it "do so at their own risk" is, though presumably unintentionally, callous in the extreme. It does not recognize that the Vehicle Code gives bicyclists the same right to use Pierce Road as automobile drivers, and that the FEIR should, but doesn't', analyze whether the disgorging of 1147 cars onto Pierce in a 30 minute period might just possibly increase the 03/01 /00 danger to legitimate users of Pierce Road who just happen to be riding bicycles. The safety issue is self-evident. The FEIR fails to address it and is incomplete for that reason. I48-I53, Page 33-34: (See responses to prior response comments: I1, I6, I7, and I17). REPLY TO COUNTY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY THE CITY OF SARATOGA D 5, Page 6: The County claims its traffic study is sufficient because it complies with the methodology prescribed by the Congestion Management Agency. While under CMA standards, no significant impact on the identified intersections will occur, that does not address the issue of safety during concert and other events. The problem with the county's analysis is that it only is concerned with whether the identified intersections will be impacted. IN ADDITION, it should be looking at whether the local environment will be impacted by the traffic itself. Cal. Public Resources code section 21068 defines a significant effect on the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." When this project is viewed as it should be, the request for approval of a CUP allowing the applicant to run a business adding 1147 cars onto a rural 2 lane road in the space of 30 minutes, the answer to whether the local environment will be impacted by the traffic (not whether the identified intersections will be impacted at a different time) is obvious. The County takes refuge in the claim that the City did not ask the County to study the impact at the time the impact was actually occurring. One should ask why the County had to be told something so obvious. Since neither the FEIR nor the DEIR identifies this potentially adverse change in the environment, the DEIR should not be certified as complete. D 6, Page 6: See Reply to D 5. Again the County merely says the traffic analysis, which only studied the time periods when the concert traffic is not exiting the Winery, showed no impact. There was no analysis of the impact when the traffic is actually being generated by the applicant. D 10, Page 9: The traffic study applies a standard reflecting that each car coming to and leaving the site will carry 2.2 persons on average. That means that for a concert with 1750 people in attendance and 18 employees to serve the concertgoers, a total of 800 cars will arrive at the site, using the analytical method applied in the traffic study. However, when it comes to studying how many parking spaces will be needed, the study uses a different methodology and relies on the County Ordinance stating that for public events the parking needs may be established by reference to the number of seats and the amount of lineal feet of bench seating. Of course, the ordinance also says that other bases for determining the parking needs may be utilized, but for some reason the County has chosen to use the numerical formula. Using that methodology, the FEIR and DEIR contend only 700 spaces will be required and that is all the Conditions of Approval for the CUP are requiring. (Conditions for Approval 2(d).) In other words, depending on whether the cars are moving or parked, different parts of the EIR reached different conclusions regarding how many cars would be on site during a concert! 03/01 /00 In County of Inyo vs. City of Los An�eles, 71 Cal App 3rd 185, 190, the court overturned action on an EIR where the "project concept expand[ed] and contract[ed] from place to place within the EIR". Here the methodology and analytical approach changes depending on whether the cars are moving or not (traffic vs. parking) and whether an event is in progress or not (noise vs. traffic). Isn't it unarguable that if the County tells us there will be 2.2 people per car, resulting in 800 cars from just a 1750 person concert, without taking into account the worst case as required by the traffic study, that provision should be made for 800 cars to park? Is the reason for allowing the applicant to proceed with only 700 spaces perhaps because that is all that the applicant already has? Where will the other 100 cars park? In the adjoining neighborhood? At least when the expansion to a 2500 seat concert facility occurs which will generate 1147 cars and the need for 1147 parking spaces, the proposed conditions for approval of the CUP require the applicant to come up with "a transportation plan that accommodates the increased number of seats (2500) without increasing the number of parking spaces on site (700)." (Condition of Approval9 (c).) Could it be that 100 cars parking in the neighborhood at the entrance gate is not a significant adverse impact, but 447 cars are? Could it be that adding more parking to what is already there would create a geotechnical hazard, a runoff and erosion problem, eliminate too much ground cover, or be on too steep a slope? There is no explanation in the FEIR or DEIR for the rationale behind this conclusion or the proposed condition. This leaves the Planning Commission without sufficient information upon which to base an informed and intelligent decision on the CUP and the DEIR therefore should not be certified as complete. D 16, Page 11: Please note that in one place at least the County acknowledges that the true traffic impact will occur over a"duration of approximately 30 to 60 minutes after a concert event". Since the County has acknowledged that and has been presented with evidence of the safety problem arising from auto/horse conflicts along the roadsides of the narrow rural roads in the vicinity of the site, that issue should have been the subject of analysis and wasn't. The DEIR is therefore incomplete and should not be certified. D 17, Page 12: Please refer to I-45 above. 