Item 4 - Recommendation from Blue Sky Ecologival Reserve Bicycle Advisory
AGENDA - ~PORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
- FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Managep[1't
Robert L. Thomas, Director of Community Services ~
DATE: October 17, 1995
SUBJECf: Recommendation from Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle Advisory Committee
ABSTRACT
On November 15, 1994, the City Council approved a cooperative agreement with the State
of California Department of Fish and Game to conduct a six month trial period for
bicycle access into Blue Sky Ecological Reserve. The agreement stipulated that an
advisory coordinating committee composed of interested parties would be formed to
evaluate the results of the six month trial period and advise the City and the State on
future bicycle use at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve. On September 13, 1995, the Bicycle
Advisory Committee voted to recommend that bicycle access be prohibited at Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve.
,
- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
,
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Additional notification sent to Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council recommend to the State Department of Fish and
Game that bicycle access be prohibited in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve.
ACTION
1 of 69 OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4
- AGENDA REPORt
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: ~onorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City M~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~~
Robert L. Thomas, Director of Communit Services ~
DATE: October 17, 1995
SUBJECT: Recommendation from Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle
Advisory Committee
BACKGROUND
Title 14 of the California Administrative Code prohibits bicycle access in an
ecological reserve except on designated access roads. In response to
considerable input from the bicycle community desiring access into the
Reserve, the City entered into a cooperative agreement with the State
Department of Fish and Game. Under the terms of the agreement bicycles would
be allowed into the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve for a six month trial period.
The agreement stipulated that during the trial period, bicycle access would be
restricted to the Green Valley Truck Trail and on the trail connecting to the
,Lake Poway campground.
Furthermore, a IO-mile per hour speed limit for bicycles was mandated and
bicycles were excluded from the Reserve on Fridays and until noon on Saturday.
The agreement called for the City to recruit and train a volunteer bike patrol
to educate and advise cyclists on the rules and regulations. Also, the City
agreed to distribute written rules of the regulations and post signs along
Green Valley Truck Trail specifying bicycle trail use rules.
One of the principal elements of the cooperative agreement was the formation
of an advisory committee to evaluate the results of the six month trial period
and to advise the City and State on future bicycle access at Blue Sky. The
Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle Advisory Committee had its first meeting
in December 1994. The twelve member committee was composed from
representatives of the bicycle community, the Blue Sky docents, the
educational community, the Department of Fish and Game, the County of San
Diego, and the City of Poway (Attachment I).
ACTION:
2 of 69 1
Agenda Report - B1 ue Sky Bi cyc 1 e Commit tee Recommendat i 011
October 17, 1995
Page 2
At one of the initial meetings, the committee agreed to evaluate the six month
bicycle access trial period based on the impact of bicycles on wildlife, the
compatibility of bicycles and other users, and whether bicyclists could follow
the established rules.
FINDINGS
The six month trial period for bicycle access at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
commenced on February 1, 1995 and terminated on July 31, 1995. In order to
evaluate the impact of bicycles, two subcommittees were formed. The duty of
the first subcommittee was to assess whether bicycles could adhere to the
established rules for bicycle access during the six month trial period. Gene
Lamke, Chair of the San Diego State University Department of Recreation, Parks
and Tourism, enlisted SDSU students enrolled in two recreation classes to
conduct the study. All of the students in the classes were responsible for
completing three 3-hour observations (9 total hours) at the Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve. The study period began the first weekend of March and
concluded with the last weekend in May. Data was collected on user
observation forms which specified the date, time, location, and weather
conditions at the time of data collection. Collectors were told to identify
the type of user observed and whether users behavior violated the established
rules of conduct for that user type. In addition to assessing adherence to
the rules by bicyclists, a secondary purpose of the study was to compare data
between cyclists and non-cyclists relative to adherence to established rules
and regulations. Attached is the final copy of the Blue Sky Ecological
Reserve User Observation Study (Attachment 2).
The second subcommittee was formed to evaluate the impact of bicycle use in
the Reserve on wildlife. Robert Patton, Supervising Park Ranger, and Alan
Torretto, a biology teacher at Poway High School supervised the work of this
subcommittee. Wildlife and human activity was documented along the Green
Valley Truck Trail during the six month trial period through weekly paired
samples. One sampling was conducted during a period when bicycles were not to
be present and a second during a period when bicycles were present. Following
the trial period, the data for each sampling period were compared to detect if
there were any differences in the number of wildlife sightings, wildlife
abundance, species diversity, wildlife behavior, or distance from the Green
Valley Truck Trail relative to the presence or absence of bicycles.
Four stations were selected at intervals along the Green Valley Truck Trail
adjacent to each habitat type. One to two monitors spent 30 minutes at each
station on two consecutive weekend mornings from approximately 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon. Observers documented vertebrate wildlife within view of the
station and human activity passing by the station during each 30 minute
monitoring period. Data was entered on standardized forms and tabulated and
analyzed by computer. Attached is the final copy of the Wildlife Monitoring
During the Bicycle Trial Period at Blue Sky Ecological Reser~a (Attachment 3).
In addition to the work of the two subcommittees, a volunteer bike patrol was
formed to educate bicyclists on the rules and regulations during the six month
trial period. The volunteer bike patrol was administered by Terry Callan and
K.C. Butler. The patrols consisted of three, 4 hour shifts with one on
Saturday afternoons and two on Sundays. Approximately 50 volunteers
participated in the patrols. In addition to educating bicyclists on the
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4
3 of 69
Agenda Report - Blue ~ky Bicycle Committee Recommendation
October 17, 1995
Page 3
rules, the bicycle patrol volunteers also documented user behavior and
violations within the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve.
On September 13, 1995, the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle Advisory
Committee met to evaluate the data from the two studies. In discussing the
user observation study, the committee focused on the number of violations by
cyclists as compared to the total number of observations. As shown on Table
4, a total number of 3374 users of all categories were observed during the
study. Of this total, 592 or 17.5% of all users were identified as
bicyclists. As shown on Table 7, from 397 total observations, 93 bicycle
violations were noted or a violation rate of 23.4%. This compared to 34
violations for non-cyclists from a total of 1478 observations or a violation
percentage of 2.3%. 8y excludin9 such uses as equestrian, vehicles, and
interpretive staff on foot, these figures were adjusted in Table 8 to reflect
2.2% violations for non-cyclists and 20.7% violations for cyclists. Table 6
of the study showed that the principal violations by bicyclists were excessive
bike speed and bikes in the Reserve during excluded times.
In discussing the Wildlife Monitoring Study, the committee focused on the
average number of species observed, average number of sightings, and average
number of animals during periods of low and high bike usage and periods when
bikes were present and not present. Low bike usage was defined as a period of
four bikes or less and high bike usage as a period of five bikes or more.
Table 11 of the study shows the modified average observations which eliminated
the extreme high and low observations. This table compared period of low bike
use against periods of high bike use, and periods of no bike use against all
)evels of bike use (low and high). During periods of low bike use an average
of 22 species, 82 sightings, and 52 animals were observed. In contrast,
observations during periods of high bike use averaged 17 species, 63
sightings, and 37 animals. No bike use resulted in average observations of 23
species, 90 sightings, and 57 animals. Whereas, any level of bike use reduced
these numbers to 18 species, 64 sightings, and 38 animals.
One of the criteria in evaluating continued bicycle access in the Reserve was
whether bicyclists could adhere to the rules and regulations. The majority of
committee members interpreted the User Observation Study to conclude that
bicyclists could not sufficiently obey established rules. As cited in Table 8
of the study, 20.7% of total observations resulted in violations by cyclists,
while only 2.2% of total observations resulted in violations by non-cyclists.
The majority of the committee concluded that this data also supported the
premise that bicyclists could not be compatible with other users of the
Reserve.
Another criteria in evaluating continued bicycle access was the impact of
bicycles on wildlife. The majority of committee members felt that the data
contained in the Wildlife Monitoring Study was less definit}ve than the data
contained in the User Observation Study. Of the 19 Saturday samples when
bicycles were to be excluded, only eight recorded no bicycles during the
monitoring period. Saturday was, therefore, invalidated as an experimental
control and observation periods were evaluated not by day of week but by
presence or absence of bicycles. Even with the reduced sample size, the
majority of the committee did interpret data in Table 11 as indicating a
negative trend when assessing the impact of bicycles on wildlife.
tlCT 17 1995 ITEM 4
4 of 69
,-
Agenda Report - Blue Sky Bicycle Committee Recommendation
October 17, 1995
Page 4
A minority of committee members expressed an opinion that both studies were
flawed. Among the reasons expressed were difficulty in determining bicycle
speed, confusion a$ to when bicycles were allowed, concentration of bicycle
use on specific days and adverse affect of other uses on wildlife and the
enjoyment of the Reserve.
In order to arrive at a recommendation, the committee identified three
alternatives for determining bicycle access in the Blue Sky Ecological
Reserve. The three alternatives are: 1) prohibit bicycle access, 2)
unlimited bicycle access on Green Valley Truck Trail and on the trail
connecting to the lake Poway campground, and 3) limited bicycle access by
restricted hours of use similar to the six month trial period.
There were seven members of the committee deemed eligible to vote reflecting
the various constituencies. Six members voted for the first alternative to
prohibit bicycle use, one member voted for the second alternative which
allowed for unlimited bicycle access, and there were no votes for the third
alternative allowing for limited bicycle access.
After the City Council considers the issue of bicycle access in the Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve, the State Department of Fish and Game will evaluate the
data and public input and will make a determination as to whether to continue
the prohibition of bicycles in the Reserve.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Jhis item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Additional notification sent to Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle Advisory
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council recommend to the State Department of
Fish and Game that bicycle access be prohibited in the Blue Sky Ecological
Reserve.
JlB:JDF:RlT
Attachments:
I - Bicycle Advisory Committee
2 - User Observation Study
3 - Wildlife Monitoring During the Bicycle Trial Period
(c: \DATA\AGENOA\ lOl78SRP. COM) ITEM 4
~CT 1 7 1995
5 of 69
BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Al Torretto Friends of Blue Sky
K.C. Butler Bicycle Community
Terry Callan Bicycle Community
Patty Heyden Volunteer
Bob Turner Volunteer
Louise Fiorillo Public Agency
Department of Fish and Game
Doug Ruth Public Agency
Parks & Recreation Department
County of San Diego
Robert Patton Public Agency
Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
Bob Thomas City of Poway
Director of Community Services
Jim Bentz City of Poway
Community Services Manager
Gene Lamke SDSU
Department of Recreation, Parks & Tourism
College of Professional Studies & Fine Arts
San Diego State University
Erick Burres Public Agency
Department of Fish and Game
Attachment 1
OCT 17 1995 11 EM 4
6 of'69
BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
USER OBSERVATION STUDY
DURING BICYCLE TRIAL PERIOD
LAWRENCE A. BECK
GENE G. LAMKE
Principal Investigators
Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism
San Diego State University
September 6, 1995
Attachment 2
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4
7 of 69
I
Acknowledgements
Students enrolled in Recreation 485 - Outdoor Planning and Policy, and Recreation 570 _
Administration of Recreation Systems, did the lion's share of the work in making this study a
reality. Their objectivity and dedicated hOUTS of data collection are the basis for everything that is
included in this study's written report. As principal investigators, we are indebted to their
willingness to learn outside of the classroom and their contributions to linking San Diego State
University with the community in such a symbiotic relationship.
