Belmont City Council
March 12, 2024

Environmental Impacts of Mountain
Biking: Science Review and Best
Practices
By Jeff Marion and Jeremy Wimpey
Mountain biking is still a relatively new activity whose environmental impact and contribution to trail degradation is poorly understood. As with all recreational pursuits, it is clear that mountain biking contributes some degree of environmental degradation. In the absence of adequate research, land and trail managers have frequently been cautious, implementing restrictive regulations in some instances (Edger 1997). Surveys of managers have shown that they frequently perceive mountain biking to be a substantial contributor to trail degradation but lack scientific studies or monitoring data to substantiate such concerns (Chavez and others 1993; Schuett 1997). In recent years, however, a small number of studies have been conducted that help clarify the environmental impacts associated with mountain biking. This article describes the general impacts associated with recreational uses of natural surface trails, with a focus on those studies that have examined mountain biking impacts.

Trails are generally regarded as essential facilities in parks and forests. They provide access to remote areas, accommodate a diverse array of recreational activities, and protect resources by concentrating visitor trampling on narrow and resistant tread surfaces. Formal or designated trails are generally designed and constructed, which involves vegetation removal and soil excavation. These changes may be considered "unavoidable," in contrast to "avoidable" postconstruction degradation from their subsequent use (e.g., trail widening, erosion, muddiness), or from the development and degradation of informal visitor-created trails.

Common environmental impacts associated with recreational use of trails include:
o Vegetation loss and compositional changes
o Soil compaction
o Erosion
o Muddiness
o Degraded water quality
o Disruption of wildlife
This article is organized into four broad categories: impacts to vegetation, soil, water, and wildlife.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1359
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1887
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Impacts to Vegetation: General Research
On formal trails, most vegetation is typically removed by construction, maintenance, and visitor use. This impact is necessary and "unavoidable" in order to provide a clear route for trail users. One goal of trail construction and maintenance is to provide a trail only wide enough to accommodate the intended use. Trails made wider than this through visitor use or erosion represent a form of "avoidable" impact. For example, a doubling of trail width represents a doubling of the area of intensive trampling disturbance. Wider trails also expose substantially greater amounts of soil to erosion by wind or water.

The creation and maintenance of trail corridors also removes shrubs and trees, allowing greater sunlight exposure that favors a different set of groundcover plants within trail corridors. Occasional trailside trampling within trail corridors also favors the replacement of fragile plants with those more resistant to trampling traffic. For example, shade-tolerant but fragile broadleaved herbs are frequently replaced by grasses and sedges that are trampling-resistant and require more sunlight to survive. Trail construction, use, and maintenance can also be harmful when trails divide sensitive or rare plant communities.

Trampling - the action of crushing or treading upon vegetation, either by foot, hoof, or tire - contributes to a wide range of vegetation impacts, including damage to plant leaves, stems, and roots, reduction in vegetation height, change in the composition of species, and loss of plants and vegetative cover (Leung & Marion, 1996; Thurston & Reader, 2001). Trampling associated with "avoidable" off-trail traffic can quickly break down vegetation cover and create a visible route that attracts additional use. Complete loss of vegetation cover occurs quickly in shady forested areas, less quickly in open areas with resistant grassy vegetation.

Regardless, studies have consistently revealed that most impact occurs with initial or low use, with a diminishing increase in impact associated with increasing levels of traffic (Hammit & Cole, 1998; Leung & Marion, 1996). Furthermore, once trampling occurs, vegetative recovery is a very slow process.

Compositional changes in the vegetation along trail corridors can have both beneficial and adverse effects. Trampling-resistant plants provide a durable groundcover that reduces soil loss by wind and water runoff, and root systems that stabilize soils against displacement by heavy traffic. The ecological impacts of such compositional changes are not fully known, except when non-native vegetation is introduced to and spreads along trail corridors. Many of these species are disturbance-associated and are naturally limited to areas where the vegetation is routinely trampled or cut back. However, a few non-native species, once introduced to trail corridors, are able to out-compete native plants and spread away from the trail corridor in undisturbed habitats. Some of these species form dense cover that crowd out or displace native plants. These "invasive" species are particularly undesirable and land managers actively seek

APPENDIX I
1360 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1888
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

to prevent their introduction and spread. Unfortunately their removal is difficult and expensive.

Impacts to Vegetation: Mountain Biking-Specific Research Only one study found specifically addresses the vegetation impacts associated with mountain biking. Thurston and Reader (2001) conducted an experimental trampling study involving mountain bikers and hikers in Boyne Valley Provincial Park of Ontario, Canada. The researchers measured plant density (number of stems/area), diversity (number of species present), and soil exposure (area of mineral soil exposed) before and after 500 one-way passes by bikers and hikers.

Data analysis and statistical testing revealed that the impacts of hiking and biking were not significantly different for the three indicators measured. They also concluded that impacts from both hikers and bikers were spatially confined to the centerline of the lane (trail).

Impacts to Vegetation: Management Implications
Trail managers can either avoid or minimize impacts to vegetation through careful trail design, construction, maintenance, and management of visitor use.

Here are some recommendations to reduce vegetation impacts:
o Design trails that provide the experience that trail users seek to reduce their desire to venture off-trail.
o Locate trails away from rare plants and animals and from sensitive or critical habitats of other species. Involve resource professionals in designing and approving new trail alignments.
o Keep trails narrow to reduce the total area of intensive tread disturbance, slow trail users, and minimize vegetation and soil impacts. o Limit vegetation disturbance outside the corridor when constructing trails.

Hand construction is least disruptive; mechanized construction with small equipment is less disruptive than full-sized equipment; skilled operators do less damage than those with limited experience.
o Locate trails on side-hills where possible. Constructing a side-hill trail requires greater initial vegetation and soil disturbance but sloping topography above and below the trail bench will clearly define the tread and concentrate traffic on it. Trails in flatter terrain or along the fall line may involve less initial disturbance but allow excessive future tread widening and off-tread trampling, which favor non-native plants. o Use construction techniques that save and redistribute topsoil and excavated plants.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1361
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1889
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

There are also important considerations for maintaining and managing trails to avoid unnecessary ongoing impacts to vegetation:
o While it is necessary to keep the trail corridor free of obstructing vegetation, such work should seek to avoid "day-lighting" the trail corridor when possible. Excessive opening of the overstory allows greater sunlight penetration that permits greater vegetation compositional change and colonization by non-native plants.
o An active maintenance program that removes tree falls and maintains a stable and predictable tread also encourages visitors to remain on the intended narrow tread. A variety of maintenance actions can discourage trail widening, such as only cutting a narrow section out of trees that fall across the trail, limiting the width of vegetation trimming, and defining trail borders with logs, rocks, or other objects that won't impede drainage. o Use education to discourage off-trail travel, which can quickly lead to the establishment of informal visitor-created trails that unnecessarily remove vegetation cover and spread non-native plants. Such routes often degrade rapidly and are abandoned in favor of adjacent new routes, which unnecessarily magnify the extent and severity of trampling damage. o Educate visitors to be aware of their ability to carry non-native plant seeds on their bikes or clothing, and encourage them to remove seeds by washing mud from bikes, tires, shoes, and clothing. Preventing the introduction of non-natives is key, as their subsequent removal is difficult and costly.
o Educate visitors about low impact riding practices, such as those contained in the IMBA-approved Leave No Trace Skills & Ethics: Mountain Biking booklet (www.LNT.org).

For further reading see: Cessford 1995; Gruttz and Hollingshead 1995; Thurston and Reader 200l.

Impacts to Soils: General Research
The creation and use of trails also results in soil disturbance. Some loss of soil may be considered an acceptable and unavoidable form of impact on trails. As with vegetation loss, much soil disturbance occurs in the initial construction and use of the trail. During trail construction, surface organic materials (e.g., twigs, leaves, and needles) and organic soils are removed from treads; trails built on sidehill locations require even more extensive excavation. In addition, the underlying mineral soils are compacted during construction and initial use to form a durable tread substrate that supports trail traffic.

In contrast, post-construction soil displacement, erosion, and muddiness represent core forms of avoidable trail impact that require sustained management attention to avoid long-lasting resource degradation. This degradation can reduce the utility of trails as recreation facilities and diminish the

APPENDIX I
1362 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1890
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

quality of visitor experiences. For example, soil erosion exposes rocks and plant roots, creating a rutted and uneven tread surface. Erosion can also be selfperpetuating when treads erode below the surrounding soil level, hindering efforts to divert water from the trail and causing accelerated erosion and muddiness. Similarly, excessive muddiness renders trails less usable and aggravates tread widening and associated vegetation loss as visitors seek to circumvent mud holes and wet soils (Marion, 2006).

Research has shown that visitors notice obvious forms of trail impact, such as excessive muddiness and eroded ruts and tree roots, and that such impacts can degrade the quality of visitor experiences (Roggenbuck and others., 1993; Vaske and others., 1993). Such conditions also increase the difficulty of travel and may threaten visitor safety. Remedying these soil impacts can also require substantial rehabilitation costs. Clearly, one primary trail management objective should be the prevention of excessive soil impacts. Let's examine four common forms of soil impact in greater detail:

The Four Common Forms of Soil Degradation on Trails:
o Compaction
o Muddiness
o Displacement
o Erosion
Compaction: Soil compaction is caused by the weight of trail users and their equipment, which passes through feet, hooves, or tires to the tread surface.

Compacted soils are denser and less permeable to water, which increases water runoff. However, compacted soils also resist erosion and soil displacement and provide durable treads that support traffic. From this perspective, soil compaction is considered beneficial, and it is an unavoidable form of trail impact.

Furthermore, a primary resource protection goal is to limit trailside impacts by concentrating traffic on a narrow tread. Success in achieving this objective will necessarily result in higher levels of soil compaction.

The process of compacting the soil can present a difficult challenge, especially on new trails. Unless soils are mechanically compacted during tread construction, initial use compacts the portions of the tread that receive the greatest traffic, generally the center. The associated lowering of the tread surface creates a cupped cross-section that intercepts and collects surface water. In flat terrain this water can pool or form muddy sections; in sloping terrain the water is channeled down the trail, gaining in volume, speed, and erosive potential.

Displacement: Trail users can also push soil laterally, causing displacement and development of ruts, berms, or cupped treads. Soil displacement is particularly evident when soils are damp or loose and when users are moving at higher rates Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1363
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1891
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

of speed, turning, braking, or other movements that create more lateral force.

Soil can also be caught in hooves, footwear, or tire treads, flicked to the side or carried some distance and dropped. Regardless of the mechanism, soil is generally displaced from the tread center to the sides, elevating inslopes or berms, and compounding drainage problems.

Muddiness: When trails are located in areas of poor drainage or across highly organic soils that hold moisture, tread muddiness can become a persistent problem. Muddiness is most commonly associated with locations where water flows across or becomes trapped within flat or low-lying areas. Soil compaction, displacement, and erosion can exacerbate or create problems with muddiness by causing cupped treads that collect water during rainfall or snowmelt. Thus, muddiness can occur even along trails where there is sufficient natural drainage.

Subsequent traffic skirts these problem spots, compacting soils along the edges, widening mud holes and tread width, and sometimes creating braided trails that circumvent muddy sections.

Erosion: Soil erosion is an indirect and largely avoidable impact of trails and trail use. Soil can be eroded by wind, but generally, erosion is caused by flowing water. To avoid erosion, sustainable trails are generally constructed with a slightly crowned (flat terrain) or outsloped (sloping terrain) tread. However, subsequent use compacts and/or displaces soils over time to create a cupped or insloped tread surface that intercepts and carries water. The concentrated run-off picks up and carries soil particles downhill, eroding the tread surface.

Loose, uncompacted soil particles are most prone to soil erosion, so trail uses that loosen or detach soils contribute to higher erosion rates. Erosion potential is closely related to trail grade because water becomes substantially more erosive with increasing slope. The size of the watershed draining to a section of trail is also influential - larger volumes of water are substantially more erosive.

Water and the sediment it carries will continue down the trail until a natural or constructed feature diverts it off the tread. Such features include a natural or constructed reversal in grade, an outsloped tread, rocks or tree roots, or a constructed drainage dip or water bar. Once the water slows, it drops its sediment load, filling in tread drainage features and causing them to fail if not periodically maintained. Sediment can also be carried directly into watercourses, creating secondary impacts to aquatic systems. Properly designed drainage features are designed to divert water from the trail at a speed sufficient to carry the sediment load well below the tread, where vegetation and organic litter can filter out sediments. A well-designed trail should have little to no cumulative soil loss, for example, less than an average of one-quarter inch (6.3 mm) per year.

APPENDIX I
1364 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1892
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Impacts to Soils: Mountain Biking-Specific Research
Several studies have evaluated the soil impacts of mountain biking.

Wilson and Seney (1994) evaluated tread erosion from horses, hikers, mountain bikes, and motorcycles on two trails in the Gallatin National Forest, Montana.

They applied one hundred passes of each use-type on four sets of 12 trail segments, followed by simulated rainfalls and collection of water runoff to assess sediment yield at the base of each segment. Control sites that received no passes were also assessed for comparison. Results indicated that horses made significantly more sediment available for erosion than the other uses, which did not significantly vary from the control sites. Traffic on pre-wetted soils generated significantly greater amounts of soil runoff than on dry soils for all uses.

Marion (2006) studied 78 miles (125 km) of trail (47 segments) in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee and Kentucky, measuring soil loss along transects across the trail to evaluate the influence of use-related, environmental, and management factors. Sidehill-aligned trails were significantly less eroded than trails in valley bottom positions, in part due to the influence of periodic floods. Trail grade and trail alignment angle were also significant predictors of tread erosion. Erosion rates on trails with 0-6 percent and 7-15 percent grades were similar, while erosion on trails with grades greater than 16 percent were significantly higher. And there was significantly greater erosion on fall line trails (alignment angles of 0-22 degrees) than those with alignments closer to the contour.

This study also provided an opportunity to examine the relative contribution of different use types, including horse, hiking, mountain biking, and ATV. Trails predominantly used for mountain biking had the least erosion of the use types investigated. Computed estimates of soil loss per mile of trail also revealed the mountain biking trails to have the lowest soil loss.

White and others (2006) also examined trails predominantly used for mountain biking in five ecological regions of the Southwest along 163 miles (262 km) of trail. Two trail condition indicators, tread width and maximum incision, were assessed at each sample point. Results show that erosion and tread width on these trails differed little in comparison to other shared-use trails that receive little or no mountain biking.

Goeft and Alder (2001) evaluated the resource impacts of mountain biking on a recreational trail and racing track in Australia over a 12-month period. A variety of trail condition indicators were assessed on new and older trail segments with uphill, downhill, and flat trail sections. Results found that trail slope, age, and time were significant erosion factors, and that downhill slopes and curves were the most susceptible to erosion. New trails experienced greater amounts of soil compaction but all trails exhibited both compaction and loosening of soils over Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1365
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1893
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

time. The width of the recreational trail varied over time, with no consistent trend, while the width of the racing trail grew following events but exhibited net recovery over time. Impacts were confined to the trail tread, with minimal disturbance of trailside vegetation.

Bjorkman (1996) evaluated two new mountain biking trails in Wisconsin before and for several years after they were opened to use. Vegetation cover within the tread that survived trail construction work declined with increasing use to negligible levels while trailside vegetation remained constant or increased in areas damaged by construction work. Similarly, soil compaction within the tread rose steadily while compaction of trailside soils remained constant. Vegetation and soil impacts occurred predominantly during the first year of use with minor changes thereafter.

Wohrstein (1998) evaluated the impacts from a World Championship mountain biking race with 870 participants and 80,000 spectators. Erosion was found only on intensively used racing trails in steep terrain where alignments allowed higher water runoff. The mountain biking routes exhibited higher levels of compaction but to a shallower depth in comparison to the spectator areas, where compaction was lower but deeper.

Cessford (1995) provides a comprehensive, though dated, summary of trail impacts with a focus on mountain biking. Of particular interest is his summary of the two types of forces exerted by bike tires on soil surfaces: The downward compaction force from the weight of the rider and bike, and the rotational shearing force from the turning rear wheel. Mountain bikers generate the greatest torque, with potential tread abrasion due to slippage, during uphill travel.

However, the torque possible from muscle power is far less than that from a motorcycle, so wheel slippage and abrasion occur only on wet or loose surfaces.

Tread impact associated with downhill travel is generally minimal due to the lack of torque and lower ground pressures. Exceptions include when riders brake hard enough to cause skidding, which displaces soil downslope, or bank at higher speeds around turns, which displaces soil to the outside of the turn.

Impacts in flatter terrain are also generally minimal, except when soils are wet or uncompacted and rutting occurs.

Impacts to Soils: Management Implications
Soil loss is among the most enduring forms of trail impact, and minimizing erosion and muddiness are the most important objectives for achieving a sustainable trail. Soil cannot easily be replaced on trails, and where soil disappears, it leaves ruts that make travel and water drainage more difficult, prompting further impacts, such as trail widening.

Existing studies indicate that mountain biking differs little from hiking in its contribution to soil impacts. Other factors, particularly trail grade, trail/slope

APPENDIX I
1366 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1894
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

alignment angle, soil type/wetness, and trail maintenance, are more influential determinants of tread erosion or wetness.

There are a number of tactics for avoiding the worst soil-related impacts to trails:
o Discourage or prohibit off-trail travel. Informal trails created by off-trail travel frequently have steep grades and fall-line alignments that quickly erode, particularly in the absence of tread maintenance. Exceptions include areas of solid rock or non-vegetated cobble.
o Design trails with sustainable grades and avoid fall-line alignments. (See p. 112 for more)
o When possible, build trails in dry, cohesive soils that easily compact and contain a larger percentage of coarse material or rocks. These soils better resist erosion by wind and water or displacement by feet, hooves and tires.
o Minimize tread muddiness by avoiding flat terrain, wet soils, and drainagebottom locations. o Use grade reversals to remove water from trail treads. Grade reversals are permanent and sustainable - when designed into a trail's alignment they remain 100 percent effective and rarely require maintenance.