03/01 /00 Z �Ia=eksa�ehi free on bai=• enters a_ea of not ul_ p g tY By KARA CHALMERS Saratogan Nemat Maleksalehi has until Apri110 to come up with property worth $1 million for bail. Released on a$1 million secured bond, Maleksalehi, also known as Matt Madison or Matt Malek, pleaded not guilty on March 2 to federal charges of mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. Maleksalehi, 57, is a real estate tycoon and parent of young Saratoga athletes. He offered in January to build, fund and man- age an indoor gym for Saratoga. He owns and manages real estate in four states including California through his Los Altos—based business, the Housing Net- work. He lives in a hilltop home here. In February Maleksalehi admitted to state charges of welfare fraud and felony grand theft. According to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office, Malek- salehi stole $212,000 in housing subsidies meant for the county's poor. But, while the federal charges of mail and wire fraud and money laundering also have to do with amassing housing subsi- dies illegally, the amount is much larger, approximately $1.3 million. Through a scheme that lasted from 1991 to 1996, according to the U.S. Attomey's of&ce for the Northern Disirict of Califor- nia, Maleksalehi defrauded the federal Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment of money and property. Malek- salehi owns and manages the Pittsburg Plaza, a 126-unit multifamily housing pro- ject in Pittsburg, Calif. HUD subsidized the project with Section 8 rental subsidies for low-income families. The indictment states that Maleksalehi used the monthly Section 8 payments, as well as funds for major maintenance on the project, for per- sonal expenses unrelated to the Plaza. Maleksalehi could be sentenced to five years in federal prison for each of the 11 counts of mail or wire fraud, p[us be required to pay a$250,000 fine and resti- tution. Each of the three money launder- ing charges carries up to 20 years in feder- al prison plus a$500,000 fine, or double the amount of money laur►dered, whichev- er is greater. Maleksalehi is next sched- uled to appear in U.S. District Court in San Jose on March 14. Incidentally, Maleksalehi's brother, Shokrolah Maleksalehi, 4'1, of San Jose was indicted on March 7 by a federal grand jury for bankruptcy fraud. Shokrolah Malek- salehi is scheduled to make his initial appearance in federal court on March 9. Nemat Maleksalehi is set to appear in state superior court for sentencing on his state charges on March 23. Maleksalehi faces up to three years in state prison for these crimes. Vol. 47, No. 11 ��ednesda�; l��farch 1�, 2000 TRA.IL USERS AND CITY TO APPEAL COUNTY APPROVAL OF WINERY PERMIT Bogosian claims some key issues �ere not addressed Action surprises �inery By KARA CHALMERS ountain Winery officials cele- brated what they thought was a victory on March 2. But, while they celebrated an end to.their year-long quest for a conditional-use permit from the county Planning Commission. Saratoga city officials and members of the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts were drafting separate appeals of the Planning Commission's decision. The Santa Clara County Planning Com- mission gave permit and architectural and site approval on March 2, that would allow events at the historic Paul Masson Winery off Pierce Road in Saratoga to continue. Previous owners never obtained a permit for events such as the summer concert series, which began in 1958. The use permit does not provide for new uses of the winery. City officials, however, say that condi- tions the commission attached to the use permit were not adequate. These condi- tions mainly limit the number of concerts and other events, and the number of atten- dants and parking spaces at the site. Community development director James Walgren, who will draft the city's letter of appeal with city attorney Richard Taylor, said he was surprised by the conditions. Mayor Stan Bogosian, who publicly aired his concerns at the March 2 hearing, said, "We don't believe that traffic, noise, trails and parking concerns were dealt with. In Please turn to poge 12 I\ c'' Winery Appeal Continued fiom page 1 their approval, the Planning Commission didn't include the city's concerns." At a special meeting on March 6, the council voted to challenge the commis- sion's decision. Appeals of commission decisions are presented to the county Board of Supervisors, and they will make a final decision at a public hearing, accord- ing to Mike Lapez in the county's planning department. The board could deny the project, add to, or change the conditions. The trail enthusiasts focus on the trails issue. They want the county to compel the winery to grant trail easements throughout the property to connect trail segments in unincorporated county and city land. The trail