The prinicipal investigators are also indebted to the Bicycle Advisory Committee and its members
for their positive feedback throughout this study and their willingness to include the university and
its expertise in their deliberations. Additionally, the principal investigators would like to personally
thank: Ranger Robert Patton for his time in working with the entire study team and his patience with
and guidance of students involved with the project.
peTl? 1995 ITEM 4 ..
8 of 69
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ 1
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................2
Introduction ..... ................ ............. .............. ....... ................................................................... 3
Review of the Literature ........................................................................................................4
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 7
Results ................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 1 - Length of Time of Data Observations....................................................................9
Table 2 - Data Collection Periods.......................................................................................10
Table 3 - Location of Data Collection................................................................................. 10
Table 4 - Number of Users............................................................................,....................11
Table 5 - Number of User Observations............................................................................. 12
Table 6 - Type and Number of Violations ..........................................................................13
Table 7 - All Non-Cyclists Vs. Cyclists Using Violations Per Observation........................ 14
Table 8 - Selected Non-Cyclists Vs. Cyclists Using Violations Per Observation ...............14
Graph I - Selected Non-Cyclists Vs. Cyclists Using Violations Per Observation.............. 15
Table 9 - Selected Non-Cyclists Vs. Cyclists Using Violations Per Observation
By Month .......................................................................................................... 15
Graph 2 - Selected Non-Cyclists Vs. Cyclists Using Violations Per Observation
By Month ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 10 - Chi Square Distribution for Selected Non-Cyclists Vs. Cyclists
Based Upon Observations and Violations ........................................................16
Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 17
References .......................................................................................................................... 19
Appendices
Appendix A - User Observation Form................................................................................20
Appendix B - Blue Sky Map and Collection Sites..............................................................23
Appendix C - Mountain Bicyclist Rules and General Rules for BSER ..............................25
tlCT 1 7 1995 ITEII4 I
.
9 of 69
3
Introduction
Cycling has become increasingly popular as a recreational activity in the past two decades. Spurred
by the Olympics in Los Angeles and increased media coverage of the Tour de France, cycling has
shown steady growth in overall numbers since the early 1980's. The fitness craze of the late 70's
and early '80's also fueled the increase in cyclists in America and other industrialized countries. In
the late 1970's and early 1980's, cycling enthusiasts who were looking for increased adventure in
road cycling, took their bikes off -road into the mountains and hills. Mountain or off -road biking
became a popular sport for those who wanted more beautiful surroundings for their daily rides, as
well as a diversity of terrain to ride on. The bicycle equipment industry created new cycles with flat
handlebars and fat tires to increase cycling enjoyri1ent on the trails and in the hills. The challenge of
mountain biking including its physical demands attracted a significant population of enthusiasts
(currently estimated between 2.5 and 3 million cyclists by the International Mountain Bicycling
Association) who wanted increased access to trails and off-road sites. This demand for increased
venues and access to trails on which to participate in their sport of choice created conflicts with
other traditional users of mountain areas and trails. The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve which
"onnects Lake Poway with the Ramona Dam by trails and the Green Valley Truck Trail, and serves
the nearby community of Poway from Espola Road, is one of the areas where this conflict over
usage has developed.
The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve is jointly owned by the County of San Diego and the California
State Department of Fish and Game. The area, located within the community of Poway, serves a
large percentage of the City of Poway' s residents. The reserve encompasses 470 acres of public
land set aside as a natural habitat for several threatened and rare plant and animal species.
Mountain bike enthusiasts see it as a prime site for participating in their sport because of the diverse
terrain and the connection that the Green Valley Truck Trail permits with other traqils not located in
the reserve. Traditional users including hikers, dog walkers, joggers, youth groups, nature
enthusiasts, and horseback riders also enjoy the area but believe that mountain cyclists will
significantly detract from their satisfactory use of the area. In December of 1994, the City of
.
Poway and the California State Department of Fish and Game entered into an agreement for a six
{leT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4
10 of 69
-
4
month trial period for bicycle access in order to study the multiple use of the Green Valley Truck
Trail in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve by traditional users and mountain bike enthusiasts. To
facilitate the analysis of this trial period by both sets of users, an advisory committee was
established and two separate studies were commissioned to measure the impacts of the users on the
reserve and also their behavior while using the area.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the adherence of mountain cyclists to rules
established for usage of the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve by the Advisory Committee. In general,
traditional users have complained about the failure of cyclists to adhere to established regulations
regarding usage of trails and the creation of conflicts among users of the same trails. Common
complaints against mountain cyclists are grouped into three general categories: user safety, natural
resource protection, and quality user experiences. The secondary purposes of this study were to
compare data between cyclists and non-cyclists relative to rule adherence, to determine if significant
differences existed between user groups relative to rule adherence, and to collect descriptive data
about user populations. The remainder of this study is organized into a section reviewing some of
the available literature related to mountain bike use of outdoor areas, a description of the
methodology utilized in this study, a presentation of the results of the study, and a discussion of the
results of the study with recommendations for future studies.
Review of the Literature
The development of the sport of mountain biking has created the opportunity for authors and
researchers to write and publish a variety of articles and studies about mountain biking. Given the
purpose of this study, this review will focus on publications related to user conflicts associated with
mountain bike usage of outdoor trails, management strategies associated with multiple users of
outdoor trails, and articles and newsletters associated with mountain bike use of outdoor areas.
The sport of mountain biking is relatively young, and, therefore, an abundance of literature about
mountain biking is clearly lacking. There does exist though several publications supporting the
growth and development of the mountain biking movement, as well as several studies about usage
and user conflicts. ,.,
'OCT 17 1995 ITEM 1+ ...
11 of 69
5
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (lMBA) "promotes mountain cycling
opportunities through environmentally and socially responsible use of the land." The association
continues to promote responsible riding through education and fosters cooperative relationships
with all users of all trail types. At the core of the IMBA is a grassroots network of individual
members, clubs, retailers, land managers, and manufacturers of bicycle equipment. The IMBA
publishes a newsletter and an annual report. The 1994 Annual Report (lMBA, 1995) included an
article on model advocacy programs. This article described such programs as a low impact
mountain cyclist program that centered around use of extensive trail work, hang tags, and innovative
management solutions to problems involving cyclists; the development of a single track in a
National Park Service Unit; the work of a recreation officer for the U.S. Forest Service to keep
trails open to all until every reasonable alternative had been explored; and the work of a retailer to
fund a project titled the IMBA-Sierra Club Mediation Project. The latter project includes a variety
of action initiatives, one of which focuses on local assistance to employ conflict resolution
processes to help resolve local trail disputes.
Blumenthal (1995), Executive Director of the IMBA, in a paper entitled "Continental Divide
National Scenic Trail Summit User Conflict Resolution," detailed three common approaches to
reducing trail user conflicts: 1) trail user education, 2) designating specific trails for particular uses,
and 3) restricting or eliminating the use of a particular group. Blumenthal urged the use of the first
two approaches as opposed to the third in almost every instance, although he notes that the third
approach seems to be the preference of most land managers. This paper did an excellent job of
reviewing strategies to eliminate conflicts among trail users.
A national study conducted by Chavez (1995) examined issues related to mountain bike use in
national forests throughout the United States. This study reviewed levels of activity, management
plans, and management issues such as user conflicts, resource damage, and safety concerns. This
study identified that the greatest percentage of user conflicts existed between equestrian groups and
mountain bikers (41 percent) or between mountain bikers and hikers (31 percent). Included in this
study were several methods utilized by managers to reduce conflicts, some of which were the
PCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 .
12 of 69
-
6
provision of information to users, the separation of user groups, the stressing of user ethics.
.., changing trails to meet needs of user groups, discontinuing the allocation of permits for events to
user groups, and law enforcement.
Local associations also publish materials to encourage safe and courteous use of trails by mountain
cyclists. The San Diego Mountain Biking Association (SDBMA) publishes a newsletter which
advocates sound trail tactics. SDMBA's (1995) May newsletter contained an article which
described instances of horses and bikes meeting on the trail. The article detailed important horse
sense that every mountain biker should know and utilize for safe trail encounters.
Padilla and Loheit (1995) published a course syllabus on basic trail maintenance which included a
succinct unit on trail assessment This syllabus included a detailed discussion of possible
maintenance conditions to look for when assessing the need for work in an area. The syllabus also
included units on trail safety during maintenance and trail volunteers.
Probably the most dermitive synthesis of literature and research on trail usage and conflicts was
produced by the Federal Highway Administration at the request of the National Recreational Trails
Advisory Committee. Moore's (1994) technical report included an analysis of 102 articles, reports
and research studies on multiple-use trails and conflicts among users. The synthesis is extremely
complete and based sufficiently on research findings. Probably the most noteworthy information in
the report relative to this study deals with "the environmental and social impacts of outdoor
recreation in general" and the development of principles to deal with impacts and conflicts. Three
of the most important principles identified were I) tolerance to impacts vary. 2) impacts are activity
specific, and 3) impacts are site specific.
The IMBA (1995) has published a collection of Mountain Bike Success Stories. This collection
summarizes the efforts of the IMBA and local clubs to insure that trails remain open to mountain
bikers and that the mountain bike community is active in maintaining trails and promoting
adherence to proper standards of conduct in using trails with other users groups. Much of this
'OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ...
13 of 69
7
collection is devoted to promotion and educational materials which can be used to promote adequate
co-use of trails by a variety of user groups which includes mountain bikers.
In summary, a somewhat limited but useful collection of literature existed about mountain biking
and trail use in America A sufficient number of research studies and papers existed to identify the
potential conflicts that currently exist between users and the methodologies which can be utilized to
reduce such conflicts. For the purposes of this study, information existed which supports the type
of data to be collected and analyzed and the selected analysis techniques.
Meth~ology
The purpose of this study was to analyze the adherence of mountain bike users to the rules and
regulations established by the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Bicycle Advisory Committee for use of
the Green Valley Truck Trail by mountain bikers during the course of a six month study period.