Other strategies are more temporary in nature and will require periodic maintenance to keep them effective:
o While the use of a substantial outslope (e.g., 5 percent) helps remove water from treads, it is rarely a long-term solution. Tread cupping and berm development will generally occur within a few years after tread construction. If it is not possible to install additional grade reversals, reshape the tread to reestablish an outsloped tread surface periodically, and install wheel-friendly drainage dips or other drainage structures to help water flow off the trail.
o If it is not possible to install proper drainage on a trail, consider rerouting trail sections that are most problematic, or possibly hardening the tread. o In flatter areas, elevate and crown treads to prevent muddiness, or add a gravel/soil mixture in low spots.

Finally, it is important to realize that visitor use of any type on trails when soils are wet contributes substantially greater soil impact than the same activities when soils are dry. Thus, discouraging or prohibiting the use of trails that are prone to muddiness during rainy seasons or snowmelt is another effective measure. Generally such use can be redirected to trails that have design or environmental attributes that allow them to better sustain wet season uses.

For additional information about minimizing soil impacts through trail design, construction, maintenance, and tread hardening, see Trail Solutions.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1367
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1895
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Impacts to Water Resources: General Research
Trails and their use can also affect water quality. Trail-related impacts to water resources can include the introduction of soils, nutrients, and pathogenic organisms (e.g., Giardia), and alter the patterns of surface water drainage.

However, in practice, these impacts are avoidable, and properly designed and maintained trails should not degrade water quality. Unfortunately there is very little research to draw from on these topics, and none that is specific to mountain biking.

Poorly sited and/or maintained trails can be eroded by water, with tread sediments carried off by runoff. Generally, if water control features such as grade reversals and outsloped treads are used to divert runoff from trails, the water drops its sediment close to trails, where it is trapped and held by organic litter and vegetation. Soils eroded from trails rarely enter water bodies, unless trails cross streams or run close to stream or lake shorelines and lack adequate tread drainage features. Since many recreational activities, such as fishing, swimming, boating, and viewing scenery (e.g., waterfalls) draw visitors and trails to the vicinity of water resources, it is often necessary to route trails to water resources or visitors will simply create their own informal trails.

Trails that are close to water resources require special consideration in their design and management to prevent the introduction of suspended sediments into bodies of water. Eroded soil that enters water bodies increase water turbidity and cause sedimentation that can affect aquatic organisms (Fritz and others 1993).

Trout and other fish lay their eggs in gravels on the bottom of streams and lakes, and sediments can smother those eggs, reducing reproductive success.

Sedimentation can also hurt invertebrate organisms, which serve as food for fish and other creatures. In addition, some sediment may contain nutrients that can contribute to algal blooms that deplete the dissolved oxygen in water bodies when they die off.

Poorly designed trails can also alter hydrologic functions - for instance, trails can intercept and divert water from seeps or springs, which serve important ecological functions. In those situations, water can sometimes flow along the tread, leading to muddiness or erosion and, in the case of cupped and eroded treads, the water may flow some distance before it is diverted off the trail, changing the ecology of small wetland or riparian areas.

Trail users may also pollute water with pathogenic organisms, particularly those related to improperly disposed human waste. Potential pathogenic organisms found through surveys of backcountry water sources include Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and Campylobacter jejuni (LeChevallier and others, 1999; Suk and others, 1987; Taylor and others, 1983). This is rarely a significant concern where trail use is predominantly day-oriented, and waste issues can be avoided

APPENDIX I
1368 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1896
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

by installing toilet facilities or following Leave No Trace practices (i.e., digging cat-holes for waste away from water resources).

Impacts to Water Resources: Management Implications
The same trail design, construction, and maintenance measures that help minimize vegetation and soil impacts also apply to water. But there are also some additional efforts needed to protect water resources:
o Trails should avoid close proximity to water resources. For example, it is better to build a trail on a sidehill along a lower valley wall than to align it through flat terrain along a stream edge, where trail runoff will drain directly into the stream.
o It is best to minimize the number of stream crossings. Where crossings are necessary, scout the stream carefully to select the most resistant location for the crossing. Look for rocky banks and soils that provide durable surfaces.
o Design water crossings so the trail descends into and climbs out of the steam crossing, preventing stream water from flowing down the trail. o Armor trails at stream crossings with rock, geotextiles, or gravel to prevent erosion.
o Include grade reversals, regularly maintained outsloped treads, and/or drainage features to divert water off the trail near stream crossings. This prevents large volumes of water and sediment from flowing down the trail into the stream, and allows trailside organic litter, vegetation, and soils to slow and filter water.
o On some heavily used trails, a bridge may be needed to provide a sustainable crossing.
o Where permanent or intermittent stream channels cross trails, use wheelfriendly open rock culverts or properly sized buried drainage culverts to allow water to cross properly, without flowing down the trail.

Impacts to Wildlife: General Research
Trails and trail uses can also affect wildlife. Trails may degrade or fragment wildlife habitat, and can also alter the activities of nearby animals, causing avoidance behavior in some and food-related attraction behavior in others (Hellmund, 1998; Knight & Cole, 1991). While most forms of trail impact are limited to a narrow trail corridor, disturbance of wildlife can extend considerably further into natural landscapes (Kasworm & Monley, 1990; Tyser & Worley, 1992). Even very localized disturbance can harm rare or endangered species.

Different animals respond differently to the presence of trail users. Most wildlife species readily adapt or become "habituated" to consistent and non-threatening recreational activities. For example, animals may notice but not move away from Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1369
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1897
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

humans on a frequently used trail. This is fortunate, as it can allow high quality wildlife viewing experiences for visitors and cause little or no impact to wildlife.

Other forms of habituation, however, are less desirable. Visitors who feed wildlife, intentionally or from dropped food, can contribute to the development of food-related attraction behavior that can turn wild animals and birds into beggars.

In places where visitors stop to eat snacks or lunches, wildlife quickly learn to associate people with food, losing their innate fear of humans and returning frequently to beg, search for food scraps, or even raid unprotected packs containing food. Feeding wild creatures also endangers their health and wellbeing. For instance, after food-attracted deer in Grand Canyon National Park became sickly and dangerously aggressive, researchers found up to six pounds of plastic and foil wrappers obstructing intestinal passages of some individuals.

The opposite conduct in wildlife - avoidance behavior - can be equally problematic. Avoidance behavior is generally an innate response that is magnified by visitor behaviors perceived as threatening, such as loud sounds, off-trail travel, travel in the direction of wildlife, and sudden movements. When animals flee from disturbance by trail users, they often expend precious energy, which is particularly dangerous for them in winter months when food is scarce.

When animals move away from a disturbance, they leave preferred or prime habitat and move, either permanently or temporarily, to secondary habitat that may not meet their needs for food, water, or cover. Visitors and land managers, however, are often unaware of such impacts, because animals often flee before humans are aware of the presence of wildlife.

Impacts to Wildlife: Mountain Biking-Specific Research
The impacts of mountain biking on wildlife are similar to those of hikers and other non motorized trail users.

Taylor and Knight (2003) investigated the interactions of wildlife and trail users (hikers and mountain bikers) at Antelope Island State Park in Utah. A hidden observer using an optical rangefinder recorded bison, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope response to an assistant who hiked or biked a section of trail. The observer then measured wildlife reactions, including alert distance, flight response, flight distance, distance fled, and distance from trail. Observations revealed that 70 percent of animals located within 330 feet (100 m) of a trail were likely to flee when a trail user passed, and that wildlife exhibited statistically similar responses to mountain biking and hiking. Wildlife reacted more strongly to off-trail recreationists, suggesting that visitors should stay on trails to reduce wildlife disturbance. While Taylor and Knight found no biological justification for managing mountain biking any differently than hiking, they note that bikers cover more ground in a given time period than hikers and thus can potentially disturb more wildlife per unit time.

APPENDIX I
1370 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1898
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

This study also surveyed 640 hikers, mountain bikers, and horseback riders on the island to assess their perceptions of the effects of recreation on wildlife. Most respondents felt they could approach animals far closer than the flight distance suggested by the research, and 50 percent felt that recreational uses did not have a negative effect on wildlife.

Another study evaluated the behavioral responses of desert bighorn sheep to disturbance by hikers, mountain bikers, and vehicles in low- and high-use areas of Canyonlands National Park (Papouchis and others., 2001). Following observations of 1,029 bighorn sheep/human interactions, the authors reported that sheep fled 61 percent of the time from hikers, 17 percent of the time from vehicles, and 6 percent of the time from mountain bikers. The stronger reaction to hikers, particularly in the high-use area, was attributed to more off-trail hiking and direct approaches to the sheep. The researchers recommended that park officials restrict recreational uses to trails, particularly during the lambing and rut seasons, in order to minimize disturbance.

An experimental study in Switzerland evaluated the disturbance associated with hiking, jogging, and mountain biking on high elevation chamois, which are goatlike mammals found in the European mountains (Gander & Ingold 1997). The authors assessed alert distance, flight distance, and distance fled, and found that approximately 20 percent of the animals fled from trailside pastures in response to visitor intrusions. The authors found no statistically significant differences, however, between the behavioral responses of animals to the three different types of user, and authors concluded that restrictions on mountain biking above timberline would not be justified from the perspective of chamois disturbance.

A study of the Boise River in Idaho examined flushing distances of bald eagles when exposed to actual and simulated walkers, joggers, fishermen, bicyclists, and vehicles (Spahr 1990). The highest frequency of eagle flushing was associated with walkers (46 percent), followed by fishermen (34 percent), bicyclists (15 percent), joggers (13 percent), and vehicles (6 percent). However, bicyclists caused eagles to flush at the greatest distances (mean = 148 meters), followed by vehicles (107m), walkers (87m), fishermen (64m), and joggers (50m).

Eagles were most likely to flush when recreationists approached slowly or stopped to observe them, and were less alarmed when bicyclists or vehicles passed quickly at constant speeds. Similar findings have been reported by other authors, who attribute the difference in flushing frequency between walkers and bikers/vehicles either to the shorter time of disturbance and/or the additional time an eagle has to "decide" to fly (Van der Zande and others. 1984).

Safety issues related to grizzly bear attacks on trail users in Banff National Park prompted Herrero and Herrero (2000) to study the Morraine Lake Highline Trail.

Park staff noted that hikers were far more numerous than mountain bikers on the trail, but that the number of encounters between bikers and bears was disproportionately high. For example, three of the four human-grizzly bear Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1371
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1899
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

encounters that occurred along the trail during 1997-98 involved mountain bikers.

Previous research had shown that grizzly bears are more likely to attack when they first become aware of a human presence at distances of less than 50 meters. Herrero and Herrero concluded that mountain bikers travel faster, more quietly, and with closer attention to the tread than hikers, all attributes that limit reaction time for bears and bikers, and increases the likelihood of sub-fifty meter encounters. In addition, most of the bear-cyclist encounters took place on a fast section of trail that went through high-quality bear habitat with abundant berries.

To reduce such incidents, they recommended education, seasonal closures of the trail to bikes and/or hikers, construction of an alternate trail, and regulations requiring a minimum group size for bikers.

Impacts to Wildlife: Management Implications
Many potential impacts to wildlife can be avoided by ensuring that trails avoid the most sensitive or critical wildlife habitats, including those of rare and non-rare species. There are a number of tactics for doing this:
o Route trails to avoid riparian or wetland areas, particularly in environments where they are uncommon. Consult with fish and wildlife specialists early in the trail planning phase.
o For existing trails, consider discouraging or restricting access during sensitive times/seasons (e.g., mating or birthing seasons) to protect wildlife from undue stress.

The education of trail users is also an important and potentially highly effective management option for protecting wildlife. Organizations should encourage Leave No Trace practices and teach appropriate behaviors in areas where wildlife are found:
o Store food safely and leave no crumbs behind - fed animals too often become dead animals.
o It's OK for wildlife to notice you but you are "too close" or "too loud" if an animal stops what its doing and/or moves away from you. o It's best to view wildlife through binoculars, spotting scopes, and telephoto lenses.
o All wildlife can be dangerous - be aware of the possible presence of animals and keep your distance to ensure your safety and theirs.

Conclusion
While land managers have long been concerned about the environmental impacts of mountain biking, there are still very few good studies published in peer-reviewed journals. White and others (2006) and Hendricks (1997) note that the majority of mountain biking research has focused on social issues, such as

APPENDIX I
1372 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1900
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

conflicts between trail users. As a consequence, the ecological effects of mountain biking on trails and natural resources remain poorly understood.

Still, an emerging body of knowledge on the environmental impact of mountain biking can help guide current management decisions. All of the existing scientific studies indicate that while mountain biking, like all forms of recreational activity, can result in measurable impacts to vegetation, soil, water resources, and wildlife, the environmental effects of well-managed mountain biking are minimal.

Furthermore, while the impact mechanics and forces may be different from foot traffic, mountain biking impacts are little different from hiking, the most common and traditional form of trail-based recreational activity.

Key observations about the environmental impacts of mountain biking:

1. Environmental degradation can be substantially avoided or minimized when trail users are restricted to designated formal trails. Many studies have shown that the most damage to plants and soils occur with initial traffic and that the per capita increase in further impact diminishes rapidly with increasing subsequent traffic. Many environmental impacts can be avoided and the rest are substantially minimized when traffic is restricted to a well-designed and managed trail. The best trail alignments avoid the habitats of rare flora and fauna and greatly minimize soil erosion, muddiness, and tread widening by focusing traffic on side-hill trail alignments with limited grades and frequent grade reversals. Even wildlife impacts are greatly minimized when visitors stay on trails; wildlife have a well-documented capacity to habituate to non-threatening recreational uses that occur in consistent places.

2. Trail design and management are much larger factors in environmental degradation than the type or amount of use. Many studies have demonstrated that poorly designed or located trails are the biggest cause of trail impacts. As evidence, consider that use factors (type, amount, and behavior of trail visitors) are generally the same along the length of any given trail, yet there is often substantial variation in tread erosion, width, and muddiness. These impacts are primarily attributable to differences in grade and slope alignment angle, soil type and soil moisture, and type of tread construction, surfacing, and drainage. This suggests that a sustainable trail that is properly designed, constructed, and maintained can support lower-impact uses such as hiking and mountain biking with minimal maintenance or degradation.

3. The environmental degradation caused by mountain biking is generally equivalent or less than that caused by hiking, and both are substantially less impacting than horse or motorized activities. In the small number of studies that included direct comparisons of the environmental effects of different recreational activities, mountain biking was found to have an impact that is less than or comparable to hiking. For example, Marion and Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1373
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1901
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Olive (2006) reported less soil loss on mountain bike trails than on hiking trails, which in turn exhibited substantially less soil loss than did horse and ATV trails. Similarly, two wildlife studies reported no difference in wildlife disturbance between hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor & Knight 2003, Gander & Ingold 1997), while two other studies found that mountain bikers caused less disturbance (Papouchis and others. 2001, Spahr 1990).

Wilson and Seney (1994) found that horses made significantly more sediment available for erosion than hikers or mountain bikers, which were statistically similar to the undisturbed control. One final point to consider, however, is that mountain bikers, like horse and vehicle users, travel further than hikers due to their higher speed of travel. This means that their use on a per-unit time basis can affect more miles of trail or wildlife than hikers. However, an evaluation of aggregate impact would need to consider the total number of trail users, and hikers are far more numerous than mountain bikers.

Mountain Bike Management Implications
So what does this mean for mountain biking? The existing body of research does not support the prohibition or restriction of mountain biking from a resource or environmental protection perspective. Existing impacts, which may be in evidence on many trails used by mountain bikers, are likely associated for the most part with poor trail designs or insufficient maintenance.

Managers should look first to correcting design-related deficiencies before considering restrictions on low-impact users. By enlisting the aid of all trail users through permanent volunteer trail maintenance efforts, they can improve trail conditions and allow for sustainable recreation.

Dr. Jeff Marion is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey who studies visitor impacts and management in protected natural areas. Jeremy Wimpey is a doctoral candidate in the Park and Recreation Resource Management program at Virginia Tech. Contact them at Virginia Tech, Forestry (0324), Blacksburg, VA 24060, [email protected], [email protected].

Sources
Bjorkman, A. W. (1996). Off-road Bicycle and Hiking Trail User Interactions: A Report to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. Wisconsin, Wisconsin Natural Resources Bureau of Research.

Cessford, G. R. (1995). Off-road impacts of mountain bikes: a review and discussion Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes: A Review and Discussion Science & Research Series No 92. Wellington, NZ, Department of Conservation. pp: 42-70.

APPENDIX I
1374 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1902
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Chavez, D., P. Winter, et al. (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11 1: 7.

Edger, C. O. (1997). Mountain biking and Marin Municipal Water District watershed. Trends 34 3: 5.

Fritz, S. C., J. C. Kingston, et al. (1993). Quantitative trophic reconstruction from sedimentary diatom assemblages - A cautionary tale. Freshwater Biology 30(1):
1-23.

Gander, H. and P. Ingold (1997). Reactions of Male Alpine Chamois Rupicapra r. rupicapra to Hikers, Joggers and Mountainbikers. Biological Conservation 79: 3.

Goeft, U. and J. Alder (2001). Sustainable mountain biking: A case study from the Southwest of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 3: 19.

Gruttz, J. and D. Hollingshead (1995). "Managing the Biophysical Impacts of OffRoad Bicycling" or "Shred Lightly." Environmental Ethics & Practices in Backcountry Recreation Conference, University of Calgary, Alberta.