segments could form a complete loop, to allow hikers, bikecs and equestrians use of the trails without the need to cross Saratoga's busy Pierce Road, which is the access road to the winery. The easements the enthusiasts are ask- ing for are part of the city's master plan developed in 1991 for trails. The commis- sion's response was that there was no nexus, no legal reason, for them to compel the winery to put in any trail easements. In addition, Bogosian and trail enthusi- asts claim that the environmental impact report (EIR), which was prepared by a consulting firm selected by the county and paid for by the applicant, is inadequate and flawed, and the Planning Commission should nat have certified it on March 2. While Walgren initiated an informal meeting with owner Bill Huschman last fall. winery and city officials have not met to work out these problems. Nancy Bussani, president of the Mountain Winery wassur- prised and disappointed to learn about the city's appeal from the SnFtnTO�n News. "They've never reached out to the win ery to discuss any of these issues; Bussani said. "No council member has contacted us. We're definitely disappointed that the city wasn't more supportive through the whole process." Bussani said the trail enthusiasts have not approached winery officials. She knows about their desires only from the county's public hearings. While this year's concert series will not be affected by the appeal, Bussani said that since the winery is not yet in the clear, expansion plans are temporarily halted. The use-permit application included a proposed increase in the number of seats in the concert bowl from 1,750 to 2,500, and a 1,500-square-foot expansion of the winery building. According to Bogosian, the city is appealing the commission's decision on the grounds that the use permit should not include expansion at all, but should be amended until more studies are done to show the expansion's impaci on traffic, noise and pazking. Also, the city supports a trail nexus, and believes that granting trail easements is one way to mitigate win- ery-associated traffic on Pierce Road. This should have been incorporated into the conditions, Bogosian said. According to Teri Baron, who heads the unincorporated 100•member Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts, and her husband, 3ames, who is also a member, the county can com- pel trails on winery property through the permit process. Once the process is com- p(eted, the enthusiasts may have to give up hope of trails at the winery that people and horses have used for years. "This thing is on a very fast track," James Baron said. "It's very obvious to me that the county just wants to get through this and has not been critical enough in the process." Baron said the EIR's most glaring error was that it did not include statistics for car accidents on Pierce Road in its traffic report. "Here's a consultant that's paid to do a job and they had a traffic study that ignored the traffic statistics," Baron said. He claims the EIR was not objective, but biased towards the winery's interests. Bussani said she and the owne� are dis- appointed that the city and trail enthusi- asu are not happy that winery officials are in discussions now with the county Parks and Recreation Department about volun- tarily dedicating one of the trail segments that is on county land. "We're halfway there, and there dcesn't seem to be any recognition of that,"she sa.id. Bussani added that the time to discuss the trail easement on city property has not come yet and that she cannot say whether there is a possibilitv of an eacemenr PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOW-UP ACTION LIST Agenda item COMMISSION MEETING OF Apri13, 2000 Follow-up Action Required Staff Responsible Due Date Trail Easement on Mt. Eden Road, APN 503-09-008 Trails Subcommittee Ongoing timeframe improvements timeline. Park Restroom Improvements-Wildwood, El Quito and Bloomquist Congress Springs Parks. Kevin Moran Gardiner Parks Play Equipment Bloomquist projects. Parker Ranch "Water Tank" trail segment Bloomquist Trails Researching repair Subcommittee options Congress Springs Park-Playfields and Turf Bloomquist Targeted July, 2001 Deer Trail Court-Cornell Property Saffai Property Mt. Eden Road Shepard Trails Commissioners Trails Commissioners Trails Completion Date N/A at present time-too early in process. Targeted July, 2001 Targeted June, Targeted June, 2000 2000 Targeted July 2000. Bids opened on March 28, 2000. Lowest bid was $268K Ongoing Timeframe Ongoing Timeframe Ongoing Targeted July 2000 Ongoing Timeframe Ongoing Timeframe Ongoing Timeframe Distribution: City Council, City Manager, City Manager's Secretary, City Clerk, Director of Conununity Development, Director of Admin. Services, Acting Director of Public Works, Director of Recreation, Senior Administrative Analyst CJ c� PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SIGN-IN SHEET NAME �IC� �('�Su2scS X;�.�-c� rl v �'4'? ��,2n A- I CoCL /��4�la,G-L�S� ��oR-�� c� c�Q,1�1 1 c-� ��e�7 �e rl 5��. 1 w� ADDRESS n� l� ��`'l C� �us3� 1�l j 7� �x;�.� c�.�G�_ t Z 9 0�O G�i d�u' ��-�T� f 2 ('J .v` c: L. c;,i� 2�b� P�2 R�-�G� 22� �l 1�� C�,��s �'i`c �R c3rt�� C�c�,�m, V' ��lQ1 �er�'7a�'� !"e .L p rhn, 9�`� �l��v� ��/(/,/�L� OGIC�.��SS� Vl��l j �'`�ZS C"��s� �S�S 2z/�� C.� ��,�s' LS PHONE �7�--c��- l�� c� �k 3 �r z.�- 7�1 �3 a�` z 403� ��°3 x 2G� 4�8-�6 —�33� 395 5 5 ��f -q63� 86� y7.S 3 9? 9