To facilitate the collection of data pertinent to the study's purpose, the principal investigators met
with the Advisory Committee to delimit the study and structure the investigation methods. The
primary question the committee wished answered was "can the mountain bike users follow the rules
established in using the area's resources?"
Upon completion of the initial meeting with the committee, the investigators modified a "User
Observation Form" prepared by Doug Ruth of the committee, for review by the committee. Upon
review by the Advisory Committee, the form was again modified to its final version (see Appendix
A). The form was duplicated for distribution to the data collectors.
Data collection was the next area to be addressed. The investigators chose to use students in two
classes of the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism at San Diego State University as data
collectors. Students enrolled in Recreation 485 - Outdoor Recreation Planning and Policy, and
Recreation 570 - Administration of Recreation Systems were assigned responsibilities for user
observations at the site. Each student in the classes (16 in Recreation 485 and 21 in Recreation
570) was responsible for completing three, three hour observations (nine hours total) at the Blue
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 II"
14 of 69
-
8
Sky site. Students selected times for their observations from a calendar which identified randomly
selected slots during the study period. Students signed up in pairs on the calendar to facilitate
transportation to the site but were assigned different collection points within the reserve. Due to the
use of students for data collection in the study, the study period began the first weekend of March
(March 4) and concluded with the last weekend in May (May 28). Students were instructed on use
of the "User Observation Form" on two separate occasions in each class. The second training
session on the usage of the form included a video tape of the area and discussion of the positioning
of students at the various sign posts for data collection (see Map in Appendix B). Data collectors
were instructed to record the date. time, location. and weather conditions at the time of data
collection. Collectors were told to identify the type of user observed by writing the number in each
observed group in the appropriate space for type and number of user. If user behavior violated the
established rules of conduct (see Appendix C) for that user type, collectors noted the behavior and
the user(s) involved. Space was included on the form for a description of the user behavior.
Questions related to data collection were answered during class by the principal investigators as
they arose from the students for future data collection. Data collection ethics were discussed by the
investigators to enhance accurate collection of data by the students. Students were credited with
points toward their rmal grade in each class as a technique for motivating students to fulfill their
data collection time assignments. Some rainouts occurred for data collectors early in the study
period and those individuals were reassigned times based on random selection of additional
collection periods. Rainouts that occurred in the last two weeks of the study were canceled and no
additional time periods were assigned.
Upon completion of the data collection, the data was categorized and coded for input into a
Macintosh computer utilizing a Microsoft Office and Excel software programs. The data was then
analyzed with calculations resulting in total numbers for various categories and their corresponding
percentages. The data was analyzed for two categories using the Chi Square statistic to measure
significance of difference. The .05 level of confidence was selected as the measure of significance
-
for this test.
neT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ";101
15 of 69
9
Results
Data collectors submitted 109 "User Observation Forms" related to this study. Of the 109 forms
submitted, 100 of the forms contained usable data for this study. The nine forms that were not
utilized contained no data because of rainouts. Of the 100 usable forms, 89 forms contained data
from three hour blocks of time while the remaining 11 forms contained data collected from time
periods ranging from one hour and thirty minutes to three hours and thirty minutes. The total
amount of data observation time totaled 295 hours. Table 1 summarizes the length of time for data
observations.
Table 1
Length 01 Time 01 Data Observations
Amount or Time Number or Observations
1 hour 30 minutes 1
2 hours 15 minutes 3
2 hours 30 minutes 3
2 hours 45 minutes 2
3 hours 89
3 hours 15 minutes 1
3 hours 30 minutes
TOTAL
Table 2 summarizes the data collection periods related to time of the day and day of the week.
Fifty-seven percent of the data collection was done on the weekend and 53 percent of the data
collection occurred during the late afternoon hours (after 2:30 p.m.).
neT 17 1995 ITEM 4
16 of 69
10
Table 2
Data Collection Periods
Day of Week AM AM-PM Early PM Late PM Total
Monday 4 0 I 3 1
Tuesday 0 0 0 7 7
Wednesday 0 0 I 8 , 9
Thursday 0 2 0 7 Ie '... '9
Friday 1 0 0 9 i''^ -
ti' '10
Saturday 7 1 14 9 h:":3t
7 8 .. 26
Sunday 1 10
"""l9", ..~~~C ,;!~)~; '1 "c.^, ,", 1"-, '" :'., ,
TOTAL / ,24',., ,': . ,'5:5 100
AM = Data collection began and ended in the morning hours.
AM-PM = Data collection began in the morning and extend into the early afternoon.
Early PM = Data collection occurred in the afternoon and began before 2:,00 p.m.
Late PM = Data collection occurred entirely after 2:30 p.m.
.- Table 3 summarizes the location of the data collection within the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve. The
map in Appendix B identifies the location of posts in the reserve where the data was collected. The
majority of data was collected at sign post 3 within the reserve (33 percent). Seventy percent of the
data was collected at or between sign posts 3 and 4.
Table 3
Location of Data Collection
Location Number of ODServatiODS Percent of ObservatioDS
Entrance 2 .2
Post 1 7 7
-
Post 2 9 '9"',.. :j;
..,..,,"- -..,..,- . 1 "
Between Posts 2 & 3 1
Post 3 33
Between Posts 3 &4 8
Post 4 29 ,.
Roving Observations
','..' ,...:~.~."..,."..
t,...;..,....---.".....,.-,;,.,-......-,.:.: .~ """''':$-
TOTAL "" '..::"''"':''1:t~#~~~ < ".. .b.~~~:":.;:-:-;::~,..,'~~~
tler 17 1995 ITEII 4 ", ...
17 of 69
_._~..._---+._- ------ --~--------
II
Table 4 contains the data relative to total number of users in each user category. It identifies the
total of all users observed during the course of this study and recorded on the forms.
Table 4
Number or Users
Type or User Number or Users Percent or Users
Hikers 1851 ""', "'511' 9
__fi"". ....
Dog Walkers 352
Joggers 265
Interpretive Program Participants 248
Bicyclists 592 17:5
Equestrians 2S '611 ,
CarsIV ans 4 -
Pick-up Trucks 23
Heavy TrucksITraclOrs 7
Other 7 '6;;1'
TOTAL 3374 too
Table 5 identifies the total of observations recorded by the data coUectors in this study. For
example, three hikers wa1lcing together would have been recorded as the number three on the "User
Observation Form," but would have been identified as a single observation (sighting occurrence) on
the form. Likewise, a group of five cyclists riding together in the study area would have been
recorded as the number 5 on the form but listed as a single observation on the form. If a group of
two dog walkers were wa1lcing one dog who was off his leash, this group would be identified as a
number 2 on the form but represent only one observation. Additionally, since dogs must be on a
leash in the reserve, this would have been identified as a violation. Is this one violation for each
person in the group of two (hence, two total violations), or one violation for the single observation?
Both numbers were recorded and are presented in this study. Since the data collectors recorded
violations with a specific reference to the observation and not specifically to each number in a group
tlCT17 1995 ITEM 4 "'i-
18 of 69
--
12
who actually were committing violations. the violations were singularly tabulated and, therefore, the
best data to utilize when comparing violations is the number of observations, not total number of
users within a category" Thus, the information in Table 5 should be considered more valid than the
information presented in Table 4 and should be the main comparative statistic when dealing with
violations.
Table 5
Number of Observations
Type of User Number of Observations Percent of Observations
Hikers
Dog Walkers
Joggers
Interpretive Program Participants
Bicyclists
Equestrians
CarsIV ans
Pick-up Trucks
Heavy TrucksfI'ractors
Other
TOTAL
Table 6 shows the type and number of violations recorded by users in the reserve. It also includes
the percentage that each number represents of the total violations observed.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 11';'"
19 of 69
--- ------.------
13
Table 6
Type and Number of Violations
Type of Violation Number Observed Percent of Violations
BikelDog 1 0.8
Bike Off-Trail 7 5.5
Bike Speed 40 31.5
, ,
Bike Time 25 ... .. '19:7
Bike Vandalism 1 "~ . iOS1J
Co ,',
~"'"
Bike Yield 8 -'. '63
,I;;"~:'
Bike Questionnable Use II '.., '8:7
.'
Equestrian Dog 1 , .' , 0;8
PedestrianlDog 26 ,,' 20.5
Pedestrian Off-Trail 3 ~.; 2.4
k
F
Pedestrian Vanda1ism 2 Ui ,
Vehicle Off-Trail I , '0:8
'. ..
Vehicle Speed 1 ' , " ,.iO.!8
- '. .'
TOTAL n7 100.'2
KEY
BikelDog - bicyclist with unleashed dog.
Bike Off-Trail - bicycle operation on trail other than those trails allowed.
Bike Speed - bicycle speed in excess of 10 m.p.h.
Bike Time - bicycle operation during a time when the reserve was closed to bicycle operation.
Bike Vandalism - bicyclist deliberately causing damage to the reserve.
Bike Yield - failure of a bicyclist to slow down and permit other users the right-of-way.
Bike Questionnable Use - bicycle operation in the reserve when rainy conditions caused closure.
EquestrianlDog - horseback rider with unleashed dog.
PedestrianlDog - dog walker with unleashed dog.
Pedestrian Off-Trail - hiker or dog walker off trails in the reserve.
Pedestrian Vandalism - hiker, dog walker or jogger deliberately causing damage to the reserve.
Vehicle Off-Trail - unauthorized vehicles off trails designated for vehicular use.
Vehicle Speed - vehicles traveling faster than safety permits in the reserve.
ITEM 4 ....
neT 17 1995
20 of 69
--
.-
14
Table 7 shows the total number of users for combined user groups (all non-cyclists versus cyclists),
number of violations, and violations per observation among these user groups. Included in the total
for the violations is questionable use of the reserve when the grounds were too wet for bicycle
usage. Signs were posted indicating that the reserve was closed to bicycles but II such violations
were included in this total for this table.
Table 7
All Non-Cyclists Versus Cyclists
Observations and Violations
Type of User Number of Observations Number of VIolations Violations Per Observation
Non-Cyclists 1478 34 .. .023
Cyclists 397 93 .234 ,
.'., ""~~'.'''' """
... ''Y''';:'":,,
TOTAL 'lr875, '., .on
Table 8 shows the total of observations for the selected combined user groups (non-cyclists
contains hikers, dog walkers and joggers), number of violations and violations per observation
among these user groups. The violations for use of the reserve when closed due to weather were
dropped from totals for the cyclists in this table. Graph 1 utilizes the information in Table 8 to
illustrate the relationship between violations per observation of the selected non-cyclists and cyclists
groups.