Hammit, W. E. and D. N. Cole (1998). Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Hellmund, P. C. (1998). Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook for Trail Planners. Denver, Colorado State Parks.

Hendricks, W. W. (1997). Mountain bike management and research: An introduction. Trends, 34(3), 2-4.

Herrero, Jake, and Stephen Herrero (2000) Management Options for the Moraine Lake Highline Trail: Grizzly Bears and Cyclists. Unpublished Report for Parks Canada.

Kasworm, W. F. and T. L. Monley (1990). Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. Bears: Their Biology and Management: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, Victoria, B.C., International Association for Bear Research and Management.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole (1991). Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.

LeChevallier, M. W., M. Abbaszadegan, et al. (1999). Committee report:

Emerging pathogens - viruses, protozoa, and algal toxins. Journal American Water Works Association 91(9): 110-121.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1375
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1903
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Leung, Y. F. and J. L. Marion (1996). Trail degradation as influenced by environmental factors: A state-of-the-knowledge review. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51(2): 130-136.

Marion, J. L. (2006). Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area. USDI, National Park Service.

Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, et al. (2001). Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 65 3: 573-582.

Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams, et al. (1993). Defining Acceptable Conditions in Wilderness. Environmental Management 17 2: 187-197.

Schuett, M. A. (1997). State park directors' perceptions of mountain biking.

Environmental Management 21(2): 239-246.

Spahr, Robin. (1990) Factors Affecting The Distribution Of Bald Eagles And Effects Of Human Activity On Bald Eagles Wintering Along The Boise River, 1990. Boise State University, Thesis.

Suk, T. J., S. K. Sorenson, et al. (1987). The relation between human presence and occurrence of Giardia Cysts in streams in the Sierra-Nevada, California.

Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4(1): 71-75.

Taylor, A. R. and R. L. Knight (2003). Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions. Ecological Applications 13 4: 12.

Taylor, D. N., K. T. Mcdermott, et al. (1983). Campylobacter Enteritis from untreated water in the Rocky Mountains. Annals of Internal Medicine 99 1: 38-40.

Thurston, E. and R. J. Reader (2001). Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest.

Environmental Management 27(3): 397-409.

Tyser, R. W. and C. A. Worley (1992). Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (USA). Conservation Biology 6(2): 253-262.

Van der Zande, A. N., J. C. Berkhuizen, H. C. van Latesteijn, W. J. ter Keurs, and A. J. Poppelaars (1984) Impact of outdoor recreation on the density of a number of breeding bird species in woods adjacent to urban residential areas. Biological Conservation 30: 1-39.

APPENDIX I
1376 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1904
Annex D to SEMBCO Submission MTB Environmental Impact Study

Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, et al. (1993). Establishing management standards - Selected examples of the normative approach. Environmental Management 17(5): 629-643.

White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, et al. (2006). A comparative study of impacts to mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the Southwestern U.S.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 24(2): 20.

Wilson, J. P. and J. P. Seney (1994). Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development 14(1): 77-88.

Wöhrstein, T. (1998). Mountainbike und Umwelt - Ökologische Auswirkungen und Nutzungskonflikte (Mountainbike and Environment - Ecological Impacts and Use Conflict). Saarbrücken-Dudweiler. Incomplete Reference, Pirrot Verlag & Druck.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1377
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1905

MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

APPENDIX I
1378 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1906

MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQ
This content was created by:

Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz
MBOSC.org | [email protected]
PO Box 331 , Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Photography provided by:

Bruce Dorman
Kyle Kelley
Josh Sawyer
Ian Stowe
Mike Thomas
This document was published and last updated in:

March 2019
Peer review was provided by:

A natural resource recreation researcher
An online version of this document can be found at:

MBOSC.org/mtb-impact-faq
If you are interested in posting/sharing this content, please contact:
[email protected]
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1379
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1907
This Mountain Biking Impact Review poses the most frequently asked questions concerning the social and environmental impacts of mountain biking and trail construction. Here we share our unbiased findings, which are based on a comprehensive literature search performed by the Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz Science Committee.

WE HOPE YOU LEARN SOMETHING, WE SURE DID!

MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

APPENDIX I
1380 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1908
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS PROJECT
About the Mountain Bike Imact Review FAQs Project
About Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz
About the MBOSC Science Committee
Meet the Researchers
MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs —HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY 1) Does mountain biking generate more erosion and other trail damage than other types of recreational trail use? How do physical trail impacts differ based on user group?
2) What about unsanctioned (illegal) trails and features? 3) I frequently notice ruts in local trails. What causes these? Do they lead to more erosion? How can they be alleviated?
4) Does trail erosion caused by trail users lead to sediment in local streams? How problematic is it?
5) What can i do as a trail user to minimize my impact to the trail, soil, and adjacent drainages?
MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs —PLANTS & WILDLIFE
1) Generally speaking, what is the impact of mountain biking on wildlife? 2) How do mountain bikes impact wildlife as compared to other trail users? 3) What threatened or endangered species are present in the Santa Cruz area and how do mountain bikes and trails impact them?
4) Are there linkages between mountain bikes and the presence/spread of harmful and invasive species? Can mountain bikes spread harmful species more than other trail users?
5) What can I do as a trail user to minimize my impact to wildlife and the environment?
MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs —SOCIAL ISSUES
1) User-created illegal mountain bike trails are popular and prolific locally. Can expanding the network of sanctioned bike trails alleviate the problem? Or will individual trail builders continue to build unsanctioned trails? 2) What number of legal trails are necessary to build to satisfy the demand by the biking community now and in the future? How will Santa Cruz County sustainably be able to accommodate and manage this user community? 3) As a mountain biker, what can I do to help reduce conflict between various trail users?
4) What can we do we keep our trails safe and available to everyone?

REFERENCES CITED

SUBMIT A QUESTION OR MORE INFORMATION

SUPPORT MBOSC
5 6
7 8
8 9
10 10
11 11
12 13
14 14
15 16
16 17
18 18
18 19
20 22
23 Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1381
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1909
5 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs

ABOUT THIS PROJECT

APPENDIX I
1382 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1910
6 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — ABOUT THIS PROJECT ABOUT THE MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs
These Mountain Biking Impact Review FAQs pose questions that we believe are the most frequently asked concerning the social and environmental impacts of mountain biking and trail construction. The answers to these questions were created based on a comprehensive literature search on the relationships of trails and recreational trail users (specifically mountain bikes, but also other user groups) and natural resources within the following topics: Hydrology and Geology, Plants and Wildlife, and Social Issues. We, the members of the Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz science committee, are scientists, mountain bikers, hikers, and environmentalists in search of facts. In these Mountain Biking Impact Review FAQs we share our unbiased findings.

We hope you learn something, we sure did!

PLANTS & WILDLIFE

HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY

SOCIAL ISSUES

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1383
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1911
7 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — ABOUT THIS PROJECT

ABOUT MOUNTAIN BIKERS OF SANTA CRUZ
Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz (MBOSC) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that was founded in 1997 to support, preserve, and expand trail access and responsible mountain biking in Santa Cruz County. We have since become a highly skilled trail stewardship organization with expertise in advocacy, trail and bike park design, construction and maintenance, volunteer management, and project funding.

We are driven by passionate volunteers and high-caliber professional staff who promote legal and sustainable mountain bike access through trail construction, event promotion, and collaboration throughout the county. Strategic partnerships with land managers, other trail users, and the local bike industry help MBOSC build new trails and support sustainable trail use. MBOSC has proven to be an invaluable partner for local land managers, investing nearly $1,900,000, over 20,400 hours of staff time, and over 26,250 hours of volunteer time in trail construction and maintenance since 2012. During our 2017/18 trail work season, 398 volunteers and MBOSC staff performed 3,828 hours of trail work at our local State and City Parks and at Soquel Demonstration State Forest.

MBOSC is focused on furthering our mission to make Santa Cruz the best place to be a trail-user. With more opportunities to expand trail access in the county than at any point in history, MBOSC is planning to make the most of these opportunities.

APPENDIX I
1384 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1912
8 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — ABOUT THIS PROJECT

ABOUT THE MBOSC SCIENCE COMMITTEE
Like most great ideas, the concept of the MBOSC Science Committee was created after a great day on the trails. Following a Wilder Ranch Dig Day in March 2017, MBOSC Executive Director Matt De Young, President John Leckrone, and emeritus Science Committee chair Dr. Meagan Hynes were discussing how Meagan’s professional background in soil science could help inform how soil types in Wilder Ranch State Park related to erosion risk. This conversation led Matt, John, and Meagan to consider all the ways MBOSC members and the general public could benefit from a better understanding of the science behind trail construction and mountain biking environmental impacts. The MBOSC Science Committee was formed in October 2017.

MEET THE RESEARCHERS
The following members of the MBOSC Science Committee worked together to compile these Mountain Biking Impact Review FAQs:

Masters of Science,
Wildlife Biologist
Masters of Environmental
Science and Management,
Applications Engineering and
Spatial Analysis Consultant

EMMA KELSEY ANDERSON SHEPARD SEANPAUL LASELLE

YVETTE SKINNER TONYA SCHEFTER MATTHEW WILBUR
Masters of Science,
Geologist
Bachelor of Science in Chemical
Engineering, Chemical
Engineer
Bachelor of Science, Project
Geologist, Petralogix
Engineering, Inc.

Bachelor of Science and Planetary
Science, Santa Cruz Bicycles
Quality Control Inspector
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1385
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1913
9 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs

HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY

APPENDIX I
1386 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1914
10 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY 1) DOES MOUNTAIN BIKING GENERATE MORE EROSION AND OTHER TRAIL DAMAGE THAN OTHER TYPES OF RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE? HOW DO PHYSICAL TRAIL IMPACTS DIFFER BASED ON USER GROUP?
• In general, studies have shown that there is no statistically significant difference in induced soil erosion, excavation, incision (ruts), and trail widening between biking and hiking, and both are far less impactful than horse riding.[1] [2] [3] [4] Erosion on trails depends more on trail design, water drainage, levels of use, and soil properties.[5]
• The degree of physical impact related to trails is mostly dependent on trail maintenance regime rather than type of use.[4] • There are a handful of studies that have been conducted over the past couple of decades looking into the comparative physical impacts (e.g. trail compaction/ incision, trail widening, soil displacement and erosion) on trails by different user groups.[1] [2] [3] [4] The general conclusions of these studies are that:
◦ On properly-built and well-maintained trails there is little to no measurable difference between the relative impacts caused by mountain bikes vs. hikers. ◦ Although there are few quantitative studies on the topic, it is generally accepted that informal/user-built trails tend to experience dramatically elevated rates of degradation due to poor design, management, and construction practices.
◦Additional research is needed to more accurately measure the variation of mountain bike impacts based on riding style (e.g. XC, downhill, dirt-jumps, etc.). 2) WHAT ABOUT UNSANCTIONED (ILLEGAL) TRAILS AND FEATURES? • User created trails are unplanned and don’t undergo the rigorous environmental review and design that modern, sanctioned, official trails usually do. • Unsanctioned technical trail features are fairly unique to mountain biking.[3] They are often built unsustainably and their impacts can spread beyond the immediate area when they fall into disrepair and riders create alternate paths. They may involve greater soil excavation, timber harvesting, importing of materials, and potentially greater amounts of garbage as a byproduct.[3] • Trails and features planned and built under the direction of trail stewardship organizations (such as MBOSC), local land managers, or collaborations between the two, are more sustainable with minimized areas of impact. ◦ In Perth, Australia, partners constructed a sanctioned technical trail system adjacent to a sensitive National Park which had been affected by illegal riding and trail building. The environmental impact on the National Park was significantly reduced after the adjacent bike park was completed, demonstrating the benefit of partnerships between land management and trail stewardship organizations in decreasing the negative impacts of unsanctioned trail use.[3] Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1387
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1915
11 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY 3) I FREQUENTLY NOTICE RUTS IN LOCAL TRAILS. WHAT CAUSES THESE? DO THEY LEAD TO MORE EROSION? HOW CAN THEY BE ALLEVIATED?
• Ruts, soil displacement, and compaction are unavoidable outcomes of trail use over time. Whether by foot, tire, or hoof, soil is being excavated and forms ruts over time.

If left unattended, the path will continue to erode from precipitation events.[6] [7] [8] • Rut creation is accelerated when trails are wet, which is why riding trails during and following rain events is highly discouraged.
• Proper trail construction and regular maintenance under the guidance of trail stewardship organizations (such as MBOSC) greatly alleviate the effects of regular use.[6] [7] [8] 4) DOES TRAIL EROSION CAUSED BY TRAIL USERS LEAD TO SEDIMENT IN LOCAL STREAMS? HOW PROBLEMATIC IS IT?
• Soil displacement is an inevitable byproduct of trail construction and use. The severity of displacement and the potential for that soil to erode and find its way into waterways depends on many factors including soil type, trail design (grade, slope, drainage. etc.), water management, connectivity to a waterway, and degree and type of trail use.[2] [5] [6] • The cardinal rule when designing and building a trail—no matter what type of users it is intended for—is to “keep the water off of the trail and keep the trail out of the water”. This means that a sustainably designed and built trail should minimize the interaction between displaced trail-dirt and streams, and properly account for the factors that might increase erosion.[7] [8] [9] That said, poorly designed and built trails can certainly lead to more soil displacement and erosion, and a higher risk of sediment ending up in local streams.[2] [5] • The majority of streams in our region are ephemeral and only see water during winter storms. Heavy rainfall during winter storms have high energy, cause landslides, and have the potential to transport sediment from small tributary drainages to waterways such as Laguna Creek or the San Lorenzo River.[10] Salmon and aquatic invertebrates depend on the rocky bottoms of these streams for survival.

Therefore, loose dirt from human disturbance can potentially be damaging to the aquatic life, and the degree of impact from this runoff depends on the timing, volume and location.[11]
• Dirt roads, particularly the numerous poorly-maintained fire roads throughout the Santa Cruz region, are a significant potential contributor of sediment delivery to local streams, and specific management actions are in place to target these roads and reduce these impacts.[12] [13] There are few studies which attempt to quantify the volume of sediment delivery to streams from trails as compared to dirt roads. ◦ One study from West Virginia modeled sediment in streams from various road and trail stream-crossings.[9] The researchers found sediment loads from un-improved trail stream-crossings to be 10 times greater than expected loads from an undisturbed forest. Sediment from fire roads with minimal improvements (water bars) was 200 times greater than an undisturbed forest. Sediment from

APPENDIX I
1388 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1916
12 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY fire roads with significant erosion improvements (water bars, mulching, and brush cleared for fire mitigation) was similar to that of unimproved trails. ◦The study did not model trails that were designed and built using best management practices for erosion and stream crossings. More research—particularly regionally appropriate studies and studies including appropriate trail design—is needed on this subject.
• While there is no doubt that some sediment generated by trail users (particularly on poorly designed and maintained trails) will ultimately find its way to local streams, the magnitude of this contribution—and its impact on aquatic life—is significantly less than that from un-maintained dirt roads, large rain storms, or landslide events.[11] [12]
◦Even so, our goal as trail stewards is to do what is in our power (e.g. trail design, maintenance, education) to minimize those impacts.[7] [8] [9] In addition to sustainable trail construction that reduces soil displacement, MBOSC has built bridges across major stream crossings to avoid direct impact of trail users on these streams.
5) WHAT CAN I DO AS A TRAIL USER TO MINIMIZE MY IMPACT TO THE TRAIL, SOIL, AND ADJACENT DRAINAGES?
• Stay on the designed pathway of the trail, avoid unsanctioned trails and off-trail features.[14] [15]
• Slow or stop for hikers and oncoming riders to allow sufficient room for them to pass. Trails get widened and trail-side vegetation is impacted more when hikers have to step aside for bikers.[2] [14] [15]
• Avoid muddy or excessively wet trails. A good rule of thumb is that if the trail is soft enough to leave tire tracks, it is also soft enough to be damaged by riders.

Wait a day or two before you head back out.[14] [16]
• If there are mud puddles in the trail, carefully ride through them. Don’t go around them since that will widen the trail.
• Likewise, if there are ruts in the trail, ride them. Don’t go around since that will lead to trail widening.
• Avoid last-minute, quick braking as this can lead to ruts and accentuate trail damage. As much as skill and visibility allow, look down the trail, anticipate what is ahead, and check your speed ahead of time.
• Learn how to feather your brakes; don’t skid your tires.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1389
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1917
13 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs

PLANTS & WILDLIFE

APPENDIX I
1390 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1918
14 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — PLANTS & WILDLIFE 1) GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF MOUNTAIN BIKING ON WILDLIFE? • The short answer is that it’s complicated. It largely depends on the species encountered, the characteristics of the trail, and the conduct of the trail user. • The creation and presence of human created trails may lead to the fragmentation of a landscape that was once intact.[1] [2] The effects of fragmentation on wildlife vary depending on the species and the scale of analyses and impact.[3] Fragmentation has been found to be more severe in areas where unsanctioned trails are common.[4]
◦For instance, Red-legged Frogs can be adversely impacted if a trail traverses within 100 meters of its habitat.[5]
◦Research has found that some bird species have decreased nest survival, increased predation, or lower nest density in areas fragmented by trails.[6] [7] ◦ Other species, however, have been shown to use trails to their advantage for travel or foraging, demonstrating that the presence of trails can affect the local composition of species.[7]
• The trail user and that user’s behavior also will dictate their impact on wildlife.