Table 8
Selected Non-Cyclists Versus Cyclists
Observations and Violations
Type of User Number of ObservatloDS NUmber of VlolatloDS VlolatioDS Per Observation
Non-Cyclists 1394 31 Ji22'<' , ~
.. . . . _' - d"-.: ~"
. ......... . ,,-. -
Cyclists 397 82 ''z/iJj;;~;
."'-,- ""Il',_:' ,:,.,.""'t:$.;;!ilr':';;'-':~-f.l:;t.~.:A".. :.-,-:.;, _: ':_'-"-~"::: , :4
'~"'. ..^" "'11'7Sl. -~~,- "',>~m':;::::." ""~$'t~'''''''~' ,
TOTAL "":';.. ", :-~" ..... ~'F.tr-:;~~,:::;:{ .:. '."",i1?i~<"i{-::,-;
tlCr 17 1995 ITEM 4 ...
21 of 69
15
Graph 1
Selected Non-Cyclists Versus Cyclists
U sing Violations Per Observation
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00"10 I Non-Cyclists
5.00"/0 . Cyclists
0.00"10
Violations Per Observation
Table 9 breaks down the information in the previous table and graph according to the month in
which the observations and violations were recorded. The rationale for including this data as both a
. table and Graph 2 is to analyze any trends with regards to violations per observation during the
study period. The graph allows the reader to visually see the relationship between the numbers and
any trends which may exist.
Table 9
Selected Non-CycUsts Versus CycUsts
Violations Per Observation By Month
March April Ma
Type of User DB VIO VIO/OB DB VIO VIO/OB DB VIO VIO/OB
Non-Cyclists 295 14 .0475 681 10 .0147 419 7 .0167
Cyclists 76 16 .2105 217 35 .1613 104 31 .2981
TOTAL 371 30 .0809 898 45 .0501 523 38 .0727
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEU4 ,...
22 of 69
-
16
Graph 2
Selected Non-Cyclists Versus Cyclists
Violations Per Observation By Month
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
. Non-Cyclists
15.00% . Cyclists
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
March April May
Table 10 is the Chi Square distribution for the comparison of the selected non-cyclist group and the
cyclists utilizing number of observations and number of violations as the key data. Given the
. observed distribution of data and comparing it with the expected theoretical frequencies yields a chi
square of 143.639 which is well beyond 3.841 necessary for significance of difference at the .05
level of confidence.
Table 10
Chi Square Distribution
Selected Non-Cyclists Versus Cyclists
Based Upon Number of Observations and Number of Violations
Type of Users Number of Observations Number of Violations TOTAL
Selected Non-Cyclists 1394 (1340.4) 31 (84.6) 1425
Cyclists 397 (450.6) 82 (28.4) 479
TOTAL 1791 113 "~..i; ..1904
( ) - Denotes Theoretical Frequencies [what normally should have occurred]
Degrees of Freedom = I
Chi Square = 143.639 (this is significant beyond the .05 level of confidence for dJ I)
n~ 4 ,"
:OCT 1 7 1995
23 of 69
17
Discussion
The total number of users, observations, and violations in this study may appear higher than those
reported in anecdotal evidence collected in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve, but this is due to the
dual collection of data during observation periods at different locations in the reserve. Study
reviewers should also realize that this occurs for all types of users and should not focus so much on
the absolute numbers but, rather, the comparison of the numbers between the user groups.
Additionally, study reviewers should ascertain which groupings of users best represents the data to
be compared. The principal investigators believe that the use of pedestrians in informal gourps
(hikers, dog walkers and joggers) are the best overall grouping to compare with the mountain
bicyclists. The rationale underlying this formation of comparison groups is simple - vehicular
users or equestrian users are significantly different from people afoot in the reserve. Likewise,
although interpretive program participants are afoot, they are under the control of group leadership
and, therefore, are primarily subject to the controls of the person in charge and are less likely to
break the rules. Hence, pedestrians (hikers, dog walkers and joggers) and cyclists are the most
logical groupings to compare. The principal investigators also encourage the use of data identified
as observations as opposed to total numbers of users. The reason for this is that when data
collectors identified violations for groups, they omitted in most instances whether all of the group
were in violation of the rules, or just a portion or a single member of the group. Therefore,
observation data and observed violations probably comes closer to the reality of what occurred
when it was observed and recorded.
With reference to the results, a substantial difference exists between the numbers of violations that
occurred per observation in the non-cyclist and cyclist groups. The extraordinarily high chi square
value resulting from the data in Table 10 substantiates the difference at a very high level of
confidence. Table 6 demonstrates the type of violations that have occurred with speed representing
nearly half of the violations for cyclists while bicycle time (prohibited during certain times of
operations) represents another 2S percent of the violations. Readers should note that no out-of-the-
ordinary time prohibitions existed for the other user groups which should probably be taken into
account when reviewing this comparison. OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ,104
24 of 59
-
18
Also of interest to the reader should be graphs 1 and 2 which graphically summarize the data
observations and violations. Graph I depicts a compariosn of violations per observation and shows
a large difference between the non-cyclists and cyclists. This graph suggests that out of 100
observed users in each group, non-cyclists will have approximately two to three violations while
cyclists will have 20 violations. Table 9 shows a comparison of data for observations and violations
on a monthly basis for the three months of the study period. Graph 2 shows the relationship of
violations per observation on a monthly basis. It should be noted that the bicyclists had fewer
violations per observation during April than they did in March, but that number increased
substantially in May to a level much higher than existed in March.
In attempting to decide whether these results should substantiate the exclusion or inclusion of
mountain bicyclists in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve, one must ask some very important
questions. First, can additiOllal educational efforts bring increased compliance with the established
rules of use in the Reserve? Secondly, are mountain cyclists compatible with the overall goals of
the Reserve? Third, will the mountain bicycle patrol continue its efforts to maintain adherence to the
rules of the Reserve for cyclists? Fourth, what are the additional impacts of mountain bicycle use
on the resources of the reserve? Fifth, can all current user groups achieve a high quality experience
from the Reserve given a continuation of inclusionary practices? Sixth, can user safety be insured if
mountain cyclists are pennitted to use the Reserve without rule enforcement? And lastly, have all
other management strategies been exhausted to resolve user conflicts that make restriction or
elimination the rmal solution?
If future studies of this nature are undertaken, the following recommendations are offered to
improve the results. One, engage data collectors in training sessions at the site. Technology
provides the ability to bring the site to the classroom. but a thorough examination of the site is
desirable to simulate problems and identify issues related to data collection. Second, extend the
data collection time period so that the maximum amount of data can be collected for analysis. This
OCT 17 1995 ITEM 4 "
25 of 69
19
should bolster the results and, therefore, improve the recommendations emanating from the data
collected. And rmally, input the data into the computer as it has been collected rather than waiting
until all of the data has been collected before input and analysis has been conducted. This
recommendation has a two-fold purpose. One, to improve the collection of data throughout the
study. And two, to speed the ability to analyze the data and complete the writing of the final report
in a more timely manner. Given the limitations of the study which included the use of students for
data collection without the direct supervision, the unpredictability of the weather during data
collection, and the doubling of data collection during the same time periods, the results provide
ample evidence of user behavior to aid the Bicycle Advisory Committee in making
recommendations about bicycle usage in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve.
References
Blumenthal, T. (April,I995) Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Summit User
Cooflict Resolution. Boulder, CO: IMBA.
Chavez, D. (1995) Mountain bike use in our National Forests: A management perspective.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service.
International Mountain Bicycling Association. (February, 1995) IMBA annual report: A special
edition of the IMBA Trail News. Boulder, CO: IMBA, vol. 8, no. I.
International Mountain Bicycling Association. (1995) Mountain Bike Success Stories.
Boulder, CO: IMBA.
Padilla, F., Jr. and Loheit, K. (1995) Introduction to basic trail maioteoance: A course
syllabus. Boulder, CO: IMBA.
San Diego Mountain Bicycling Association. (May, 1995) S.D.M.B.A. Newsletter. San Diego,
CA: San Diego Mountain Biking Association, vol. 2.
Smith, G.M. (1962) A Simplified Guide To Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc.
,_.
ner 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 .".
26 of 69
.
-
20
Appendix A
USER OBSERVATION FORM
'OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 'I'"
27 of 69
~-_.-
21
Appendix A
I1SRR OBSERVATION FORM
Bicycle Trial Period
Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
Date: Time:
Location:
Weatber Conditions:
Cloud Cover (circle one): Heavy Medium Light Clear
Precipitation (circle one): Heavy Medium Light Clear
Type and Number of User:
Hiker _LLLL.L.L..J~~_j_L,LJ~~._LL,LJ~~~~~__LLL..J_
Dog WaJJcer~~~~~~~~_/~~_Jogger~~~~~~~~~~~~_
Interpretive Program Participant ---1---1__1.._L_...1---1---1---1---1__..L....1 ---1---1---1_
Bicyclist~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_
Equestrian~~~~~~~~_ CarNan ~~~~_ Pickup Truck ~~~~~_
Heavy TTUck{fractor~~~~_ Other (describe): I I I I
User Bebavior: (respond as appropriate)
Legal TuneIOpen Hours?
On Designated Trail?
Speed, at or below 10 m.p.h.?
Speed, slower when passing others?
Courteous/considerate of other users?
User Conflict (describe all incidents):
.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ,..
28 of 69
.
-
22
User Conflicts continued (describe all incidents):
Observer. Name (print): Telepbone#:
Signature:
OCT 1 7 1995 fTEII 4 Ii.
29 of 69
-_.__._~-
23
~ Appendix B
BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MAP
INCLUDING DATA COLLECTION SITES
30 of 69 Dell? ~ ITEM 4 *i"
-
-
I 24
....., ,
--~ ,
"- I
....
"- - ,
.... -
....;-0..,;;....,-; I -
I -
, I
r' J
~---,-- \:
, ""'" ,:
, "
" ' . .
I ' . .
I 1 ." '
1 . ;.. l...... .,'\ ........... "I
, .' ..' '.' .......
.\ " .....
~ ' r- ~\ (.\
"'je I \. ~ ~~\: ~ I
el ~ -- ~.' r
~'5 ~ ~ I ~ :~....~......
~ ~ ~ fS en: '\ ~ I ~-
: J . ~ '\1;_ -
. r....~ .. - ..
ts~~ ~ :, -: __- I'
J i ~~~ :' '" ~ -,,- '
'il \ "'~
~ k i &i I ~. #r:'
, ;i ,,,,,,"\.-.f '.
~ if ~
"'~ !I \ I (l'
[:la<3
~ ' . 1/#
.. I ,~.: \.........