Studies have shown that nesting birds may not be disturbed (e.g. the bird being startled from its nest/perch) by hikers or bikers quietly moving along a trail, but when trail users were noisy (e.g. talking) or when they stopped and/or approached the nest (e.g. birdwatchers), the likelihood of disturbance was significantly higher.[8] [9] [10] Most birds and mammals will react more strongly (i.e., flee) to off-trail recreationists than to on-trail users.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] • Research shows that noise can affect wildlife. Noise, however, is subjective and is perceived by different species in different ways.[13] [14] Studies have show that bicyclists passing quickly may cause less noise disturbance than other recreationalist on the trail.[11] [16] [32] • A number of papers have attempted to synthesize the existing research of recreational impacts on wildlife worldwide. Findings show that a majority (>60%) of the studies reviewed demonstrated some form of negative impact on wildlife from all types of trail use (mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding).[16] [17] [18] ◦ However, these same studies suggest that while recreational trail use may impact individual or groups of animals, population-level impacts to a species are less well-studied and poorly known.
2) HOW DO MOUNTAIN BIKES IMPACT WILDLIFE AS COMPARED TO OTHER TRAIL USERS? • Many studies examined the impacts of recreation on wildlife by user type(s). The majority of these studies however didn’t specifically address mountain biking, nor do they distinguish between the wide variety of mountain bike riding types (e.g. cross-country vs. downhill). The few studies that specifically addressed mountain biking have suggested the following:
◦Across a number of studies, researchers found that ungulates (such as deer and elk) are equally or less likely to be disturbed by mountain bikers than by hikers, joggers, or horseback riders.[11] [12]
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1391
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1919
15 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — PLANTS & WILDLIFE ◦The negative effects of trail use on birds is equal across trail use types when users are quiet and continuously moving.[17] Birds tend to be more adversely affected when users stop along the trail, or when they make more noise.[8] [9] [10] [19] ◦ A study in a network of wildland reserves in Southern CA of disturbance to medium and large mammals found that all user types had negative effects, and that some types of human disturbance were more negative than others (from most to least impactful: pedestrian, bicycles, vehicles, dogs, equestrians).[20] -This study’s researchers refer to these impacts as a form of “mortality-free predation” due to the fact that these animals preferentially avoid habitat that humans are a part of.
3) WHAT THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE PRESENT IN THE SANTA CRUZ AREA, AND HOW DO MOUNTAIN BIKES AND TRAILS IMPACT THEM?
• There are numerous plants and animals in Santa Cruz county listed as threatened or endangered. These include: Red-legged Frog, Tiger Salamander, Long-toed Salamander, Marbled Murrelet, Steelhead & Coho Salmon, Mount Hermon June Beetle, Ohlone Tiger Beetle, Smith’s Blue Butterfly, Zayante Band-winged Grasshopper, San Francisco Popcorn Flower, Santa Cruz Tarplant, Robust Spineflower, and San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat.[21] [22]
• Threats to these species vary based on where they exist and how they respond to human disturbance.
◦Sedimentation in the San Lorenzo river and its tributaries is detrimental to salmon, a problem that can be made worse from erosion of poorly-built trails (see the Hydrology and Geology section, page 9). These impacts, as well as impacts to amphibians such as the Red-legged Frog[23] can be alleviated by proper trail construction and routing trails away from sensitive riparian areas. ◦The Ohlone Tiger Beetle (Cicindela ohlone) lives in coastal terrace habitat with open native grassland.[24] Historically it was known to exist in Pogonip Park and Moore Creek Preserve, but was last seen in 2004.[21] An increased awareness of trail users and regulation of mountain bike speed has been shown to have positive effects on the Ohlone tiger beetle on the University of California, Santa Cruz, campus.[25]
◦Sensitive plants such as the San Francisco Popcorn Flower, Santa Cruz Tarplant, and Robust Spineflower, are susceptible to trampling by off-trail users, and to the introduction of non-native species.[24] These impacts are mitigated by limiting off-trail use and by comprehensive vegetation surveys prior to any new trail construction or re-routing.
4) ARE THERE LINKAGES BETWEEN MOUNTAIN BIKES AND THE PRESENCE/SPREAD OF HARMFUL AND INVASIVE SPECIES? CAN MOUNTAIN BIKES SPREAD HARMFUL SPECIES MORE THAN OTHER TRAIL USERS?
• Sudden Oak Death (SOD) is known to occur in Santa Cruz County (suddenoakdeath.org).

Hikers and mountain bikers don’t differ in their ability to transmit the pathogen,

APPENDIX I
1392 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1920
16 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — PLANTS & WILDLIFE but research shows that the farther one travels on a trail, the higher the chance of encountering, picking up and distributing the pathogen.[26] Moist soil in shoes/ tires can harbor live pathogens, whereas dried soil is less likely to re-infect, meaning washing shoe and tire tread of mud is critical in preventing the spread of SOD.

Given the ability of recreationists to act as a vector in the transmission of SOD, public recreation lands tend to have higher incidence of SOD infected trees than do private lands closed to recreation.[26]
• Brown-headed cowbirds (who trick other birds into protecting and feeding their young, at the expense of the other species’ own chicks) are known to be attracted to and use trails and open-corridors as access routes into forest interiors.[27] [28] [29 [30] However, other research on the subject did not find any relationship between cowbird abundance or nest exploitation and distance from trails.[7] • In terms of invasive plants, trails and trail users can act as vectors and provide new opportunities for their spread. One study showed that the presence of invasive plant species decreased with distance from both trails and roads, and that invasive species cover was greater near unsanctioned trails. Due to the low sample size it is unclear whether trail type or distance from the nearest road was responsible for this trend.[31]
5) WHAT CAN I DO AS A TRAIL USER TO MINIMIZE MY IMPACT TO WILDLIFE AND THE ENVIRONMENT?
• When it comes to Sudden Oak Death, it is good to be cognizant of your tires’ ability to transmit this disease and clean your tires when riding in a new place.

Also, the wetter the soil, the easier it is for harmful passengers to hitch a ride on a shoe or tire. This is another reason why it is better to ride or hike trails that aren’t muddy or excessively wet.
• Studies show that it’s best to keep moving when out on the trails and to maintain conversation at low or moderate levels.
◦Especially if you’re riding in the early morning or late evening, when local species (such as bobcats, coyotes, and deer) are more active, be mindful of your speed and volume and how it might affect wildlife. • When you do see wildlife, do not approach it.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1393
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1921
17 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs

SOCIAL ISSUES

APPENDIX I
1394 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1922
18 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — SOCIAL ISSUES
1) USER-CREATED ILLEGAL MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS ARE POPULAR AND PROLIFIC IN THE SANTA CRUZ AREA. CAN EXPANDING THE NETWORK OF SANCTIONED BIKE TRAILS ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM? OR WILL INDIVIDUAL TRAIL BUILDERS CONTINUE TO BUILD UNSANCTIONED TRAILS?
• The creation of unsanctioned trails is not just isolated to mountain bikers, and unsanctioned trails are a symptom of an unmet need for legitimate trail use options. There is a general lack of research attempting to quantify the degree to which sanctioned trail networks alleviate the illegal trail building. ◦ Anecdotally, according to an outdoor recreation planner for the BLM, fewer rogue trails tend to appear when agencies work closely with local mountain biking groups rather than trying to manage an area alone.[1] 2) WHAT NUMBER OF LEGAL TRAILS ARE NECESSARY TO BUILD TO SATISFY THE DEMAND OF THE BIKING COMMUNITY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE? HOW WILL SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUSTAINABLY BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE AND MANAGE THIS USER COMMUNITY? • MBOSC is working to better understand this topic in Santa Cruz County through trail counting systems and collaborative projects with land managers and researchers. • In Santa Cruz County, we have 220 miles of official single-track trails, of which less than 40 miles are open to bikes (this does not include fire roads).[2] The average rider in Santa Cruz County rides 15 miles per week and rides an average of 3 times per week.[3]
3) AS A MOUNTAIN BIKER, WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP REDUCE CONFLICT BETWEEN VARIOUS TRAIL USERS?
• Research indicates that interactions between mountain bikers and other trail users rarely generate conflicts on trails.[4] However, people riding mountain bikes are commonly perceived as a hazard to other trail users and this perception (more than actual interaction) can become a source of conflict.[5] • Hikers and equestrians generally have safety concerns based on cyclist speed, cyclists not showing caution on blind corners, and cyclists surprising hikers and equestrians on trails due to the fact that they are comparatively quiet and are perceived to move more quickly.[6]
• While trail designers and land managers can play a large role in reducing multiuse trail conflict by designing trails with improved sight lines, passing opportunities, and adequate signage, it is the mountain biking community’s interactions with other user groups that will shape perceptions of the sport and its user community. Mountain bikers can reduce potential conflict (or negative perceptions) while riding multi-use trails by:
◦Reducing speed well ahead of encountering other trail users. (A mountain biker may know how quickly hydraulic disk brakes will slow them down, but most hikers may not.)
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1395
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1923
19 MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACT REVIEW FAQs — SOCIAL ISSUES
◦Slowing down on blind corners.
◦Politely alerting other trail users on approach (e.g. using friendly verbal contact or a bike bell). 4) WHAT CAN WE DO WE KEEP OUR TRAILS SAFE AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE? • It is imperative that mountain bikers be courteous, responsible, and acknowledge that they are members of the greater trail community. Popular perceptions are not in mountain bikers’ favor, so the more we can do to dispel myths and help re-shape those perceptions, the better.
• For example, studies show that non-biking groups who actually encountered mountain bikers on trails had more positive opinions of mountain bikers compared with those who did not encounter mountain bikers.[4] [6] ◦We all use the trails for the common purpose of enjoying our beautiful environments, so the kinder and more communicative we can be with each other, the more enjoyment we will all get out of it.
• Reviews of conflicts on public lands indicate that the frequency of actual hazardous incidents between mountain bikers and other trail users is very low.[5] ◦Further research is warranted, but based on findings to date, actual incidents between mountain bikers versus hikers appears to be minimal. ◦ MBOSC understands that a perceived safety conflict is still a significant issue, and we do our best as trail designers and stewards to address perceived and real safety concerns (such as facilitating positive social interaction, improving trail sight lines, and promoting the construction of user specified trails).

APPENDIX I
1396 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1924
20 REFERENCES CITED

HYDROLOGY & GEOLOGY REFERENCES CITED

1. Thurston, E. & Reader, R.J. (2001). Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, 27(3): 397-409.

2. White, D.D., Waskey, M.T., Brodehl, G.P., & Foti, P.E. (2006). A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 24(2): 21-41.

3. Pickering, C., Castley, J. G., Hill, W., & Newsome, D. (2010). Environmental, safety and management issues of unauthorised trail technical features for mountain bicycling.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1): 58-67.

4. Pickering, C. M., Hill, W., Newsome, D., & Leung, Y. F. (2010). Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3): 551-562.

5. Marion, J. L., & Wimpey, J. (2007). Environmental impacts of mountain biking: science review and practices. Managing Mountain Biking, IMBA’s Guide to Providing Great Riding.

International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) Boulder, CO, 94-111.

6. J. L. Marion, J. Wimpey. (2017). Assessing the influence of sustainable trail design and maintenance on soil loss. Journal of Environmental Management. 189: 46-57.

7. Parker, T.S., (2004). Natural surface trails by design: physical and human design essentials of sustainable, enjoyable trails. Natureshape.

8. International Mountain Bike Association. (2004). Trail Solutions: IMBA’s guide to building sweet singletrack. International Mountain Bike Association, Boulder, CO, 272pp.

9. International Mountain Bike Association and US Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management, (2016). Guidelines for a Quality Trail Experience: Mountain Bike Trail Guidelines. Draft for the 2016 IMBA World Summit. 166pp.

10. Coats, R., Collins, L., Florsheim, J., & Kaufman, D. (1985). Channel change, sediment transport, and fish habitat in a coastal stream: Effects of an extreme event. Environmental Management, 9(1): 35-48.

11. Kidd, K. R., Aust, W. M., & Copenheaver, C. A. (2014). Recreational stream crossing effects on sediment delivery and macroinvertebrates in Southwestern Virginia, USA. Environmental Management, 54(3): 505-516.

12. Weaver, W.E., Weppner, E.M. & Hagans, D.K., (2015). Handbook for Forest, Ranch and Rural Roads: A Guide for Planning, Designing, Constructing, Reconstructing, Upgrading, Maintaining and Closing Wildland Roads (Rev. 1st ed.), Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, Ukiah, California.

13. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, (2002). San Lorenzo River Total Maximum Daily Load For Sediment. San Luis Obispo, CA. Retrieved from www.waterboards. ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/san_lorenzo/sediment/slr_sed_ tmdl_proj_rpt.pdf

14. Corso, J. (2017, April 20). Why You Should Keep Singletrack Single. Retrieved from www. singletracks.com/blog/trail-advocacy/keep-singletrack-single/

15. Seal, F. (2017, November 17). How to Keep Singletracks Single. Retrieved from www.rimtours. com/adventure-west/how-to-keep-singletracks-single/

16. Peveto, K. (2016, March 23). Riding After Rain: Advice for New Riders. Retrieved from https://www.singletracks.com/blog/trail-advocacy/riding-after-rain-advice-for-new-riders/

PLANTS & WILDLIFE REFERENCES CITED

1. Doak, D. F., Marino, P. C., & Kareiva, P. M. (1992). Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: implications for conservation. Theoretical Population Biology. 41(3): 315-336.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1397
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1925
21 REFERENCES CITED

2. Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics. 34(1): 487-515.

3. Debinski, D. M., & Holt, R. D. (2000). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology. 14(2): 342-355.

4. Wimpey, J., J. L. Marion (2010). A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within Great Fall Park, VA. Journal of Environmental Management. 92(3): 1012-1022

5. Bulger, J. B., Scott Jr, N. J., & Seymour, R. B. (2003). Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands.

Biological Conservation. 110(1): 85-95.

6. Reidy, J. L., F. R. Thompson III, R. G. Peak. (2009). Factors affecting Golden-cheeked Warbler nest survival in urban and rural landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(3): 407-413.

7. Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, C. K. Miller. (1998). Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1): 162-169.

8. Smith, Castro, J. R., & Rodewald, A. D. (2010). Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology. 81(2): 130-138.

9. Spahr, R. (1990). Factors affecting the distribution of bald eagles and effects of human activity on bald eagles wintering along the Boise River. Master of Science in Raptor Biology.

Boise State University.

10. Van der Zande, A. N., Berkhuizen, J. C., Van Latesteijn, H. C., Ter Keurs, W. J., & Poppelaars, A. J. (1984). Impact of outdoor recreation on the density of a number of breeding bird species in woods adjacent to urban residential areas. Biological Conservation. 30(1): 1-39.

11. Taylor, A. R, R. L. Knight. (2003). Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications. 13(4): 951-963.

12. Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, W. B. Sloan. (2001). Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3): 573-582.

13. Pater, L. L., Grubb, T. G., & Delaney, D. K. (2009). Recommendations for improved assessment of noise impacts on wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(5): 788-795.

14. Shannon, G., McKenna, M. F., Angeloni, L. M., Crooks, K. R., Fristrup, K. M., Brown, E., Warner, K. A., Nelson, M. D., White, C., Briggs, J., & McFarland, S. (2016). A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews. 91(4): 982-1005.

15. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, & US Dept. of Agriculture, (2015). Chapter 3.06: Noise (p. 3.6-8), In Heavenly Mountain Resort Epic Discovery Project Final Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) and Environmental Impact Statement (TRPA/NEPA). Retrieved from www.trpa.org/document/projects-plans/

16. Marzano, M., & Dandy, N. (2012). Recreationist behaviour in forests and the disturbance of wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation. 21(11): 2967-2986.

17. Steven, R., Pickering, C., & Castley, J. G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management. 92(10): 2287-2294.

18. Larson, C. L., Reed, S. E., Merenlender, A. M., & Crooks, K. R. (2016). Effects of recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systematic review. PloS one. 11(12):
e0167259.

19. Karp, D. S., & Guevara, R. (2011). Conversational noise reduction as a win–win for ecotourists and rain forest birds in Peru. Biotropica. 43(1): 122-130.

20. Patten, M. A., & Burger, J. C. (2018). Reserves as double-edged sword: Avoidance behavior in an urban-adjacent wildland. Biological Conservation. 218: 233-239.

21. City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030, Draft. (2017, September). Retrieved from http:// www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=62779

22. Endangered Species in Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz Public Libraries. Retrieved from https://www.santacruzpl.org/endangered_species/

23. Fellers, G. M., & Kleeman, P. M. (2007). California Red-legged Frog (Rana Draytonii) Movement and Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Herpetology. 41(2):
276-286.

24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for Insect and Plant Taxa from the Santa Cruz Mountains in California. Portland, Oregon. 83 pp.

APPENDIX I
1398 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1926
22 REFERENCES CITED

25. Cornelisse, T. M., Bennett, M. K., & Letourneau, D. K. (2013). The implications of habitat management on the population viability of the endangered Ohlone Tiger Beetle (Cicindela ohlone) metapopulation. PloS one. 8(8): doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071005

26. Cushman, H. J., Cooper, M., Meentemeyer, R. K., & Benson, S. (2008). Human activity and the spread of Phytophthora ramorum. In: Frankel, Susan J.; Kliejunas, John T.; Palmieri, Katharine M., tech. coords. 2008. Proceedings of the sudden oak death third science symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-214. Albany, CA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. pp. 179-180 (Vol. 214).

27. Small, M. F., & Hunter, M. L. (1988). Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested landscapes. Oecologia. 76(1): 62-64.

28. Askins, R. A. (1994). Open corridors in a heavily forested landscape: impact on shrubland and forest-interior birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006). 22(2): 339-347.

29. Hickman, S. (1990). Evidence of edge species attraction to nature trails within deciduous forest. Natural Areas Journal. 10(1): 3-5.

30. Rich, A. C., Dobkin, D. S., & Niles, L. J. (1994). Defining Forest Fragmentation by Corridor Width: The Influence of Narrow Forest—Dividing Corridors on Forest—Nesting Birds in Southern New Jersey. Conservation Biology. 8(4): 1109-1121.