J ,,\/ \--
If) Jrf \ ~ "
r- ''f V' :
~~ m ~
I III' .. ~
I ,~~ .'" ·
..' .~ .
.; ~ ..
> ~~ .
G; as:' ..
.. -. . .
~ \ , L.--"l.\\ "
,
iO , '- .,
u . I I) I~~
"6> --'-
0 --'
'0 L- - d ~~
u
w
> (-
.. !
VI ,
" ! ' ~
::> fj' . ~.
iii " .i (tr =
.""" ..
- ~ ~ ~
0 ,a~;1 ~ 0
0. ill 11 j' '. ' · B
..
::!: 1 ..0 .. ~ ~ 0
. ...._." I ,,~ .. ~
. . Ie" co
- . ~O I ~>> · ~ .. ..
.
" ~ III.! = _ >o~c: k:
:; 1 ii=" · co o~o. 0
0> . I ..>..~ . c: ~o l-
i.: -- . > ' ~ . . - . . .]
, ~cl- e_.a.:. ....
- . I ". co '" ~_..".... 0
~ ~ ..,,>>.!:: :0.:;". -
. . ...=:!i=~ ~OO..J~
a:~u:r(t)-
31 of 69 _ (J _Nt')..
." I II ;I ~ · · ·
- ~ : '
-.-- _~ I \ ~ !; em Il95 ITEIr4 >,..
--",,--
, - -
-
-
25
Appendix C
MOUNTAIN BICYCLIST RULES
AND GENERAL RULES
FOR BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
OCT 17 1995 ITEM 4'1'"
32 of 59
26
WelcOIDe to
BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
California Department of Fish and Game
County of San Diego Parks Department
City of poway
Friends of Blue Sky Canyon
Whatever your reasons for, visiting, please remember that this area
exists first to provide a sanctuary for wildlife and to protect
critical habitat. The public can also enjoy recreational use of
the area as long as visitors remain sensitive and thoughtful.
Please make time to read and follow the posted regulations.
They exist to protect a fragile resource and to protect you from
dangers inherent in such natural areas, not to inhibit your
enjoyment.
GENERAL REGULATIONS
- Trails are open from sunrise to sunset, except during authorized,
guided evening hikes. .
- Stay on designated trails.
- Bicycles and horses are prohibited, except on the Green Valley
Truck Trail (main designated access road between Espcla Rd. and
I.ake Ramona and the Lake poway Campground) during a six-month trial
period from Feb. to July 1995.
- Keep your pet on a leash.
- Do not disturb or collect plants, animals, archaeological or
geological objects, or disturb signs or structures.
- Camping and fires are prohibited, except at the adjacent Lake
Poway Campground by permit only.
- Do not attempt to feed wild animals.
- Releasing wild or domestic animals or plants is prohibited.
- Firearms, hunting equipment, fireworks, or paintball guns are
prohibited.
- Motor vehicles are prohibited except for authorized maintenance
or emergency vehicles on designated access roads.
neT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ....
33 of 69
- - --------..---
27
BICYCLISTS
- Bicycles are permitted on the Green Valley Truck Trail only (main
designated access road from Espola Rd. to Lake Ramona and Lake
Poway Campground) for a six-month trial period Feb. to July 1995.
- The Reserve is closed to bicycles all-day Fridays and until noon
on Saturdays.
- Speed limit is 10 m.p.h. Slow to 5 m.p.h. or dismount when
encountering hikers or horses.
- Yield to hikers and horses.
- Be alert and courteous. Warn others of your approach but keep
noise dOw"Il so as not to disturb wildlife or those watchi!!.g
wildlife.
- Ride single-file when passing or being passed.
- Stay or.. the trail and maintain traction. Skidding can damage the
trail and accelerate erosion.
- Do not ride on the trail when it is muddy. Tire ruts can be
hazardous to other trail users and accelerate erosion.
- Helmets are recommended.
EQUESTRIANS
- Horses are permitted on the Green Valley Truck Trail only (main
designated access road from Espola Rd. to Lake Ramona and Lake
poway Campground).
- Travel at a safe speed and slow to a walk when approaching or
passing other trail users or blind curves.
- Do not ride on the trail when it is muddy. The trail may be
slippery and hoof ruts are hazardous to 'other trail users and
accelerate erosion.
- Grazing is prohibited.
- Helmets are recommended.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 "
34 of 69
28
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS for multiple-use trails.
- Stay on trails and keep pets leashed. Da.ngers inherent in
natural areas such as this include poison oak, leose rocks, ticks,
rattlesnakes, skunks, coyotes, and mountain lions.
- Be courteous. Be respectful of other trail users, regardless of
their mode, speed, or level of skill.
- Be predictable. Travel in a consistent and predictable manner
and let others know before passing or changing position on the
trail.
- Do not block the trail. Use no more than half the trai l, whether
alone, in a group, or with a pet.
- Keep right. Stay as near to the right side of the trail as is
safe, except when passing.
- PaB. on the left. Look ahead and behind before passing and give
the other user plenty of room.
- Slower traffic baa the right-Of-way. Yield to slower or on-
coming traffic. Hikers and bicyclists yield to horses, and
biCYClists yield to bikers.
-Keep the trail clean. Remove all that you bring in with you.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ~
35 of 69
29
c90
ATTENTION MOUNTAIN BIKERS
OUR FUTURE ACCESS TO BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL
RESERVE DEPENDS ON YOUR RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR
AND ADHERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES:
- RIDE ON MAIN ROADS ONLY: Green Valley Truck Trail
from Espola Rd. to Lake Ramona and Lake Poway access road.
Olf-road bike use is prohibited.
- Speed limit is 10 m.p.... (5 m.p.h. when passing hikers and
equestrians).
- Yield to hikers and equestrians.
- Be alert and courteous. Warn others of your approach.
- Reserve is closed to bicycles all day Fridays and unW noon OD
Saturdays. Bikes allowed all other days sunrise to sunset.
Bicycle access has been approved for a six-month trial period from
February 1 to July 3D, 1995. For questions or comments, call the
Reserve office at 486-7238.
BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
CAliforniA DellArtment of Fish ond Gome
County of Son Diego Parks Deportment
Cily of PO".AY
Friends of Blue Sky Conyon
OCT 17 '995 ITEM 4 .In
36 of 69
-
-
Wildlife Monitoring
" During the Bicycle Trial Period
at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
February to July 1995
Draft Report to the
Bicycle Advisory Committee
California Department of Fish & Game
County of San Diego Department of Parks & Recreation
City of Poway Department of Community Services
Friends of Blue Sky Canyon
by
Robert Patton, Supervising Park Ranger
Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
6 September 1995
-
Attachment 3
37 of 69 OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ....j 104
Abstract
Wildlife and human activity was documented at four stations along the Green Valley Truck
Trail (GVTT) during a six-month period through weekly paired samples. One sampling was
conducted on Saturday when bicycles were not to be present and the second on Sunday with
bicycles present. Following the trial period, the data for each sampling period were compared
to detect if there were any differences in the number of wildlife sightings (wildlife view-ability), ,.
wildlife abundance, species diversity, wildlife behavior, or distance from the GVTT relative to
the presence or absence of bicycles.
Several sampling periods were not completed due to weather, illness, or schedule conflicts.
Of the 19 Saturday samples when bicycles were to be excluded, only eight recorded no bicycles
during the monitoring period, and seven Saturdays had from five to 16 bicycles present during
the two-hour monitoring period. Thus, Saturday was invalidated as an experimental control.
Of the 18 Sunday samples when bicycles were to be present, there were two sample days when
no bikes were present, due to heavy rain. There were from seven to 31 bicycles present on the
remaining Sunday mornings. Overall, this yields an average of eight bicycles per monitoring
period (sample size 37 days). There was an average of 12 bicycles per morning when bicycles
were present (if days without bicycles are excluded, sample size of 27 days).
Comparing Saturday and Sunday observations, the average number of species observed
decreased slightly on Sunday, as did the average number of sightings, but the average number
of animals was slightly higher. No clear conclusions can be drawn from behavioral or distance
data. However, if observation periods were separated not by day of week, but by presence or
absence of bicycles, the percentage difference between the average number of species observed,
average number of sightings, and average number of animals was more pronounced. Average
speeies diversity decreased by 17 %, animal abundance by 16 %, and number of sightings by 20%
when bicycles were present. This is also reflected if comparisons are made between periods of
low bicycle usage (four or fewer bikes, that is, an average of one per station) and high bicycle
usage (five or more bikes during the monitoring period). Species diversity decreased 22 %,
abundance by 9%, and number of sightings by 12% during periods of high bicycle usage.
Elimination of extreme high and low sample values from the dataset yielded even more
pronounced results, with species diversity, abundance, and number of sightings decreasing.
significantly when bicycles were present. This indicates that the presence of bicycles had a
negative impact on the presence, abundance, and diversity of vertebrate wildlife viewable from
the GVTT.
!leT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ..
38 of 69
---..-.
"-
Acknowledgements
Fieldwork and data collection was coordinated by Alan Torretto. Monitoring was conducted by
the coordinator, Robert Haase, Robert Turner, Nancy Frost, Claude Edwards, Marsha Hanson,
Patty Heyden, Freeman and Worth Hall. and Ian Berhorst. Data were entered to computer files
by Cheryl Wahlin. Data sorting, analysis, and graphics were completed by David Stanton, with
assistance in data standardization and proof-reading by Anna Gateley-Stanton.
;"
.-
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 '"l
39 of 69
List of Figures and Tables
Figure -
1. Map of Blue Sky Ecological Reserve.
2. Numbers of bicycles by date.
3. Averages of observations by day and usage.
4. Numbers of bicycles x numbers of species.
Table
1. Concerns about impacts from bicycle use of Green Valley Truck Trail.
2. Bicycle regulations during trial period.
3. Data categories collected.
4. Weather conditions.
5. Reserve usage.
6. Averages of observations by day and usage - pedestrian.
7. Averages of observations by day and usage - dog.
8. ,Summary of observations by day.
9. Averages of observations by day and usage - bicycle.
10. Averages of observations by stations.
11. Modified averages of observations.
12. Species observed.
13. Animal behavior observed.
14. Averages of observations of animal behavior and distance.
15. Averages of observations by observer and day.
OCT 17 1995 ITEM 4 ~
40 of 69
--
Study Site and Background
Blue Skl' Ecological ~eserve is located on the northwestern slopes of Mt. Woodson, in the
northeastern portion of the City of Poway. The Reserve consists of an approximately 583-acre
canyon, including an approximately 20-acre inholding in the east-central Reserve, containing
,.
pump and storage facilities of the Ramona Water District (RWD). The original 475 acres were
purchased by the State of California and County of San Diego in 1989, with support from the
City of Poway. Peripheral parcels and inholdings have been purchased as recently as 1994.