31. Edson, K., Bezerra, M., Graber, R., Kim, T., Taddei, K., Cartas, A., & O’Connor, J. (2014).

Invasive Species Survey, Frederick City Watershed. Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability (PALS).

32. Quinn, M., & Chernoff, G. (2010). Mountain biking: a review of the ecological effects. A Literature Review for Parks Canada - National Office (Visitor Experience Branch), 1-38.

SOCIAL ISSUES REFERENCES CITED

1. Smith, A. V. (2016, August 17). BLM Turns to Mountain Bikers to Build Trails, Stem Illegal Routes. Adventure Journal. Retrieved from www.adventure-journal.com/2016/08/blm-turnsto-mountain-bikers-to-build-trails-stem-illegal-routes/

2. Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz. (2018). Santa Cruz Trail Access Inventory. http://mbosc.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/mbosc-trail-access-inventory.pdf

3. MBOSC. (2015). MTBR 2015 Audience Survey. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_ LbnrBS5yf_blowRFBNbm9qQkNYWVkwZkJkcGFlTVNSVy0w/view

4. Rossi, S. D., Pickering, C. M., & Byrne, J. A. (2014). Local community perceptions about mountain bike riding in peri-urban national parks. In The 7th International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitors in Recreational and Protected Areas, Local Community and Outdoor Recreation (pp. 69-71). Tallinn University Tallinn.

5. Ramthun, R. (2009). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers.

Leisure Sciences. 17(3): 159-169.

6. Cessford, G. (2003). Perception and reality of conflict: walkers and mountain bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11(4): 310-316.

ASK A QUESTION
Do you have another question to add to this list of Mountain Biking Impact Review FAQs, or would you like to submit more information on the topics covered in this document? Please contact the MBOSC Science Committee by visiting:

MBOSC.org/mtb-impact-faq_contact
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1399
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1927
23 SUPPORT MBOSC
Projects like the Mountain Biking Impact Review FAQs would not be possible without support from the MBOSC community. If you want to help make Santa Cruz the best place to be a trail user, please consider supporting the organization by becoming a member, donating, or volunteering!
BECOME A MEMBER — MBOSC.org/membership
When you become a member of MBOSC, you’ll feel good knowing that you support building and maintaining Santa Cruz area trails. Your membership dues help fund:
• Advocacy for new trail projects
• Trail restoration, maintenance, planning, and construction projects • Volunteer training and education
• Races and community events
VOLUNTEER — MBOSC.org/volunteer
MBOSC is powered by dedicated and passionate volunteers. Volunteering promotes community, opportunity, achievement, and sustainability—and it’s fun! There are many opportunities to volunteer, from digging on the trails to helping out at races. You could even sit on one of the MBOSC committees, such as the Science Committee that dedicated themselves to creating this document!
DONATE — MBOSC.org/donate
MBOSC’s work relies on fundraising efforts, and a financial donation is the easiest way to support that work. You can donate to the MBOSC general fund, or you can ask about specific projects that need support if you’d like your contribution to be more focused.

MBOSC EXPANDS TRAIL ACCESS IN THE SANTA CRUZ AREA FOR ALL TRAIL USERS, AND YOUR SUPPORT HELPS MBOSC BUILD NEW TRAILS FOR YOU TO ENJOY.

APPENDIX I
1400 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1928
— BUILDING & MAINTAINING TRAILS SINCE 1997 —
MBOSC.org | [email protected]
PO Box 331 , Santa Cruz, CA 95061
View the Mountain Biking Impact Review FAQs online: MBOSC.org/mtb-impact-faq Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1401
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1929
21 Journal of Park and Recreation Administration Volume 24, Number 2 Summer 2006 pp. 21-41
A Comparative Study of Impacts to
Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the
Southwestern U.S.

Dave D. White
M. Troy Waskey
Grant P. Brodehl
Pamela E. Foti
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A rapid increase in mountain biking participation over the past thirty years has led to concerns about ecological impacts to recreation environments, especially trails. It is widely accepted that recreational use of natural areas inevitably results in some degree of change to resource conditions, and managers must consider the social acceptability and ecological significance of such changes in their decision making. The ecological impacts of mountain biking, however, and relationships between impacts and trail features remain poorly understood.

This study uses Common Ecological Regions (CERs) as a mapped ecological framework to guide comparative analysis of differences in maximum trail incision and trail width at varying slope levels for mountain bike trails in five CERs in the southwest U.S. A point-measurement trail assessment procedure was utilized to measure maximum incision and width for 163.2 miles of mountain bike trails. Results show a significant effect of CER on trail width and maximum incision and a significant effect of trail slope on maximum trail incision. Maximum trail width and incision were greatest in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains region, perhaps due to environmental features such as erodable soils and sparse trailside vegetation, higher use, and/or user behavior. Maximum incision increased consistently with slope for three of five CERs.

Relative to other trail impact research, the sites assessed in this study were in similar condition to other trails on the specific parameters measured. The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails.

KEYWORDS: Recreation ecology, recreation impacts, ecological impacts, impact assessment, trail management AUTHORS: Dave D. White is with the School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4703; Phone (480) 965-8429, Fax: (480) 965-5664, E-mail: [email protected].

Troy Waskey is with the same department. Grant P. Brodehl and Pamela E. Foti are with the Department of Geography, Planning, and Recreation, Northern Arizona University.

APPENDIX I
1402 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1930
22 Mountain biking is an increasingly popular outdoor recreation activity in North America. Although use estimates vary, according to the recent National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (2003), general bicycling was the second most popular land-based recreation activity in the United States. Of those who bicycled, an estimated 45.2 million people, or nearly 21% of the American public biked on backcountry roads, trails, or cross country on a mountain bike at least once in the twelve months prior to the survey. Mountain biking provides important individual benefits (e.g., physical exercise and opportunities to experience nature), social benefits (e.g., family bonding), environmental benefits (e.g., preservation of natural areas for trails), and economic benefits (e.g., local and regional economic stimulus). Over the past two decades, technological improvements in mountain bike materials, components, and designs have facilitated dramatic increases in participation, allowing more and more people to realize the benefits of this recreation activity.

The rapid expansion of mountain biking also has led to concerns over the potential for undesirable social and ecological impacts to recreation environments. Management issues include safety of trail users, conflict, crowding, and resource degradation. The increase in mountain biking popularity thus far has outpaced efforts to understand this activity’s associated impacts, leading to confusion, user conflict, and, in some cases, strict regulations for mountain biking on public lands (Edger, 1997). In some cases, managers have implemented actions such as spatial and temporal zoning, dispersal strategies, and trail closures to address concerns.

Such direct management actions that limit access can be controversial and raise issues of equity. Furthermore, the lack of scientific understanding of ecological impacts on mountain bike trails limits informed decision making.

A nationwide study of U.S. state park directors conducted by Schuett (1997) demonstrated the potential for uninformed management actions.

Schuett found that 67% of state park directors felt that resource degradation from mountain biking was a problem in their parks, but less than 13% of the park systems had actually conducted any studies to assess the resource impacts from mountain biking. Similarly, Chavez (1993) cited studies that suggested U.S. Forest Service and U.S. National Park Service managers were concerned about resource degradation from mountain biking, but managers “could not discern whether damage was specifically because of mountain bike use” (p. 1). As Hendricks, Ramthun and Chavez (2001) noted, “Resource impacts attributable to mountain bikes have remained debatable and understudied. At this time there is not a well-developed body of research on the environmental impacts of off-road cycling” (p. 40).

It is widely accepted that recreational use of natural areas inevitably results in some degree of change to resource conditions, and managers must consider the magnitude, social acceptability, and ecological significance of such changes in their decision-making processes. In the absence of sound scientific information, however, managers may apply a precautionary principle, and choose to restrict use or take regulatory action that is based Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1403
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1931
23 on intuition, influence from advocacy groups, and questionable studies.

Clearly, further research is needed to inform the development of best management practices to support sustainable mountain biking on established and properly constructed recreation trails.

Among the key factors affecting trail impacts deserving further study are: ecological attributes, such as vegetation and soil composition; userelated factors, such as amount and timing of use; and management factors such as trail design, alignment, and slope (Hammit & Cole, 1998; Leung & Marion, 1996). Although these significant influential factors and associated impacts have been identified, there have been relatively few quantitative studies of mountain bike trail impacts published to date that serve as building blocks for establishing relationships among the variables.

Furthermore, although there has been an increasing focus on the ecosystem concept in conservation and resource management in parks and recreation areas, the field of recreation ecology to date has not adopted a standardized mapped ecological region framework for organizing and comparing the studies that are conducted. Theoretically informed mapped ecological region frameworks are useful for classifying landscapes into hierarchical spatial units that represent characteristic patterns in the biophysical environment, human activities and impacts, and social and cultural meanings associated with landscapes (McMahon et al., 2004). Such frameworks are useful for describing and interpreting status and change in landscapes. McMahon et al. summarized the use of such frameworks by resource agencies in the U.S. and Canada which had mandated landscape assessments, biodiversity analysis, environmental monitoring and assessment, and selected indicators and standards for understanding environmental stressors and responses. According to McMahon et al., “The use of regions to stratify the underlying variability in natural conditions may increase the likelihood of detecting and understanding an environmental response generated by human activities” (p. 113). As recreation impacts are known to be related to both biophysical characteristics (e.g., soil, vegetation, and topography) as well as human activity (e.g., recreation type and amount, management intervention) it seems apparent that integrating impact studies with ecological regional frameworks might be fruitful. Also, using a standardized ecological region framework may facilitate the integration of recreation impact research into the widely accepted ecosystem research, assessment, and management framework.

To address these research needs, the goals of this study are twofold:
one, to propose the use of Common Ecological Regions (CERs) (McMahon et al., 2001) as a mapped ecological region framework to guide comparative recreation impact research; and two, to evaluate the relationships between two influential factors and two common trail impacts. Specifically, this study assessed differences in maximum trail incision and trail width at varying slope levels for mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions in the southwest U.S.

APPENDIX I
1404 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1932
24 Trail Impacts and the Emergence of Mountain Bike Research The study of ecological impacts, often referred to as recreation ecology, has been, and continues to be a prominent field of inquiry for researchers, land managers, and academic professionals. Cole (1987) suggested that the field of recreation ecology began over 65 years ago with Meinecke’s (1928) work on recreation impacts in the California Redwood State Parks. Recreation impacts research intensified during the 1960s and early 1970s as federal land management agencies sponsored studies to improve recreation management in natural areas. According to Leung and Marion (2000), the essence of today’s ecological impact research and management lies in the desire to gain knowledge and to understand relationships among key causal and influential factors and significant effects. This knowledge is necessary to prevent, mitigate, and manage resource impacts. Campsites and trails receive the most attention from recreation impact researchers, with studies taking place in both remote backcountry and semi-remote front country settings.

The primary impact to recreation resources associated with trails occurs during initial trail design and construction (Birchard & Proudman, 2000; Sun & Walsh, 1998). Although this impact has the greatest magnitude and highest ecological significance, it is widely viewed as socially acceptable as the individual, social, and economic benefits of trail-based recreation typically outweigh the associated environmental costs (Cole, 1987). Most trail impact literature and recent research is organized around environmental and visitor-related factors (Hammit & Cole, 1998; Leung & Marion, 1996). Environmental impacts can be divided into four general categories:
impacts to wildlife, water, vegetation, and soil. Visitor-related factors include amount of use, type of use, and user behavior. The foundation of recreation ecology research provides a platform for examining impacts associated with mountain biking.

The unprecedented explosion in mountain biking as a trail activity was sparked in the 1970s when cyclists began modifying bikes for off-road use (Schwartz, 1994). With balloon tires, a low, flat headset, and high clearance frame, mountain bikes brought drastic changes to places like Marin County, California. Fisher describes the early days: “In the mid-’70s we had a kind of cult riding everywhere on these clunkers” (Schwartz, 1994, p. 77).

In 1981, Specialized Bicycle Components produced the first off-the-rack mountain bike, the Stumpjumper, and by 1999 mountain bike sales accounted to one-half of all units sold and one-third of all gross revenue for U.S. bicycle retailers (Bicycle Retailer & Industry News, 1999). In magazine articles from the 1980s, headlines portrayed mountain bikes as “TwoWheel Terrors” (Foote, 1987) and “Vicious Cycles?” (Coello, 1989), and questioned whether mountain biking was “Sport or Spoil-Sport?” (Staub, 1984). Sensational captions depicted the “impacts” typical of mountain biking. Below a photo of bikers maneuvering a set of switchbacks, Foote included, “On the trail: cyclists pose a threat to nature” (p. 72). Next to a photo of two parallel bike tracks, Coello added the caption, “Along the Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1405
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1933
25 White Rim Trail, a jeep road in Canyonlands National Park, cyclists have gouged furrows on their way to the canyon rim” (p. 52). Cessford (1995a) questioned whether tread marks were an easy target, and one wonders if Coello would have made a similar statement about footprints leading to the canyon rim. Countering these claims, Grost (1989) noted that bikes “don’t eat hay, grass ... or defecate” (p. 50) and “weigh about 872 pounds less than a horse” (p. 76).

In the 1980s and 1990s researchers began serious study of the social and environmental consequences of mountain biking. Hendricks (1997) recognized that “the 1990s have seen the mountain bike controversy mature from social and environmental issues debated with anecdotal evidence in board meetings, in popular magazines and through newspaper editorials to a land management issue supported by serious inquiry and examination” (p. 3). Researchers studied mountain biker demographics, preferences, and perceptions (Antonakos, 1993; Bowker & English, 2002; Cessford, 1995b; Goeft, 2000; Hollenhorst et al., 1995; Ruff & Mellors, 1993; Symmonds et al., 2000); manager preferences and management strategies (Baker, 1990; Chavez, 1996a, 1996b; Hendricks et al., 2001; Leberman & Mason, 2000; Mason & Leberman, 2000; Moore & Barhlow, 1997; Ruddell & Hendricks, 1997; Schuett, 1997); and social conflict (Banister et al., 1992; Carothers et al., 2001; Cessford, 2002; Ramthun, 1995; Watson et al., 1991).

The ecological impacts of mountain biking, however, remained poorly understood. In fact, several researchers indicated a need for further study in this area (Cessford, 1995a, 1995b; Chavez, 1996a; Chavez et al., 1993; Goeft, 2000; Goeft & Alder, 2001; Hendricks, 1997; Jacoby, 1990; Schuett, 1997; Thurston & Reader, 2001; Wilson & Seney, 1994). The absence of concrete information was evident in the earliest publications. In an early summary of mountain biking literature, Cessford (1995a) discussed ecological impacts and presented several astute observations, though the majority of his conclusions were derived from other forms of recreation, such as hiking and off-road motorcycling. His most notable inference was that mountain bikes will generate the most torque during uphill travel, but considerably less pressure on the trail in comparison to other users when moving downhill, although degradation is possible “in extremely wet conditions, on uncompacted surfaces, or due to poor braking practices” (p. 9). Cessford also admitted that the research available at that time could not reliably discern whether mountain biking was any more or less impacting than hiking, a sentiment shared by Ruff and Mellors (1993).

At the time of Cessford’s (1995a) literature review, few physical impact studies included mountain biking. Wilson and Seney’s (1994) quasiexperimental approach examined the effects of a mountain bike, hiker, horse, and motorcycle on runoff and sediment yield for trail sample plots in the Gallatin National Forest, Montana. The results of this analysis indicated that the four uses did not significantly alter runoff. With respect to sediment yield on pre-wetted plots, the horse and hiker dislodged more

APPENDIX I
1406 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1934
26 material than the motorcycle and mountain bike. On dry plots, the hiker, mountain bike, and motorcycle produced similar sediment yields, but again the horse produced highest yield. Sediment yield for each use was greater for pre-wetted plots than for dry plots. Wilson and Seney acknowledged that soil texture and slope are equally important factors as used in determining sediment yield. Another comparative quasi-experimental design was applied to mountain biking by Thurston and Reader (2001), who assessed the effects of hiking and mountain biking on vegetation loss, species loss, and soil exposure. Their most pertinent finding was that there was no significant difference between the impacts of hiking and mountain biking for the three variables.

Bjorkman’s (1998) dissertation included two studies conducted in Wisconsin’s forests. In the first project, Bjorkman determined that sediment yield and erosion associated with mountain biking were lower on a surface treated with a nylon/polypropylene liner and covered with a material made from recycled tires than on an untreated trail. For the second analysis, Bjorkman monitored a variety of impact variables over the first five seasons of, and 90,000 passes on, two newly opened mountain biking trails.

The primary findings were: the greatest change in vegetation loss, compaction, cross sectional area and centerline depth on steep slopes, and mean trampled width occurred early in trail use; impacts were largely confined to the trail centerline; and erosion and trail width were greatest on slopes with ≥ 24 percent grade, though erosion was not significant on less steep slopes.

In similar research, Goeft and Alder (2001) examined changes in soil compaction, erosion, trail width, and vegetation cover over one year on both recreation and racing trails in southwestern Australia. They noted that erosion was greatest on downhill slopes and at curves, and that erosion and compaction were strictly on-trail impacts. Off-trail vegetation impacts and changes in trail width proved insignificant, though both were most pronounced following a race. Widening was also more likely on wet soils and during the rainy season.

From these studies, several key points are evident. The magnitude of ecological impacts attributed to mountain biking appear to be comparable to those of hiking, and appear less than motorized trail use and equestrian use. In many cases, soil structure, slope, and environmental factors are as influential as type and amount of use in determining impacts such as soil loss. If managed properly, impacts such as compaction and vegetation loss can be confined to the trail, with minimal damage to trail peripheries.

Mountain bikes have the greatest potential to damage trails in wet and muddy conditions and on steep uphill (spinning tires) and downhill slopes (skidding), which may prove problematic for managers, as many mountain bikers prefer challenging technical sections. In Bjorkman’s (1998) words, “Usage has little influence in explaining impacts to the trail... The first several thousand passes create the most change whether later total use levels are 10,000 or 90,000” (p., 122). Though these limited findings acknowlReceived Emails CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1407
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1935
27 edge an incomplete understanding of the physical impacts of mountain biking, they do provide an early indication of conditions that may exist in the field.

Study Methods
Common Ecological Regions (CERs) Provide an Organizing Spatial Framework
This study was conducted in five common ecological regions in the southwest U.S.: Sonoran Basin and Range; Arizona/New Mexico Mountains; Colorado Plateau; Southern Rocky Mountains; and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains (see Figure 1). These ecological regions are a subset of a larger spatial framework developed through a cooperative partnership of nine U.S. federal earth science and resource management agencies.

The CER spatial framework “is a mapped set of geographic regions that supports agency programs or studies” that was developed to guide cooperative ecosystem research efforts and facilitate “regionally generalized results from local investigations” (McMahon et al., 2001, p. 293-294).

Thus, by using the ecological regions framework developed by the cooperating agencies, which include the Forest Service, Bureau of Land ManFigure 1 Map of Study Sites

APPENDIX I
1408 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1936
28 agement, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, researchers may obtain an “increased measure of confidence in moving from the results of their investigations to characterizing the region as a whole” (McMahon et al., p. 301).

The common ecological regions are based on similarities in biotic, abiotic, terrestrial, and aquatic features of the environment as well as social and cultural meanings attached to those environments (McMahon et al., 2004). These various factors were incorporated into the CERs from the amalgamation of three preliminary spatial frameworks developed by the Forest Service (USFS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (McMahon et al., 2001).

Each of these three prevailing frameworks was created according to agency agendas and management directions. The latest Forest Service framework, for example, was spawned from an agency focus on ecosystem-based approach to managing national forests and grasslands. The NRCS major land resources framework was shaped from practical USDA requirements for soil classifications necessary for assessing agriculture potential and land use. The MLRA and other NRCS frameworks and soil maps work in a hierarchical manner when placed under the umbrella of the CER framework. Similar to the original USFS approach, the EPA framework is aligned with an overall ecosystem view. McMahon et al. (2001) provided a thorough review of how these three original and contributing frameworks have undergone subsequent quantitative and qualitative analysis to create the interagency coordinated CERs.

The five CERs in which data were collected for this study are characterized by vegetation, soils, physiographic, land use, land cover, and geology elements represented in the contributing frameworks mentioned above. The Sonoran Basin and Range region is characterized by extensive areas of palo verde-cactus shrub and giant saguaro cactus and has large tracts of federally managed lands. The basins are marked by grama-tobosa shrubsteppe while the ranges are covered with oak-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine on the higher elevations. The Arizona/New Mexico Mountains region is a relatively dry, warm environment, with chaparral at lower elevations, pinyon-juniper, and oak woodlands at lower to middle elevations, and higher elevations covered by Ponderosa pine forests and smaller areas of spruce, fir, Douglas fir, and aspen. In the Colorado Plateau region, differences in elevation distinguish this region from nearby Arizona/New Mexico Plateau where it reaches lower and Wyoming Basin to the north as it is generally more elevated. In large, low-lying areas, saltbrush-greasewood vegetation is dominant. The pinyon-juniper woodlands of the elevated plateaus of this region include sheer sidewalls of abrupt changes in local relief, ranging from 300-600 meters. The Wasatch and Uinta Mountains region, also the westernmost region in this study, encompasses a central area of high, precipitous mountains with intermittent valleys, plateaus, and open high mountains. Vegetation is manifest in a banded pattern where aspen, chaparral, and juniper-pinyon and oak are Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1409
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1937
29 common at middle elevations. The region is also typified by less lodgepole pine and a greater emphasis on grazing livestock than in the neighboring Middle Rockies region to the north. Finally, the Southern Rockies region, which marks the eastern extent of the areas studied, includes high elevations and steep, rocky mountains. Large portions of this region are covered by coniferous forest, while the highest elevations take on alpine characteristics.

Similar to the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains region, elevation banding dictates vegetation, soil, and land use in the Southern Rockies region.

Lower elevations contain grasses and shrubs and are grazed heavily.

Moderate elevations include grazing and are covered by Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, aspen, and juniper and oak woodlands. Higher elevations are abundant with coniferous forests that receive minimal grazing activity (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Although there is variability in biotic and abiotic elements within ecological regions, this spatial framework provides a useful system for segmenting the region and providing context for interpretation and extrapolation of environmental research findings.

Trail Selection
The goal of the trail selection procedure was to identify mountain bike trails or trail segments within each ecological region that were generally typical of trail conditions in that region. A comprehensive list of potential trail segments was developed in cooperation with land management agencies and mountain bike and trail associations. The focus was to identify trail segments identified by the responsible management agency as system trails—in keeping with the purpose of the research to examine impacts to existing trails where mountain biking might be sustained as a legitimate activity. Some trail segments were initially user-created but had been adopted into the agency trail system if design parameters were within agency specifications. To isolate impacts associated with mountain bike trails to the greatest extent possible in a field research setting, trail segments were excluded from the sample frame if motorized use, equestrian use, or multiple-use was dominant. We initially planned to use a 3 x 3 x 5 full factorial design with three levels of use (low/medium/high) and three levels of slope (low/medium/high) across five ecological regions; however, once candidate trail segments were identified, the necessary diversity in use level in each region was lacking, given the use-type restrictions.

Specifically, there were inadequate data points to fill cells for low use levels for four of the five CERs and medium use level for two of the five CERs.

Ultimately, a total of 162.3 miles of trails were purposively selected in the five common ecological regions. Thus, several limitations of the completed sample should be noted, including the lack of diversity in use levels across the five study regions, the lack of verifiable use level information, and the small number of sample points collected in the Colorado Plateau region, which resulted from time and resource limitations for the field research data collection. Future researchers should consider collecting systematic trail use level information using trail counters or other methods.

APPENDIX I
1410 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1938
30 The completed sample of trail segments in each region cannot be determined to be representative of that region and extrapolation of the study findings to the ecological region as a whole, is inappropriate at this time, and thus our findings should be cautiously interpreted at larger spatial scales. By adopting the common ecological regions as an eco-spatial framework for recreation impact research, however, we aim to encourage the long-term development of a comprehensive knowledge base of impact conditions across these regions. The CER framework is available for download as a GIS layer (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2005) and subsequent research utilizing this framework would facilitate comparative spatial analyses and ultimately confident generalizations about the relationships between specific causative and non-causative but related factors and specific impacts across different regions of the U.S., thus overcoming one of the limitations of recreation impact research—namely that research tends to be opportunistic, site-specific and driven by specific management concerns.

Trail Impact Assessment Procedures
A point-measurement trail assessment procedure was utilized in this study, focusing on measuring maximum incision and trail width. The point sampling method is most appropriate for assessing trail impacts, such as incision and width, which are continuous along the trail (Marion & Leung, 2001). For the point measurement method, a bicycle wheel measuring computer was used to identify systematic sampling points at intervals located every 805m (1/2 mile) along the trail after a random start point near the trailhead. Leung and Marion (1999) examined the influence of sampling interval on the accuracy of trail impact assessments for frequency of occurrence and lineal extent for four common impacts (tread incision, wet soil, exposed roots, multiple trailing) and found that intervals of less than 100m provided the most accurate estimate of lineal extent. Recognizing the inefficiency of such sampling intensity for most settings, however, the authors concluded that “sampling intervals between 100m-500m are therefore recommended to achieve an appropriate balance between estimate accuracy and efficiency of field work” (p. 178). Thus, a limitation of this study is a large sampling interval relative to other studies and the potential for loss in accuracy. The justification for this approach was to include as large a sample of trail miles as possible across a broad geographic region in this exploratory investigation.

At each sample point, trail boundaries were defined to include the area where the vast majority of trail use (>90%) occurred by identifying visually obvious disturbance indicated by changes in ground vegetation height, cover and composition. Temporary stakes were placed at the trail boundaries to establish a transect perpendicular to the trail tread. Trail width was defined as the distance between the trail boundary points and measured in inches to the nearest inch. A taut nylon cord was stretched between the base of the stakes and maximum trail incision (MIC) was measured as the maximum depth from the string to the trail surface in inches to the nearest Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1411
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1939
31 quarter inch. At each measurement point, technicians used digital camera to capture site images and recorded locations using Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Data were collected between May 2003 and March 2005 during the primary use season for each ecological region, entered into an online Microsoft Access 2003 database and analyzed using SPSS (Version 12).

Results
Data for the study were collected from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails across five common ecological regions, which resulted in 319 point measurements (see Table 1). Of the 162.3 miles of trails assessed, 91.7 miles were managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 27.5 miles by a county parks and recreation agency, 16.4 miles by a state government agency, 17.8 miles by the Bureau of Land Management, and 8.9 miles by a city government.

Table 1
Mileage of Mountain Bike Trails Assessed and Number of Sample Points Across Three Categories of Slope for Five Common Ecological Regions Mountain biking was the dominant activity on all trail segments, with three trails engineered specifically for this use.

Trail slope is a key factor influencing potential for impacts to soil and vegetation on recreation trails (Goeft, 2000; Wilson & Seney, 1994) with trail slopes greater than 12% typically associated with higher potential for degradation. As shown in Table 2, 37% of the sample points had a slope of less than 5%, 35% had a slope of 5% to 10%, and 27% had a slope greater than 10%. The mean slope for all sample points in the study was 7.6% with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 38%. Considering the trail segments in each of the CERs, the mean slopes were: Sonoran Basin and Range (7%); Arizona/New Mexico Mountains (8%); Colorado Plateau (7%); Southern Rocky Mountains (7%); Wasatch and Uinta Mountains (8%).

The mean maximum trail incision, or trail depth, across all sample points was 1.48 in. with a median of 1.0 in. and maximum 10.0 in. The

APPENDIX I
1412 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1940
32 Table 2
Mean Trail Width and Maximum Incision at Three Slope Levels Across Five Common Ecological Regions
mean trail width across all sample points was 32 in., with a median of 26 in. and a maximum of 109 in. Table 3 displays the values for trail width and maximum trail incision by each trail slope category and across the five ecological regions. Multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the relationships between the influential factors of CER and slope and the impacts of trail width and maximum trail incision. For MANOVA, the assumption is that dependent variables are multivariate normal; however analysis of variance is robust to departures from normality. The results, displayed in Table 4, showed a significant main effect of CER on both trail width and maximum trail incision. Average trail width for the sample points was significantly higher in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains than all other regions; this was followed by Sonoran Basin and Range, Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Southern Rocky Mountains, and Colorado Plateau.

MIC was highest for the sample points in the Arizona/New Mexico Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1413
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1941
33 Table 3
Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) for Impact Parameters Table 4
Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) for Impact Parameters

APPENDIX I
1414 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1942
34 Figure 2
Mean Maximum Trail Incision at Three Different Slope Levels Across Five Common Ecological Regions
Mountains, followed by Southern Rocky Mountains, Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Sonoran Basin and Range, and Colorado Plateau.

There was a significant main effect of trail slope on maximum trail incision—as slope increased, maximum incision increased. MIC for slopes of less than 5% was significantly lower than slopes of 5% to 10% and significantly lower than for slopes of greater than 10%. The latter two slope categories were not significantly different. There was not a significant main effect of trail slope on trail width, but, generally, as slope increased, trail width increased. Average trail width was 30 in. for slopes less than 5%, 32 in. for slopes 5% to 10%, and 34 in. for slopes greater than 10%. Figure 2 displays the findings for MIC across three categories of trail slope for each CER. For three of the five CERs—Arizona/New Mexico Mountains, Sonoran Basin and Range, and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains—incision was smallest on slopes less than 5%, higher on slopes 5% to 10%, and highest on slopes greater than 10%. In the two other regions, different patterns emerged. In the Colorado Plateaus, MIC increased from 0.78 in. at slopes less than 5% to 1.14 in. at slopes of 5% to 10%, but fell to 1.00 in. at slopes of greater than 10%. MIC for sample points in the Southern Rockies CER was 1.73 in. at less than 5% slope and increased to 2.00 in. at 5% to 10% slopes, but MIC lowest at slopes of greater than 10% (1.67 in.).

The effects of slope and CER on trail width are graphed in Figure 3. As noted earlier, slope did not have a significant effect on width for the sample points in the study, although in general higher slopes were associated with Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1415
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1943
35 higher trail width. For sample points in three of the five CERs—Arizona/ New Mexico Mountains, Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, and Southern Rockies, the trend lines show higher slopes to be associated with increasing width, but the differences are small. Trail width for the sample points in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains was significantly greater than all other regions at each slope level. In this region, width increased from 42 in. at less than 5% slope to 50 in. at 5% to 10% slopes and 48 in. at greater than 10% slope. For sample points in Colorado Plateaus, width increased from 22 in. at the lower slopes to 27 in. at the middle slopes, but then dropped to 22 in. at the steeper slopes. On the contrary, trail width for points in the Sonoran Basin and Range was lowest in the 5% to 10% slope category. The interaction between CER and slope was not significant.

Conclusions
Data for this study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States. Significant differences were identified between trails in different common ecological regions for both trail width and maximum incision. Trail width at sample points in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains was significantly higher than sample points for all other Figure 3
Mean Trail Width at Three Different Slope Levels Across Five Common Ecological Regions

APPENDIX I
1416 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1944
36 regions. These finding may be explained by environmental features such as vegetation associations or soil, or by use-related variables or management factors at the specific trails included in this study. Without adequate controls, it is not possible to isolate the effects of each contributing factor, but several explanations are plausible. Environmentally, the dominant vegetation for most trail segments in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains was sparse chapparal and pinyon-juniper and the soil was mostly sandyloam to loam. Such relatively sparse vegetation and fine, homogenous soils may not prevent trail widening as effectively as, for instance, the imposing trailside cactus vegetation and rockier soils in the Sonoran Basin and Range or the more densely forested portions of the Southern Rockies and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains. Regarding use-related factors, the sampled trails in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains region are located in the Coconino National Forest near Sedona and Flagstaff, Arizona and these trails were the most heavily used in the study. The trails are popular for day hiking and it is hypothesized that heavy use and user behavior contributed to increased width. For instance, although systematic observation of recreation behavior was not part of this study, field researchers’ notes suggest that as mountain bikers passed others on the higher-use trails, users leave the main tread, disturbing soil and vegetation. This use-related explanation is consistent with Marion and Leung’s (2001) study of trails in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which found that trail width was the only impact condition significantly related to use level. Regarding maximum incision, values were significantly higher in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains and Southern Rockies regions than all other regions.

Consistent with previous mountain bike trail research (Goeft & Alder, 2001; Wilson & Seney, 1994), increasing slope was associated with greater impact; in this case maximum incision. Specifically, MIC was greater at slopes of 5% to 10% than at slopes of less than 5% in all five CERs. This finding is significant, suggesting a direct relationship between slope and MIC, especially at small to moderate slopes. Future research might test this hypothesis through a multiple regression analyses to isolate the relative contribution of slope and ecological characteristics, as well as use level, and management agency. Although the interaction between CER and slope was not statistically significant, the pattern of results in the data show that MIC on sample points from two regions—Southern Rockies and Colorado Plateaus—was lower at slopes of greater than 10% than at slopes of 5% to 10%. This pattern may be explained by increased management attention to those trail segments at greater slopes, lower use on steep trail segments, or by more resistant soils. Further investigation is necessary to determine if environmental features, use-related variables, or management factors mediate the relationship between slope and incision at higher slopes. Trail slope was related to maximum incision but not trail width.

Relative to other trail impact research, the sites assessed in this study were in similar condition on the specific parameters measured. Average overall trail width for all sample points in our study was 32 in., with a median Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1417
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1945
37 of 26 in., and average maximum incision was 1.48 in. with a range of 0 to 10 and median of 1.0 in. The width and depth of the trails in this study are similar to the multiple use trails Great Smoky Mountains National Park discussed by Marion and Leung (2001), where point sampling method found the range of width to be 9 in. to 57 in. with a median of 17 in., and a range of incision within current tread boundary of 0 in. to 6 in. and a median of 0 in. Average width in our study was similar to lower use mountain bike trails in Australia studied by Goeft and Alder (2001), which found width to range from 17 in. to 26 in., and mountain bike trails in Tennessee assessed by Marion and Olive (2004), which found average width to be 24 in. In the Marion and Olive study, average width for horse trails was 81 in. and average width on ATV trails was 104 in.; in that study, bike trails had significantly less erosion as measured by cross-sectional area, and less muddiness than horse and ATV trails as well. Similarly, Aust et al. (2005) found an average width of 82 in. for equestrian trails in Hoosier National Forest in Indiana. The findings from our study thus reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails. Although our study focused on only two impacts, when combined with the findings of previous studies (Goeft & Alder, 2001; Wilson & Seney, 1994), a consensus seems to be emerging that recreation impacts to mountain bike trails are largely confined to the main tread and mountain biking is likely a sustainable activity on properly managed trails, at least in the environments studied thus far. To determine the sustainability of mountain biking, however, further research is warranted into other, potentially more ecologically significant impacts, such as wildlife disturbance or introduction and spread of invasive species, and across a broad range of ecological regions.