Landuse prior to acquisition consisted of low-density cattle grazing on native vegetation open
space with residence, pens, and outbuildings at the east end of the canyon. The property was
prioritized for acquisition due to high quality habitats of species and natural communities that
have been reduced by over 80 percent in Southern California. The canyon slopes are comprised
of sage scrub and chaparral, with coast live oak and riparian woodlands along the drainages.
These plant communities are home to several obligate resident species on the endangered species
list or considered as candidates for listing.
The dirt-surfaced Green Valley Truck Trail (GVTT) runs the length of the Reserve, from
the_main western trailhead at Espola Road to the northeast approximately three miles to Lake
Ramona (Figure 1). This maintenance road is gated and closed to public vehicular traffic, and
posted with Reserve regulations at both ends.
Additional maintenance roads continue along the canyon bottom to the RWD
inholding. and turn off to the south midway through the Reserve to access the Lake Poway
campground and connect with city-maintained multi-use trails around the lake and Mt. Woodson.
A gated and posted maintenance easement along an underground water line runs parallel to, and
south of, the GVTT, from Espola Road to the RWD facilities. Due to topography, surface, and
exposure, it receives much less use than the Gvrr and public use is discouraged due to nesting
by federally threatened California Gnatcatchers and the presence of several candidate species,
including San Diego horned lizards and orange-throated whiptails.
Blue Sky Ecological Reserve is managed by the California Departtneflt of Fish & Game
(DFG) and County of San Diego Parks Department with support from the City of Poway and
I
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 t,
41 of 69
non-profit Friends of Blue Sky Canyon. A volunteer naturalist program has been established
to conduct environmental education programs, including school field trips, reservation group
tours, guided public hikes, and special events such as campfire programs.
The California Cod~ of Regulations, Title 14, section 630, addresses regulations in
ecological reserves and limits bicycle and vehicle use to public access roads and parking areas.
Operation outside of these areas is seen as incompatible with the environmental conservation
;"
mission of reserves. Conflicts with this regulation arose at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve due to
the previous landowner not excluding bicycles from the property and lack of enforcement
following the initial purchase. Continued bicycle use in the Reserve led to concerns of negative
impacts to natural resouces and to education programs. Subsequent enforcement was met with
an outcry from the growing local bicycle community, a petition drive, and lobbying of City and
State legislators.
This led to an agreement between the City and DFG to establish a bicycle advisory
committee and allow a six-month trial period during which bicycles would be allowed on the
GVTT and impacts monitored. Concerns of potential impacts are outlined in Table I. No long
term environmental monitoring has been done other than non-intensive inventorying of species
and habitats, and time was not allotted, nor bicycles effectively excluded, to allow a baseline
stu~y to document pre-existing conditions.
The advisory committee set regulations for conditional bicycle access during the trial period
-
to minimize impacts (Table 2). Bicycle access was limited to the Gvrr and campground access
road, where most maintenance vehicles traveled and the road was widest, to minimize impacts
to wildlife, programs, and trails. A speed limit was set to minimi7.e disturbance to other trail
llSers. Speed and trail etiquette regulations were consistant with those of the adjoining City
multi-use trails. Bicycles were excluded on Fridays to limit the amount of disturbance to school
field trips. They were excluded from Saturday mornings to limit disturbance to the busiest
public educational programs, and to provide a control period for wildlife monitoring so that
comparisons could be drawn between days with bicycles and days without. Limitations on trail-
use hours were pre-existing for aU users to limit disturbance to wildlife. Regulations were
posted on 2' x3' signs at each trailhead.
Staff of San Diego State University Department of Recreation, Parks, & Tourism were
2
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ....
42 of 69
-
solicited to monitor Gvrr usage and regulations compliance. A voluntary bicycle patrol was
established to contact bicyclists and keep anecdotal usage and compliance records. Not assigned
to law enforcement nor reguiarly patrolling, staff kept anecdotal records and filed incident
reports for violations observed during educational programs and their time in the Reserve. Signs
were erected at trailheads and trail junctions, brochures placed at the trailhead kiosk, city and
county offices, local bike shops, and distributed by staff and the volunteer bicycle patrol. A
,
sub-committee was established to design this study to monitor wildlife and to assess bicycle
impacts .
Methods
Wildlife and human activity was documented along the Green Valley Truck Trail during the
six-month trial period through weekly paired samples. One sampling was conducted during a
period when bicycles were not to be present and a second during a period with bicycles present.
Following the trial period, the data for each sampling period were compared to detect if there
were any differences in the number of wildlife sightings (wildlife view-ability), wildlife
abundance, species diversity, wildlife behavior, or distance from the GVTT relative to the
pre~nce or absence of bicycles.
Four stations were selected at intervals along the Gvrr adjacent to each habitat type (Figure
1). Each monitoring station was marked by a 4"x4"x3' wooden post set in the ground on the
north side of the trail, with the top of the post numbered and painted yellow. Station 1 was
located adjacent to oak woodland and sage scrub, with chaparral visible within 100 feet to the
east. Station 2 was adjacent to chamise chaparral and oak-riparian woodland, with several
sycamores extending above the canopy. Sage scrub slopes were visible to the north. Station
3 was adjacent to oak-willow riparian woodland and sage scrub, with chaparral slopes visible
to the south. Station 4 was adjacent to sage scrub and oak-willow-sycamore riparian woodland.
One to two monitors spent thirty minutes at each station on two consecutive weekend
mornings from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Regulations provided experimental
control by excluding bicycles on Saturday mornings. This monitoring period was preceded by
approximately 36 hours of bicycle exclusion (from sunset Thursday) for wildlife to habituate to
3
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ,.
43 of 69
--""--.
--
fool and occasional equestrian and vehicle traffic. The second sample was taken on Sunday,
when bicycles were allowed. Weekends were chosen on the assumption that trail usage would
be similar on both days. A simple comparison of the difference of the means between the two
sample days for each observer was anticipated 10 yield results of whether impacts from bicycles
had occurred or not.
Observers documented vertebrate wildlife within view of the station and human activity
,
passing by the station post during each thirty minute monitoring period. Data were entered on
standardized fortnS, and data sets collected are listed in Table 3. All data were collected by
volunteers, so identification ability varied. Broad categories and classifications as large-scale
as "passerine species" (perching song birds) were accepted to accommodate all levels of ability.
All participants were briefed on the methodology, habitats and species anticipated, and shown
the area and monitoring station locations. Completed monitoring fortnS were compiled by the
study coordinator.
Data forms were proof-read and standardized, entered to computer file in Microsoft Excel,
proof-read again, then tabulated and analyzed. Standardization of data forms included replacing
the monitors' names with nWnerical codes to protect their identities, converting temperature
readings to farenheit, and converting all distances to feet.
. Standardization of wildlife observation data included deleting observations of invertebrates.
To reduce the differences in species identification abilities between monitors, only visual
sightings were retained; records relying only on auditory cues were deleted. If observation
numbers included a range, the average was taken and rounded to the lower whole number.
Species names were standardized to currently accepted full names, for example, flickers were
entered as "Northern Flickers", western flycatchers as "Pacific Slope Flycatchers", brown
towhees as "California Towhees", etc. Sightings of locally rare or uncommon species that could
not be confirmed were lumped into broader categories, for example, Least Bell's Vireos were
entered as "vireo species". Sightings for which the monitor only gave a description, but did not
identify to species, were entered into the most discernible broad category, such as 'sparrow
species', or even "passerine species". Behaviors were standardized from descriptions to one of
five broad categories:
Foraging, including hunting, stalking, chasing prey. or ingesting;
4
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ t~
44 of 69
--
Perching/sitting, including any sedentary behavior such as resting,
standing, or basking;
Singing/reproductive, including any courtship or reproductive activity;
Interaction, including"any reaction to or with people or other animals,
including territorial activity, but excluding courtship, reproductive,
or foraging activity;
Transit, including any locomotion such as walking, running, flying, soaring,
gliding. or hopping.
Results and Discussion
Reserve usage.
Of the 26 weekends targeted for paired sampling (one day when bicycles were present and
one day when absent), 17 were completed, two had only one day completed due to rain the
second day, one was rained out, and six were cancelled due to illness and/or inability to
..-.- reschedule (Table 4). There were five monitoring periods with rainfall when data was collected.
On three of these days, no bicycles were present; and nine bikes were present during two of
theijl. Of the 19 Saturday samples when bicycles were to be excluded, only eight recorded
no bicycles during the monitoring period (Figure 2, Table 5). Four or fewer bikes were
documented on four Saturdays, and seven Saturdays had from five to sixteen bicycles present
during the two-hour monitoring period. Thus, Saturday was invalidated as an experimental
control. There was an average of three bicycles per Saturday morning throughout the six-month
trial period (sample size of 19 days). There was an average of five bicycles per Saturday
morning when bicycles were present (if days without bicycles were excluded, sample size of 11
days).
Of the 17 Sunday samples when bicycles were to be present, there was one sample day when
no bikes were present, due to heavy rain (Figure 2, Table 5). There were from seven to 31
bicycles present on the remaining Sunday mornings. There was an average of 15 bicycles per
Sunday morning throughout the trial period (sample size of 17). There was an average of 16
bicycles per Sunday morning when bicycles were present (if days without bicycles were
5
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ;104
45 of 69
excluded. sample size of 16 days). Overall, this yields an average of eight bicycles per two-hour
monitoring period (sample size 36 days). There was an average of 11 bicycles per morning
when bicycles were present (if days without bicycles are excluded, sample size of 27 days).
Equestrian numbers ranged from zero to 11, with an average of less than one per monitoring
day (Table 5). Eighteen horses were recorded on Saturdays and ten on Sundays. Cars were
recorded only three times, heavy vehicles only once, and pickup trucks 22 times (range of zero ,.
to four per monitoring period), resulting in an average of fewer than one of each class of
vehicles per monitoring period, and an average of fewer than one vehicle total per monitoring
period. Twenty vehicles, including the heavy truck, were recorded on Saturdays, and six
vehicles were recorded on Sundays. Sample sizes were too small and numbers too few to
statistically test for any relationship between vehicles or horses and the wildlife observations.
There was an average of 45 walkers recorded each monitoring period, with a range of zero
to 133; and an average of three joggers, with a range of zero to 14 (Table 5). There was an
average of 52 pedestrians per Saturday and 44 per Sunday. There was no monitoring period
with no pedestrians recorded. Data relative to pedestrian usage was inconclusive (Table 6).