Our study does suggest that moderate to severe slopes are an area of management concern for increased incision; although we did not assess erosion (e.g., through cross sectional area), this is also a concern for moderate to severe slopes. This is potentially problematic as studies have shown that mountain bikers tend to prefer trails with steeper slopes, downhill features, and sharp curves (Cessford, 1995b; Goeft & Alder, 2001; Hollenhorst et al., 1995). For the trails in our study, the impacts were relatively modest, but systematic monitoring would be prudent. Managers may also want to clearly define and encourage a narrow trail tread in environments, such as the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains, that facilitate free travel along the trail periphery and on multiple-use trails where hikers and bikers frequently pass one another.

A final contribution of this study is the introduction of CERs as an organizing eco-spatial framework for recreation impact research. Additional studies that use this framework will facilitate comparisons of findings and ultimately allow for increased statistical power and meta-analyses to isolate the relative importance of various causal and influential factors on a

APPENDIX I
1418 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1946
38 wide range of impacts. Such studies, especially when using GIS analyses, have the potential to assist researchers and managers in moving from localized investigations to regionalized generalizations. Despite limitations, this study represents an exploratory first step in this progression.

Acknowledgments:

This research was supported through a Cooperative Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University, and facilitated by the Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit. The authors would like to acknowledge Don Applegate from BLM Arizona and Phil Morlock from Shimano American Corporation for their support and assistance with this project.

References
Antonakos, C. (1993). Environmental and travel preferences of cyclists. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Aust, M. W., Marion, J. L., & Klye, K. (2005). Research for the development of best management practices to minimize horse trail impacts on the Hoosier National Forest. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, Department of Forestry.

Baker, N. (1990). Mountain bike management: A tale of three cities. Western Wildlands, 16(3), 36-39.

Banister, C., Groome, D., & Pawson, G. (1992). The shared use debate—A discussion on the joint use of canal towing paths by walkers, anglers and cyclists. Journal of Environmental Management, 34(2), 149-158.

Bicycle Retailer & Industry News. (1999). Bicycle Retailer & Industry News statistics. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.bicycleretailer.com/ bicycleretailer/images/pdf/statistics.pdf
Birchard, W., & Proudman, R. D. (2000). Appalachian Trail design, construction, and maintenance (2nd ed.). Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian Trail Conference.

Bjorkman, A. (1998). Biophysical impacts on and user interactions with mountain bicycle off-road trail corridors. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Bowker, J., & English, D. (2002). Mountain biking at Tsali: An assessment of users, preferences, conflicts, and management alternatives (General Technical Report No. SRS-GTR-059). Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23(1), 47-61.

Cessford, G. (1995a). Off-road impacts of mountain bikes: A review and discussion.

Wellington, NZ: Department of Conservation (Science & Research Series No. 92).

Cessford, G. (1995b). Off-road mountain biking: A profile of riders and their recreation setting and experience preferences. Wellington, NZ: Department of Conservation (Science & Research Series No. 93).

Cessford, G. (2002). Perception and reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikes on the Queen Charlotte track in New Zealand. Bodenkultur University Vienna, Austria.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1419
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1947
39 Chavez, D. J. (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management perspective.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(3), 29-36.

Chavez, D. J. (1996a). Mountain biking: Direct, indirect, and bridge building management styles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(4), 21-35.

Chavez, D. J. (1996b). Mountain biking: Issues and actions for USDA Forest Service managers (Research Paper No. PSW-RP-226-Web). Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Chavez, D. J., Winter, P., & Baas, J. (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(3), 29-36.

Coello, D. (1989). Vicious cycles? Sierra, 74, 50-54.

Cole, D. N. (1987). Research on soil and vegetation and wilderness: A state-ofknowledge review(General Technical Report No. INT-220). Fort Collins, CO:

USDA Forest Service.

Edger, C. O. (1997). Mountain biking and the Marin Municipal Water District watershed. Trends, 34(3), 5-10.

Foote, J. (1987). Two-wheel terrors. Newsweek, 28 September, 72.

Goeft, U. (2000). Managing mountain biking in Western Australia. Australian Parks and Leisure, 3, 29-31.

Goeft, U., & Alder, J. (2001). Sustainable mountain biking: A case study from the southwest of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 193- 211.

Grost, R. (1989). Managing the mountain bike. American Forests, 95(3/4), 50-53.

Hammit, W. E., & Cole, D. N. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hendricks, W. W. (1997). Mountain bike management and research: An introduction. Trends, 34(3), 2-4.

Hendricks, W. W., Ramthun, R., & Chavez, D. J. (2001). The effects of persuasive message source and content on mountain bicyclists’ adherence to trail guidelines. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(3), 38-61.

Hollenhorst, S. J., Schuett, M., Olson, D., & Chavez, D. J. (1995). An examination of the characteristics, preferences, and attitudes of mountain bike users of the national forests. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(3), 41-51.

Jacoby, J. (1990). Mountain bikes: A new dilemma for wildlife recreation managers. Western Wildlands, 16, 25-28.

Leberman, S., & Mason, P. (2000). Mountain biking in the Manawatu Region:

Participants, perceptions, and management decisions. New Zealand Geographer, 56(1), 30-38.

Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (1996). Trail degradation as influenced by environmental factors: A state-of-the-knowledge review. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(2), 130-136.

Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (1999). Assessing trail conditions in protected areas:

Application of a problem-assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environmental Conservation, 26(4), 270-279.

Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (2000). Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T.

Borrie & J. O’Loughlin (Eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management (pp. 23-48).

Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

APPENDIX I
1420 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1948
40 Marion, J. L., & Leung, Y. F. (2001). Trail resource impacts and an examination of alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(3), 17-37.

Marion, J. L., & Olive, N. (2004). Assessing and understanding trail degradation:

Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area (Draft Research Report). Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Virginia Tech Field Unit.

Mason, P., & Leberman, S. (2000). Local planning for recreation and tourism: A case study of mountain biking from New Zealand’s Manawatu region. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(2), 97-115.

McMahon, G., Gregonis, S. M., Waltman, S. W., Omernik, J. M., Thorson, T. D., Freeouf, J. A., et al. (2001). Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United States. Environmental Management, 28(3), 293-316.

McMahon, G., Wiken, E. B., & Gauthier, D. A. (2004). Toward a scientifically rigorous basis for developing mapped ecological regions. Environmental Management, 34, S111-S124.

Meinecke, E. P. (1928). The effect of excessive tourist travel on the California Redwood parks. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks.

Moore, R., & Barhlow, K. (1997). Principles for minimizing trail conflicts:

Applications to mountain biking. Trends, 34(3), 2-4.

Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 159-169.

Ruddell, E., & Hendricks, W. (1997). Martial arts, Confucius, and managing mountain bikes: The role of etiquette in conflict management. Trends, 34(3), 41-44.

Ruff, A., & Mellors, O. (1993). The mountain bike—the dream machine? Landscape Research, 18(3), 104-109.

Schuett, M. A. (1997). State park directors’ perceptions of mountain biking.

Environmental Management, 21(2), 239-246.

Schwartz, D. (1994). Over hill, over dale, on a bicycle built for...goo. Smithsonian, 25(3), 74-87.

Staub, F. (1984). Backcountry bicycling—Sport or spoil-sport? American Forests, 90(9), 41-41.

Sun, D., & Walsh, D. (1998). Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 53(4), 323-338.

Symmonds, M. C., Hammitt, W. E., & Quisenberry, V. L. (2000). Managing recreational trail environments for mountain bike user preferences. Environmental Management, 25(5), 549-564.

Thurston, E., & Reader, R. J. (2001). Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management, 27(3), 397-409.

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Level III Ecoregions. Retrieved December 13, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ level_iii.htm.

USDA Forest Service. (2003). Americans’ participation in outdoor recreation:

Results from NSRE (with weighted data). Retrieved May 5, 2003, from http:/ /www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/Rnd1t13weightrpt.pdf.

Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1421
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1949
41 Watson, A., Williams, D., & Daigle, J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 59-71.

Wilson, J. P., & Seney, J. P. (1994). Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development, 14(1), 77-88.

APPENDIX I
1422 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1950
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1423
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1951

APPENDIX I
1424 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1952
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1425
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1953

APPENDIX I
1426 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1954
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1427
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1955

APPENDIX I
1428 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1956
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1429
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1957

APPENDIX I
1430 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1958
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1431
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1959

APPENDIX I
1432 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1960
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1433
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1961

APPENDIX I
1434 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1962
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1435
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1963

APPENDIX I
1436 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1964
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1437
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1965

APPENDIX I
1438 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1966
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1439
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1967

APPENDIX I
1440 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1968
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1441
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1969

APPENDIX I
1442 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1970
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1443
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1971

APPENDIX I
1444 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1972
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1445
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1973

APPENDIX I
1446 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1974
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1447
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1975

APPENDIX I
1448 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1976
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1449
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1977

APPENDIX I
1450 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1978
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1451
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1979

APPENDIX I
1452 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1980
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1453
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1981

APPENDIX I
1454 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1982
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1455
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1983

APPENDIX I
1456 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1984
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1457
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1985

APPENDIX I
1458 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1986
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1459
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1987

APPENDIX I
1460 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1988
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1461
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1989

APPENDIX I
1462 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1990
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1463
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1991

APPENDIX I
1464 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1992
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1465
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1993

APPENDIX I
1466 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1994
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1467
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1995

APPENDIX I
1468 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1996
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1469
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1997

APPENDIX I
1470 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
1998
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1471
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
1999

APPENDIX I
1472 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2000
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1473
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2001

APPENDIX I
1474 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2002
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1475
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2003

APPENDIX I
1476 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2004
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1477
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2005

APPENDIX I
1478 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2006
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1479
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2007

APPENDIX I
1480 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2008
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1481
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2009

APPENDIX I
1482 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2010
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1483
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2011

APPENDIX I
1484 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2012
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1485
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2013

APPENDIX I
1486 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2014
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1487
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2015

APPENDIX I
1488 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2016
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1489
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2017

APPENDIX I
1490 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2018
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1491
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2019

APPENDIX I
1492 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2020
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1493
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2021

APPENDIX I
1494 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2022
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1495
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2023

APPENDIX I
1496 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2024
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1497
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2025

APPENDIX I
1498 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2026
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1499
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2027

APPENDIX I
1500 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2028
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1501
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2029

APPENDIX I
1502 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2030
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1503
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2031

APPENDIX I
1504 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2032
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1505
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2033

APPENDIX I
1506 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2034
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1507
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2035

APPENDIX I
1508 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2036
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1509
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2037

APPENDIX I
1510 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2038
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1511
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2039

APPENDIX I
1512 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2040
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1513
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2041

APPENDIX I
1514 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2042
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1515
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2043

APPENDIX I
1516 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2044
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1517
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2045

APPENDIX I
1518 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2046
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1519
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2047

APPENDIX I
1520 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2048
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1521
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2049

APPENDIX I
1522 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2050
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1523
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2051

APPENDIX I
1524 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2052
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1525
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2053

APPENDIX I
1526 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2054
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1527
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2055

APPENDIX I
1528 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2056
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1529
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2057

APPENDIX I
1530 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2058
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1531
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2059

APPENDIX I
1532 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2060
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1533
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2061

APPENDIX I
1534 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2062
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1535
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2063

APPENDIX I
1536 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2064
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1537
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2065

APPENDIX I
1538 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2066
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1539
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2067

APPENDIX I
1540 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2068
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1541
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2069

APPENDIX I
1542 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2070
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1543
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2071

APPENDIX I
1544 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2072
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1545
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2073

APPENDIX I
1546 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2074
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1547
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2075

APPENDIX I
1548 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2076
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1549
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2077

APPENDIX I
1550 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2078
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1551
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2079

APPENDIX I
1552 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2080
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1553
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2081

APPENDIX I
1554 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2082
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1555
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2083

APPENDIX I
1556 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2084
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1557
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2085

APPENDIX I
1558 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2086
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1559
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2087

APPENDIX I
1560 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2088
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1561
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2089

APPENDIX I
1562 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2090
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1563
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2091

APPENDIX I
1564 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2092
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1565
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2093

APPENDIX I
1566 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2094
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1567
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2095

APPENDIX I
1568 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2096
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1569
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2097

APPENDIX I
1570 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2098
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1571
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2099

APPENDIX I
1572 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2100
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1573
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2101

APPENDIX I
1574 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2102
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1575
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2103

APPENDIX I
1576 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2104
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1577
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2105

APPENDIX I
1578 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2106
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1579
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2107

APPENDIX I
1580 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2108
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1581
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2109

APPENDIX I
1582 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2110
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1583
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2111

APPENDIX I
1584 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2112
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1585
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2113

APPENDIX I
1586 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2114
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1587
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2115

APPENDIX I
1588 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2116
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1589
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2117

APPENDIX I
1590 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2118
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1591
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2119

APPENDIX I
1592 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2120
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1593
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2121

APPENDIX I
1594 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2122
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1595
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2123

APPENDIX I
1596 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2124
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1597
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2125

APPENDIX I
1598 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2126
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1599
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2127

APPENDIX I
1600 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2128
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1601
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2129

APPENDIX I
1602 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2130
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1603
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2131

APPENDIX I
1604 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2132
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1605
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2133

APPENDIX I
1606 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2134
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1607
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2135

APPENDIX I
1608 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2136
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1609
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2137

APPENDIX I
1610 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2138
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1611
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2139

APPENDIX I
1612 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2140
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1613
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2141

APPENDIX I
1614 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2142
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1615
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2143

APPENDIX I
1616 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2144
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1617
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2145

APPENDIX I
1618 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2146
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1619
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2147

APPENDIX I
1620 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2148
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1621
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2149

APPENDIX I
1622 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2150
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1623
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2151

APPENDIX I
1624 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2152
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1625
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2153

APPENDIX I
1626 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2154
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1627
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2155

APPENDIX I
1628 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2156
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1629
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2157

APPENDIX I
1630 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2158
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1631
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2159

APPENDIX I
1632 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2160
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1633
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2161

APPENDIX I
1634 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2162
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1635
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2163

APPENDIX I
1636 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2164
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1637
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2165

APPENDIX I
1638 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2166
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1639
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2167

APPENDIX I
1640 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2168
1 Shauna Wright
From: Bill Kurtz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Brigitte Shearer; P&R Comm; [email protected]
Subject: Preserving Belmont's Open Space
Brigitte,

Thank you for your response in that the City or P&R did not open up the trails. However, someone has. So it occurred to me that Vandals are prevalent in the Open Space, they build trails whenever and wherever they please. The City closing the trails is irrelevant, for over 10 years now vandals have built trails, cut down trees and foliage, rerouted critical drainage, polluted creeks and waterways, created increased fire hazard, enabled erosion of trails that cannot be corrected, cut trails into hillsides rendering them unstable and susceptible to landslides, and driven out 90% of the wildlife that use to occupy the area. I walk the trails 2-5 times a week and have not seen a deer in over two years.

Until recently, the small canyon area off the entrance at Wakefield and Somerset, we used to see hundreds of Banana Slugs migrate through the area this time of the year. Now, I cannot find one. How much additional ecological damage is occurring that you have no clue about. In my opinion, over time, there are homes on the rim of the Open Space that could be in danger from landslides.

Why is this happening? I believe it is because the City has turned a blind eye to this activity and allowed it to occur and continue. It is why when the city has many trails closed, the vandals have just ignored the city, signs and barriers. They have gone behind the barriers, cut away damaged hillsides to create new trails around severely damaged ones, without regard to engineering or environmental concerns, or seeking permission from the City of Belmont itself. They believe the Open Space trail system is their private sporting domain, not public property and vital natural habitat.

Intentional damage of city property is vandalism. I believe most of these Vandals do not even live in the City, but come from all over the Bay Area. My question to you all, is what and when are you going to do something about it. This is a resource the City must protect for future generations and it is failing miserably to do so.

Bill Kurtz
2572 Hallmark Dr
Belmont
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1641
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2169
2 APPENDIX I
1642 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2170
3 Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1643
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2171
1 Shauna Wright
From: Scott Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Brigitte Shearer
Cc: P&R Comm
Subject: RE: Waterdog Trail Closures & PROS Progress
Brigitte,
Thanks for the response.

I'm not concerned about the storms or associated damage...nature happens. What I'm worried about is the weeks-long lack of response to the damage, the seemingly permanent closures, and the glacial pace of the CEQA review. The damage isn't all _that_ bad, from what I can tell: a ~30-ft slide on Chapparal, some fairly short damaged sections on Rambler, and needed remediation near the foot bridge that had erosion around it. This is the kind of work that the Trailkeepers are capable of handling, and I understand that a proposal was sent in.

I fear that the complaints and nuisance lawsuits of the few regular misanthropes have paralyzed the city management, and effectively locked the regular users of the park—and its volunteer force—out. Other areas have managed to stabilize and open their trail systems; as far as I can tell, it's just Belmont that is frozen in its tracks. It's now May and— aside from the rain for the past couple of days—the park has already been drying out. If work isn't started while there's some moisture to work with, I fear it will be months until repair/realignment can be put in place on Chapparal.

The CEQA review is a completely opaque process to those outside it. I'd love to hear some details, milestones, and associated dates in the P&R update on the plan to repair and reopen the trails, as well as the PROS plan. --Scott
On May 3, 2023 at 5:05 PM -0700, Brigitte Shearer <[email protected]>, wrote:

Scott,

Thank you for your email. My apologies for the delayed response – I was out of the country for 2 weeks.

We, too, are saddened that the trails were subjected to multiple heavy rains this year. We’re consulting trail and Geoengineer sources to determine the best course of action to re-establish safe and sustainable trail beds.

Volunteers will be able to assist with vegetation management shortly, but not yet with trail repairs.

Finally, the CEQA process is progressing. I expect to hear back from the consultant any day on the status and timeline. Unfortunately, I do not have any further substantive information at this time, but will let you know as soon as I have more helpful information.