Species diversity decreased slightly with increasing pedestrian numbers, but both wildlife
abundance and number of sightings increased, contrary to what would be expected. One
possible explanation is that large groups flushed Animals from cover so that they were more
visible, but none of the differences in means were significant.
There was an average of four dogs each monitoring period, with a range of zero" to 13
(Table 5). Data relative to the presence of dogs was also inconclusive (Table 7). Though
species diversity decreased by 26 percent when dogs were present, this difference did not prove
to be statistically significant.
Bicycle presence.
The percentage differences in species diversity, animal abundance, and number of sightings
between each paired sample of Saturday and Sunday are listed in Table 8. There was an average
decrease of five percent in species diversity, a decrease of six percent in numbers of sightings,
and an increase of one percent in abundance from each Saturday to Sunday." However, none of
these values are statistically significant.
6
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 :.,
46 Of 69
This is also reflected when comparing overall Saturday and Sunday observations, with the
average number of species observed decreasing slightly on Sunday, as did the average number
of sightings, but the average number of animals increasing slightly (Figure 3, Table 6).
However, if observation RCriods were separated not by day of week, but by presence or absence
of bicycles, there were more pronounced percentage differences between the average number
of species observed, average number of sightings, and average number of animals. Average
'"
species diversity decreased by 17 percent, animal abundance by 16 percent, and number of
sightings by 21 percent when bicycles were present. This is also reflected if comparisons are
made between periods of low bicycle usage (four or fewer bikes, that is, an average of one per
station) and high bicycle usage (five or more bikes during the monitoring period). Species
diversity decreased 22 percent. statistically significant at a ten percent level and illustrated in
Figure 4. Animal abundance decreased by 9 percent and number of sightings by 11 percent
during periods of high bicycle usage. This sugests that the presence of bicycles had a negative
impact on the presence, abundance, and diversity of vertebrate wildlife viewable from the
GVTT.
Assessment of observations by station also reflected this trend (Table 10). Though Station
3 showed some inconsistencies, overall averages decreased with the presence of bicycles.
. Values recorded on 2/25-2/26 and 4/1-4/2 were significantly lower than others (five percent
level of significance)(Table 8). In addition, values recorded on 7/8-7/9 were significantly higher
than others. If these samples are excluded from the dataset, little changes in the comparison of
Saturday and Sunday observations. However, decreases in diversity, abundance, and the number
of sightings are more pronounced and are statistically significant when bicycles are present and
during periods of high bicycle usage (Table 11).
WiIdife observations.
Two amphibian, nine reptile. seven mammal, and 74 bird species were recorded during the
monitoring periods (Table 12). A speckled rattlesnake was observed between monitoring
stations, tracks of several species of mammals were noted, and auditory and unconfirmed records
of several additional bird species were documented.
No clear conclusions can be drawn from the behavioral data (Tables 13 & 14). There were
7
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ l"t
47 of 69
-
slight increases in foraging, sedentary behavior, and interactions on days of higher bicycle use,
but fewer observations of singing or courtship behavior, or transit locomotion. Disturbance may
influence cessation of singing, result in ambivalent behavior interpreted as foraging, and cause
wildlife to "freeze" or fl~e, the latter possibly not detected due to the amount of vegetative
cover.
Most direct observations made of changes in behavior as a result of human presence were
generalized cessation of calling by treefrogs when vehicles, bicycles, or groups of people passed.
In most cases, these were auditory records and thus not included in the final data set since only
visual records were relied upon. There were several cases of birds continuing foraging or
soaring overhead as hikers, vehicles, or bicycles passed by.
There were four incidents observed that documented direct negative impacts from human
presence. A California Gnatcatcher adjacent to the GVTT flew away as bicyclists passed (2/4,
sta.4). A noisy group of 11 hikers "silenced all birds" (3/4, sta. 1). A cottontail ran across the
GVTT, "spooked by two hikers" (4/8, sta. 1). An unleashed dog flushed a covey of quail (4/9,
sta. 2).
Distance of animals from the GVTT was also inconclusive, with average distances
apparently less when bicycles were present (Table 14). Discrepancies in recording distances
we~e discovered during data standardization which could not be easily resolved. When wildlife
were above the GVTT, some monitors recorded distance from GVTT as "0", others recorded
vertical distance above the GVTT, and others included both vertical distance and horizontal
distance after it passed from above the GVTT.
Study participants.
Concern had been voiced by committee members of observer bias of certain participants in
the study, particularly Observer #8. Participants included two members of the committee, a
biology teacher from Poway High School, a professional biologist, a professional nature
photographer, a County Parks Department volunteer naturalist, and four volunteer biologists
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Though there is wide variation among data sets, the
percentage differences between days for each category of data are not consistently extreme for
any observer. In addition, further reduction of the small sample size could make statistical
8
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ; ....
48 of 69
-
analysis of the data less accurate. Averages resulting from the elimination of the three data sets
with high and low extremes in each category were discussed earlier. Those data sets eliminated
included that of observer #8.
The average number of species observed (species diversity) each sampling period per
observer ranged from seven to 34, with an average of 19 (Table 10). Percentage differences
between Saturdays and Sundays ranged from zero to 2S, with an average of 10. The average
'"
number of sightings (view-ability) ranged from 10 to 145, with an average of 45. The
percentage differences ranged from three to 22, with an average of 11. The average number of
animals (wildlife abundance) ranged from 12 to 21S, with an average of 74. The percentage
differences ranged from one to 33, with an average of nine. The average number of bicycles
sighted ranged from zero to 20, with an average of eight. The percentage differences ranged
from 62 to 100, with an average of 81.
Though the numbers of species observed, sightings, and animals reported by Observer #S
were above average and at the upper end of the range, the numbers of bicycles recorded on
Saturday were below average (though more than the "low" classification of four) and those
recorded for Sunday were above average. Therefore, the high wildlife numbers are offset by
corresponding high bicycle numbers. The percentage differences between Saturday and Sunday
wil~ife data were well within the range of the other participants, and the percentage differences
of the number of sightings, animals, and bicycles were well below average. However, the raw
numbers of sightings and animals were significantly higher than the remainder of the data set.
Likewise, observer #3 had significantly lower numbers of sightings and animals. The resulting
averages from elimination of both data sets was discussed earlier.
9
oer 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ " ..
49 of 69
References
Gilbert, N. 1981. Statistics. Saunders College Publishing.
Krebs, I.R. and N.B. Da,yies. 1982. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology.
Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Sokal, R. and F.I. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Company.
Steel, R.G.D. and I.H. Tome. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics.
McGraw-Hill Books.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ .....
50 of 69
,-
I
---
-.
"- I
-
"' -
...... -"~ -
~ '
=-'...../..-:: I -
-
I
.J
. . -.
"'. : : ...... ". : .
,: ....... ~: ....... "1
'. .... '.' ......:
~ .'~ .....
.
<><: 5 .
I<l i .
I .
"'<:l~ .
~ 5 ~ &
-:;<> S
~~! t ~ .b ....
3} ~~1 ~o
c 0- IlQ .,.e
~ ~ ~ 6'i ... I
~
<>'" ~ , I t
~ i~ ~
f.I':I ~ ~ t.;;
I<l ~ 3
::;,c3c3
Cil ~ I I <# '"
J \ -/-'"
'!'t' l\ ....
~ ~ \ ~
r- ;/rJV" :
I N~.m ·
\ .ol" ·
I ~: " ·
oj \ U> ~~ 0
> . ~
:;; . .
.~ ..
'" al:,' '"
'" \ I ,_-A~\\ '
a: ,
.. ,
.~ , 1 ,I) I~~
8' ,..1-
-.... ..
"0 ,
" L- - oJ ~~
w
> (-
... I
(J) ! ,
'" qt,~" , i
~ ,
co ~ ~'
'0 I., .fJ.
.~'I .. ~
0 l-
e. !l\' 31 ~ ~(f 0 e~
.. co ,.,'"
~ . .: .;)~ .. ~ " o c
. IU .. ::l o ::l
. ,....~.l ,!! 0.., I ~ ~ ~ 0
. I c I- .. ~
~ . .0, .. Ct
, I ~:; .. co
.. . 0 CD (3 E ~
5 1 III - - > .. c ii:
- - -
C> . CQ::: CQ Gl Q ~... 0 as
Ii: -.""'-',j ~ > ~.: ~ .5_00 ~ 0
" ;; ;I-Ol;(i) ~ CD 0 CD ... ~]
.. ... = ..:.: "..:.: iO
II) CD >o.!: Gl till 0 .; IU -
Gl ...:- ~ ... >. a.'-OO...J~
I a:ouxC;;= ~
51 of 69 _ u ~NM"",V)<D
H, I _ ~ : I
.
- - I - ~ ; :
-
, -r
DeT 1 7 1995
. ' I1'EII" 4
.~
- -
'" I
'" . S61Z"lJ L
'"
" I S6/S ~/L
,... I
~
"
." I S619/L
N I
~
o , S6/~/L
'" i
+
,... , S6/1-"lJ9
." T
N
,.
'" .\. S6W/9
~ 1
'"
Q) 0 1. S6/€/9
1:
Q) ,...
III t: >- 7
~ 0 CO 0 ~ S6/€~/S
c. 0
- Q)
.~ a: ." ~ '" ~
C)>oQ) en - ~
.Q-g~ll 0 .;. S6/9/S 0,
III
8u;Q)Qj 0-
W _ ."
>-Q) III "
~~ (5 0 S6/9~/1-
(J) OJ -I- -
Q) -
::l N
CD -
'" , S6/6/1-
~
~ ~
~ ~ S6IZI1-
~
0
N 1 S6/6 ~/€
N
~ ..
"-
,; 0 ~ S6/1-/€
1ii
" N
>- ~ t S6/SZIZ
.c
III ."
Ql
U ,...
>- N
" ,
:0 0 ; S6/lHIZ
-
0 " I
III N
~
Ql 0 ~ S6H ~IZ
.c
E ,
" I
::l ~
Z
<D S6/I-/Z
~
N
Ql ." 0 ." 0 ." 0 ." 0
:; '" '" N N ~ ~
'"
u:
oeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ I of
5Z of 69
,-
II>
c::
.2
.. II>
"0 ~ iiil
Gl Gl
~ II> .51
,Gl .0 C::I
II> 0 ~,
..0
'0 - -I
100
10 '- ....
Gl .8 ..
,.- .0 I
I~ E E,
a. :J :J.
len Z ZI
'QJ G) CD
I"''''''' ,.
I e I! f! 0
'Q) CD CD ....
I> > > II>C:
I~ ~ ~ Gl Gl
. 0 I!l .>< II>
.- Gl
'"---.---- - ID -
CO Cl.