APPENDIX I
1644 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2172
2 Brigitte

From: Scott Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:05 PM
To: P&R Comm <[email protected]>
Subject: Waterdog Trail Closures & PROS Progress

Commissioners,
I'm writing today to express my frustration at the apparent lack of progress—or at least, the lack of communication of progress—regarding the trail closures at Waterdog. The trail closures are unprecedented in my experience at the park, and I don't understand why the volunteer efforts have been blocked. This shoulder season is prime time to do trial maintenance, repair, and re-routing, yet it feels like we're wasting the opportunity. I know that the Waterdog Trailkeepers are willing and eager to do this work, and yet haven't been given clearance to do it. We've had damage of this magnitude before, when the Rambler trail suffered from winter landslides a few years ago, and it was repaired by the community quickly, and was completed without wholesale closure.

We're now in some of the most beautiful weeks to enjoy the open space, and it's marred by having two important trails closed, with no apparent plan in place to repair them. The lack of information in the updates in the recent P&R meetings has been equally frustrating.

When can we expect volunteer work to be unblocked, and the trails re-opened? On another note, the CEQA review for the PROS plan was supposed to have started last Fall. When is this scheduled to complete, so that the plan can move forward? Again, the lack of communication and information has been frustrating.
--Scott
Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1645
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2173
1 Shauna Wright
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Brigitte Shearer
Cc: 'PROS Committee'; P&R Comm; City Council
Subject: RE: Dangerous trail conditions warrant immediate closure I’m pleased to hear that. However there is no indication of that at the numerous unsanctioned entrances. I addition to the 7 sanctioned trail entrances to Waterdog/Hidden Canyon but I can point to at least 4 others.

Thanks,
Kristin
“It actually doesn’t take much to be considered a difficult woman. That’s why there are so many of us.” – Jane Goodall From: Brigitte Shearer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 11:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: PROS Committee <[email protected]>; P&R Comm <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous trail conditions warrant immediate closure The trails were closed on 12/31 and remain closed. We will be reiterating that later today.

Brigitte
On Jan 3, 2023, at 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Hi Brigitte,
The heavy rains this week led to multiple mudslides and flooding, and it’s quite obvious that the open space trails are dangerous in these wet conditions. Further, even bikers acknowledge that they should not be riding on muddy trails as it damages the surface and leads to channeling of water that further erodes trails. Yet by noon on Sunday - 12 hours after record rains and flooding - the bikers were back in number, entering the trail system at the Hallmark Parklet – an unauthorized entrance.

2 weeks ago I sent video of numerous bikers entering via this unauthorized trail and even falling on the steep and muddy surface. On Sunday Jan 1 – hours after flooding and landslides, I took this video and photo of a parent who dropped off a teen to ride alone, knowing the trails were flooded and in places simply gone. Many others entered throughout the day.

The fact that the City posted trail closure at other sanctioned entrances only drove bikers (no hikers) to this unsanctioned entrance in larger numbers. The lack of clear policy and enforcement is damaging our trails and endangering the public. We are in for two more rain events this week. I strongly urge the City to adopt a clear and enforceable policy immediately and to close trails at ALL entrances including the unsanctioned ones.

Thank you,
Kristin Mercer

APPENDIX I
1646 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2174
3 Received Emails
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1647
EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024
DRAFT Received Emails
2175
4 APPENDIX I
1648 PARKS | RECREATION | OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPENDICES EMAILS RECEIVED: PARKS + RECREATION COMMISSION
DRAFT | Final February 2024

APPENDIX I DRAFT
2176
Community Outreach
CITY OF BELMONT | LET’S BUILD OUR BACKYARD 1641

WEBSITE COMMENT FORM SUBMISSIONS

SUBJECT COMMENT COMMENTER
Belmont dog
residents
Hi there,
Love our parks and recreation in Belmont. Thank you for all you do.

As you know Covid brought the number of dogs to an all time high in our community. We love our dog parks off leash, occasional sidewalks, parks and trails. We’ve met so many wonderful neighbors and dogs - it’s a delight!
We appreciate the effort to try and provide off-leash time on the grass for the dogs at Barrett. While disappointing, we know Cipriani field is not technically for dogs.

My question there a way to post a sign, amend the rules that dogs use the grass space “when children are not present”? That field has grown so unusable for soccer teams, I’ve never seen the field used in the last 2-3 years except recreationally. While I’m very grateful dog park, its smaller size prohibits many dogs from using it and there are typically little scuffles there between them as they vie for space and balls and dog toys. There’s just no where to move to. Whereas the grassy area is bountiful and results in many happy dogs and humans.

Thanks so much for trying to create the space for everyone. You are appreciated! Angela Raffin
6/18/2022
Support the
Multi-Use
plan
Please count my support of the proposed Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Management Plan.

I support multi-use trail recreation, and am happy to see the science-based approach the city has taken with this plan.

In particular, I support the Plan’s following recommendations:

The continued designation of Waterdog’s trails as multi-use Unofficial legacy trails be officially recognized, and signage added for them Stream and waterway crossings be improved
Calming features be added to single track trails in order to decrease speeds and increase challenge (fun) for riders
Guidelines on trail maintenance and erosion control and (and look forward to volunteering in the parks for trail work)
New trails be added to the Open Space
A one-year pilot of a Class 1 e-bike policy be performed Thank you, Mike Timpano
Mike Timpano
7/12/2022
Open Space
Brush
Clearing
in Western
Hills
Hi, we have owned and lived in our current home since 1996. Every year we clear grasses and brush from the city-owned land behind our home in cooperation with neighbors. The last few years invasive weeds (i.e., scotch thistle, cotton thistle, and scotch broom) have take over the hillsides making clearing increasingly difficult.

Because these plant spread aggressively it would be beneficial if a broader program could control them, such as by using goats to clear the open space. Goats consume the entire plant and it’s seed pods. However, contracting to do this on a broad area such as the city land below and adjacent to our home on Cliffside Court and Hastings Drive is beyond the capabilities of any single homeowner.

We will be continuing to eliminate growth annually behind our property, but the rapid spread of the invasive weeds will continue to make the situation harder to maintain every year as each season new plants are seeded and grow. This represents a growing fire danger and increasing expense for homeowners.

I’d like to discuss how a coordinated abatement of the invasive species can be achieved with the City of Belmont. I know this is a widespread problem and perhaps you have recommendations or actions that we can support.

Please let me know who we can discuss this with.

Sincerely,
Stephan Joe Hielscher
Joe Hielscher
6/19/2023
Dead
Monterey
pine at
trailhead
You probably already know this, but in case it hasn’t been reported or noticed, there is a large dead Monterey pine at the open space trailhead on Hastings near the Generac generator. There are many houses nearby and this is a large fuel load in the neighborhood. I live up on Club Drive and worry about the fire danger in the canyon. I hike the trails often and when I see cigarette butts I shudder, as I did this morning. Thanks very much.

Lucy Dobson
11/3/2023
2177

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2178
City Council
March 12, 2024

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
(PROS) MASTER PLAN
1 PROS PLAN VISION
Re-imagine the Belmont PROS system to create the City’s Backyard that fosters inclusive, experiential, and nurturing public spaces by setting the framework for decision makers in planning, maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation, implementable over a 15 year horizon. 2179
AGENDA
2 MEETING PURPOSE

1. Possible resolution to approve PROS Plan and CEQA Addendum

MEETING TOPICS
○ Document organization + framework
○ Strategies + recommendations
○ Recap revisions to date
○ EIR Addendum
○ Next steps
2180

ON THE WEB
Project website: home page button to documents + FAQ tab www.belmontprosplan.com
City website: home page banner and spotlight on P&R page www.belmont.gov
www.belmont.gov/departments/parks-and-recreation

SOCIAL MEDIA
P&R: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter
Citywide: Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn

OUTREACH UPDATE
3 EMAIL
Citywide eNews: Jan 12, Jan 19, + Feb 2
P&R eNews: Feb 5
Direct email: Jan 19

ANNOUNCEMENTS
P&R Commission: Jan 10 (agenda item: introduction) +
Feb 7 (agenda item: recommendation to Council)
City Council: Jan 23 (verbal announcement from Mayor Mates) 2181

INTRODUCTION
4 PROS PLAN PURPOSE
Study the existing parks, recreation, and open space system ○ Identify gaps
○ Develop strategies
○ Present recommendations
○ Assess opportunities
○ Establish a framework for prioritization
that can be periodically revisited as resources become available + circumstances evolve 2182
5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
2183
6 PROS FRAMEWORK
Community Themes Big Ideas Goals

WHERE WE

WANT TO BE
Strategies Recommendations
System-Wide Park-Specific Opportunities Open Space

HOW WE GET
THERE Prioritization
Purpose + Vision Guiding Principles WHERE WE
ARE
Needs Assessment
2184
7 OSMP FRAMEWORK
PROS Goal 7: Develop and implement an Open Space Management Plan (OSMP)

WHERE WE

WANT TO BE
Environmental Assessment Recreation Use Assessment

WHERE WE
ARE +
Objectives Policies
Environmental
Sustainability

HOW WE GET
THERE Prioritization
Balanced
Recreation Use
Natural Hazard
Mitigation
2185

ENVISIONING CITY-WIDE PARK ACCESS
8 An Interconnected Park System
○ Identify areas with low access
○ Ensure amenities are well distributed
○ Investigate new opportunities
○ Align with ongoing ped + bike efforts
Park Typologies
2186

STRATEGIES
9 STRATEGIES: BROAD INITIATIVES THAT WILL…
○ Accomplish the PROS goals
○ Benefit the PROS system as a whole
○ Provide guidance for future decisions
○ Align with existing planning efforts
2187

SYSTEM-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
10 Inclusive +
All-Abilities Play
Activation Plan
Pop-up Park
Installations
Usage Study
Social Gathering
Space
Interconnect Toolkit
2188

PARK-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
218911
EXAMPLE: IMPLEMENT MASTER PLAN

TWIN PINES PARK
2190
EXAMPLE: MINOR IMPROVEMENTS

WAKEFIELD PARK
2191
EXAMPLE: UPGRADED OR NEW AMENITY
O’DONNELL PARK
2192
15 Environmental Sustainability Balanced Recreation Use Natural Hazard Mitigation OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN:

A SET OF OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PRIORITIES BASED ON… ○ Environmental Assessment: trails, stream crossings, habitat, vegetation ○ Recreational Use Assessment: impact of recreation on sensitive resources ○ Site visits + data collected in the field
○ Relevant databases + peer-reviewed literature
○ Community input
○ Regional best practices, guidelines + regulations

OSMP PURPOSE
2193
16 OSMP FINDINGS
Easy
These actions can be performed
immediately under existing City
programs, funding, or with minimal
additional effort.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Overall habitat quality is high

2. Existing nature-based recreational use can continue on trails

3. Continue wildfire fuel reduction efforts

PRIORITIES
TIER 1
○ Improve stream crossings (H)
○ Seasonal/weather-dependent
restrictions on maintenance (E)
○ Fuels reduction plan (M)
○ Monitor recreation use (H)
TIER 2
○ Nature-based recreation
programs (M)
○ Volunteer restoration programs (E)
○ Trail calming features (H)
Medium
These actions require additional
planning, equipment, staffing, funding –
either internal or external, or other
operational changes.

Hard
These actions may require substantial
planning, interagency coordination,
staffing, funding, or other operational
changes.
2194
17 FURTHER STUDIES

NEXT STEPS
○ Utilize the methodology presented in the OSMP for ongoing observation + monitoring ○ Develop an annual Fuel Reduction Plan
○ Conduct engineering studies for future stream crossing projects ○ Adopt trail design guidelines
(specific to Belmont OR adopt an existing set from the State or other reputable source) 2195
18 IMPLEMENTATION
PRIORITIZATION: BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A RECOMMENDATION TO… ○ Further the PROS goals
○ Respond to community priorities
○ Resolve an existing deficiency
○ Address an existing condition
FUNDING + PARTNERSHIPS: OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE ON… ○ Capital improvements
○ Maintenance + operations
ACTION PLAN: IMPORTANT TARGETS IN THREE TIME FRAMES…
○ Short term > Long term > Ongoing
2196
19 RECENT REVISIONS

THE PROS PLAN WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ON JULY 6, 2022 TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS…

1. Consolidate the OSMP’s Base Plan and Management Alternatives objectives, policies, and implementation actions into a single plan.

2. Clearly present priority recommendations in the OSMP by theme - environmental sustainability, balanced recreation uses and trail management, and natural hazard mitigation.

3. Pursue the creation of dedicated parkland in downtown Belmont and the Belmont Village Specific Plan area in response to potential residential density increase in the area due to anticipated housing unit development as outlined in the 2023-2031 Housing Element update.

4. Apply consistent terminology to remove ambiguity.

5. Refine specific graphics for clarity.
2024 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
2197
20 REVISION SUMMARY

FORMATTING

1. Color-coding graphics, tables, headers

2. Reorganizing sections

3. Presenting information visually

CONTENT

1. Defining terminology

2. Streamlining text for clarity and flow

3. Elaborating on new concepts

4. Reflects latest meetings + available info
NOT CHANGED: THE PRIMARY TAKEAWAYS OF THE DOCUMENT…
○ Inventory + Needs Assessment
○ Opportunities + Recommendations
○ Prioritization Matrix + Action Plan
2198
21 CEQA UPDATE

CEQA PATHWAY
○ The PROS Plan was reviewed according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
○ Policies and actions in the PROS Plan (including OSMP) were largely already addressed in the General Plan EIR
○ To retain consistency and reduce redundancy, an addendum to the 2017 EIR was prepared
○ The addendum and the 2017 EIR are programmatic – they address potential impacts that may result from the implementation of policies and actions
2199
22 CEQA UPDATE
Addendum
PROS Plan
2200
23 CEQA UPDATE

EIR ADDENDUM
○ The addendum analyzed the potential impacts from the PROS Plan as they relate to the impacts discussed in the 2017 EIR

FINDINGS
○ Limited new impacts were less than significant
○ No new significant impacts that had not already been discussed - no additional review is needed ○ All mitigation measures will apply
2201

NEXT STEPS
24 1. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PROS PLAN AND CEQA

ADDENDUM

2. AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS EMERGE, INITIATE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

3. PERIODICALLY REVISIT THE PROS PLAN AS RESOURCES BECOME AVAILABLE + PRIORITIES CHANGE
2202
25 www.BelmontPROSplan.com [email protected]
2203

Commission Appointments 2023 Appointment to City Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 12, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jozi Plut, City Clerk, [email protected], 650-595-7414 Agenda Title: Appointment to City Commissions and Committee Agenda Action: Motion
Recommendation
(1) Motion to appoint at least two residents to the Planning Commission; (2) Motion to appoint at least two residents as voting members and up to two non-voting youth members to the Parks and Recreation Commission;
(3) Motion to appoint one resident to the Measure I Committee.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The City of Belmont has two Commissions, and a Committee. During the Months of November 2023 to January 2023, the City of Belmont held an open recruitment for applicants to fill open positions on the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Measure I Committee. Each Commission and Committee is charged with advising the City Council on policy matters and completing assignments as directed by the City Council. Some bodies like the Planning Commission have a regulatory role.

The Planning Commission is a regulatory body and a quasi-judicial body. The Commission makes land use decisions for the City based on the City’s General Plan and other focused regulations, such as the Zoning Ordinance, the Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and area plans.

Presently up to ten commission seats are potentially available, with up to four on the Planning Commission if Council wishes to increase the current five-member Planning Commission to a seven-member Planning Commission, and up to four voting seats on the Parks and Recreation Commission and two non-noting youth seats on the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Council may choose to fill five or seven seats on the two commissions. Measure I Committee has one seat available. Appointment periods are at the Council’s discretion and are typically for one, two or three years.

The Planning Commission currently has five members, two of which have reached the end of their appointment periods. To fully staff the five-member Planning Commission, the Council would need to make two appointments which may be for the typical three-year appointment period. If the Council chooses not to make an appointment from among the current applicants, the commission could continue to function with three filled seats, but all three current commissioners would need to be present to establish a quorum.
2204

Commission Appointments 2024 Appointment to City Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions - Staff Report The Parks and Recreation Commission currently has seven voting members, four of which have reached the end of their appointment periods. To fully staff a seven-voting member commission, the Council would need to make four appointments. To fully staff a five-voting member commission, the Council would need to make two appointments. If the Council chooses not to make an appointment from among the current applicants, the commission could continue to function as a five-member commission with three filled seats, but all three current commissioners would need to be present to establish a quorum. Appointments are for two years under Belmont City Code Section 2-166(b)(2) unless the Council sets a different period.

Additionally, in late fall 2023 the Council Conducted interviews for the Measure I Committee and appointed four members to the five-member board. Recruitment continued in early 2024, and one member of the public applied and was interviewed. In order to stagger the appointment periods, the Council may wish to consider making the appointment through either October 2026 or October 2027.

Analysis
The City Council held panel interviews of commission and committee applicants for consideration of the available positions. The applicants are as follows for each body:

Planning Commission Applicants
Brad Lewis
Cherry Twigg
David Kramer (I)*
Honsan Chung
Joanna Adamkewicz
John Selin
Nathan Majeski (I)*
Parks and Recreation Commission Applicants
Austin Lee (I)*
Bubby Whitmore
Craig Michaels(I)*
Loren Thomas
Pat Cuviello
Scott Hill
Scott Sisemore
Valerie Newhouse

Non-Voting (youth) Parks and Recreation Applicants
Aiden Lee
Ben Michaels
Catherine Wang
Peter Harrison

Council may appoint a minimum of five positions and maximum of seven on each commission, plus two non-voting youth seats for the Parks & Recreation Commission. 2205

Commission Appointments 2024 Appointment to City Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions - Staff Report Measure I Committee
Emily Tuupo
*(I) – Incumbent
Alternatives

1. Council may direct staff to reopen recruitment to seek additional candidates Attachments
A. none
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 2206