~
r
-
CO II>C:
o Gl Gl
Z~~
ID -
Cl.
Gl >-
'"
~ a
Q) >-
~t:: CD
0: 8. en -
1i Q) 5 ....
00: ::= z: Gl Q) ~
--:5 >. ~ co
1"C M ~ .~~ g' Gl
J:1D:3 '"
j~-Q) '"
(.)-0)(1') Cl.
wen .c
>-~ 0
~.- CD
enlD .'" ,
~ c
Q)
'" Gl
CD ~ ....
....
~ Q) Q)
.>< '"
.,; o ._ cu
Cl ...JCD~
co
II>
"
"0
c::
co
>-
co I!
"0
>- >-
.0 '"
"0
II> c::
c: '"
0 en
.;:;
co
>
-
'"
II>
.0
0
- M
0 .... >-
II> '"
'" "E
Cl
co '"
Q; ..
> en
~
M
'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:; '" CO .... <0 '" '<l" M N ~
Cl
u:
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ,~
53 of 69
It)
M
Q)
c:
-'
"0
c:
Q) 0
'- M
III I-
Gl I
'(3
Gl
Q. t~
tJ)
- +... -
0
'-
Gl
..c ~-_._-
E I
~ ::::I
Z -- --_.~
'" _. Ou
.l;; III i~ ~
u > -'
'"
III 0-
Gl ct
.:r:: a..
iii . -- .,.-
..
- ' -I ell
0 .>:
'- ; Qj
Gl
..c 1 It)
E
::l , ~
.; z !
"
'u .-_.. - , .- - ~-o
ell
Co -....-+--
..
- -.....-
0 -._-
..
0; I ~
.0
E
"
c
x
.. . " ~ --,--
"
u
>-
" It)
:0
-
0
..
~
CIl
.0
E 1---
"
Z It) 0 - -
M M It) 0 It) 0
N N ~ 0 It) 0
... ~
CIl
:; $;)!:>ads
Cl
u:
54 of 69 oeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ U;~
-
Table 1. Concerns about impacts from bicycle use of the Green Valley Truck Trail.
BLUE SKY ECOLOGIC,tL RESERVE
C4lifomJa D('pa"",~nl 01 Filh and GGIM
CowIt)' oj SIJIt D;~go Parts DeparTnlenl
Ory of Po_
-.:;. Frinwb of Bl.. Sky c.",yon
"
Concerns ~out Impacts from Bicycle Use of Green Valley Truck Trail
(GVTT)
1. Impact to existing interpretive/educational programs
a. Disturbance to wildlife by bicyclists, decreasing
possibility of wildlife presence near GVTT and sightings
by students
b. Threat (or perception of threat) to public safety by
increased possibility of bicycle-pedestrian near-misses
and/or collisions
c. Destruction of wildlife sign/interpretive aids (eg/ animal
tracks) by bicycle tracks
d. Distraction to students/ interruption of program by passing
bicyclists
2. Decrease in quality of experience of other trail users due to
above impacts, noise, and congestion (or perception of
congestion) from increased frequency and abundance of
bicyclists.
3 . Impact to wildife habituated to current levels of human use of
GVTT
a. Disturbance to wildlife by noise and presence of increased
frequency, abundance, and speed of trail users
b. Disruption of natural routines of wildlife, such as
feeding, roosting, moving through reserve, with cumulative
impact of weight loss and susceptibility to predators,
disease, and temperature extremes
c. Increased possibility of "bike kills" in small animal
populations
4, Increased possibility of off-trail and off-GVTT bicycle use
with impacts to habitats, plants, and wildlife, including
sensitive, threatened, and endangered species and habitats
a, above impacts (see #3)
b, Disruption of natural drainage and exacerbation of
erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction
c. Damage and destruction to native plant species with
cumulative impacts on local populations
d. Habitat fragmentation, disruption, and degradation from
increased human presence, plant and soil impacts
e. Disturbance and/or destruction of nests and young
f. Introduction of non-nativQ invasive plant sceds and
incre~scd pOGsibitity of their establishment due to
55 of 69 lJ.d)i t-,\! (11'( I r.c~d,l t i Oil OCT 17 &5 ITEM 4 '.,"
T~lblc 2. Bicycle regulntions r' -inU trial period.
~
~
--- "
.... .-J
ATTENTION MOUNTAIN BIKERS
OUR FUTURE ACCESS TO BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL
RESERVE DEPENDS ON OUR RESPONSffiLE BEHA VIOR
AND ADHERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES:
- RIDE ON MAIN ROADS ONLY: Green Valley Truck Trail
from Espola Rd. to Lake Ramona and Lake Poway access road.
Off main road bike use is prohibited.
- Speed limit is 10 m.p.h. (5 m.p.h. when passing hikers and
-equestrians) .
- Yield to hikers and equestrians.
- Be alert and courteous. Warn others of your approach.
- Reserve is closed to bicycles all day Friday and until noon
on Saturday. Bikes allowed all other days sunrise to sunset.
Bicycle access has been approved for a six-month trial period
from February I to July 31, 1995.
BLUE SKY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
Califol"llia Department of Fish and Game
Counly of San Die~o Parks Department
City of Poway GeT 17 ms ITEM 4. ""
56 of 69
--
-- Table 3. Data categories collected.
Observer
Date
Day of week
Time start --
Time end
Waather conditions (each recorded for start, middle, end)
Cloud cover (heavy, medium, light, clear) ,
Precipitation (heavy, medium, light, none)
Air temperature
Reserve usage (each recorded for stations 1, 2, 3, 4, and total)
Numbers of:
Bicycles
Horse and rider
Cars and vans
Pickup trucks
Heavy trucks and tractors
Walkers
Joggers
Dogs
Wildlife observations (recorded for each sighting)
Station number
Species
Number of animals
Behavior
Distanca from GVTT
Time
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 !Ii lIt1
57 of 69
.
.
=
E" .... ........ ........ ........
. c ...Vl VlVl VlVl VlVl
a.W "'W ww Ww Ww
e LL.LL.u...LL.LL.LL.u.u.u. u.u..u.LL.LL.LL. u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.
,! U')NG)II)It)II)ll)Il')O't Il')NIl')NItlN OOOOIt)Il')~.It)Il')OOOOOIl')OO
""'......fDfD""'COU)U)l.O ,....,...fDC'O.....lI') ~U)U)~U)U)fD,...COCOcococococo......mm
C W
0 Z
'"
Jl" 0
._ C Z
a.W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW~WW~WWW LULU WWWWWWWWW
u
. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ~ZZ~ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZ
. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OO~OOOOOO 000000000
a. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ~ZZ~ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZ
.
.
. .... ....
> :I: :I:
0"
U c ~~ ~ ~~~~~Q~~ ~ ~~~~ ~
"W ~~22~~~2~22222~22""2~2222""~ a:::a::a:::a::a:o:::::ia::a::
. ~~~~~~:I:~~
0 00 ~0~00000:I:00:I:0<0000:I:
(3 ~~WW~~ w wwwwwQww~wwwwww~~ .....-'-'-'-'-'Q-'...J
l.ll.l~~l.ll.l:I:~:I:~~~~~:I:~~~~:I:~~~~~l.l OUUUUUJ:(.)U
I!
. .
l!:e .... ........ ........ ........
.:!! ...Vl VlVl VlVl VlVl
a.~ "'W Ww WW ww
e LLU.u..U.U.U.U.u.u. u...u.u..u.u.u.. u..u..u.u.u.u.u.u. u.u...u.u.u.u.u.u.u.
,! ~;::~~m~~~~ W')CONOOO ~~~~~~~~ ONOO.....<o<oOO
......CC<Dc'o,....ll) co............ CO""""'" co COCO
C
0 ....
- .
j:a :I:
-" ~
" a.- WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW::;W~~~WWWWW WWWwwwl-WUJ
u:li
~ I! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOZJ:J:J:ZZZZZ ZZZZZZJ:ZZ
" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWO~~~OOOOO OOOOOO~OO
; 1: ~ ll. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ~Z::;::;::;ZZZZZ ZZZZZZ::::;ZZ
a::: &. .2 . w ~
-CD ~ .
,~ '" '" !! " o I- t: =>
8''''~ 0 > . W:I: '" 15
0-
Bog c: u" ~~ ~ ~~Q~ ~~ ~~ W
" a:a:::a::a:::a:::a:::Eo:::a:::
- '" " ,,- "''''=>=>''''''~~~~~....=>=>~=>~....~~=>=>~~=>",
WVl .c .:Ii ~~1515~~~~~~~i1515i15~:I:~~1515~~15~ ~~~~~~i~~
>- II) C; 0
.:.::~ CD (3 -,-,ww.......... ww_w ~ LULU W-' ....J-'-'-l....l...J_...J...J
Vl~ ~ l.ll.l~~l.ll.l:I::I::I::I::I:~~~:I:~:I:~:I::I:~~:I::I:~l.l l.ll.ll.ll.ll.ll.l:I:l.ll.l
"
. I!
a; .
-t:
eJl .... ........ ........ ........
!.Ul "'Vl VlVl VlVl VlVl
...w ww ww ww
e u.u...u.u..u.LL.u..u..u.. u..u.u..u.u.u.. u..u.u...u.u..u.u.u..u.u..u.u.u.u.~~~~
,! ~~~g~~~~~ oaoao,........ao ~g~~~~~~~~~~~m~~i~
,...<DIOIOfl)"O'
I C 0
0
'" W
J!t: ~
-Jl
.9-Ul wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww~w~w~wwwwwwwwwwww~ww
u
I! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz~z~z~zzzzzzzzzzzz~zz
0000000000000000 o~o~oooooooooooo~oo
ll. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz~z~z~zzzzzzzzzzzz~zz
. '"
" o '" ~
> W < ~
ot:
UJl ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~
]Ul "''''~=>'''~~~~~~'''=>=>....=>~....~=>~=>~~=>'''''''''=>'''''''''''':I:''''''
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on (3
c: UU~~OU~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~20UO~UOOO~OO
0 " ~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~8S~~~~~
.., .5
'6 ..............................N........................................N..................................................NN..........N.........................
-.........................-..........-.....-.............................................................................................................................
c: "
0 c
U W
~ .~800100~o8oo~oo8m~,...o~~~ooo8mN~,...oooONO
Cl> eO OO.....~.M .....O.....NO M.....OO......_~IOO .8~~MOOOOO
.J:: =mmmmm ~mmmm~m~mm~mm~mm~~~~~.....aoaommmmmm
..
Cl> t:
~ Jl
Ul
~~~~~~~~~~~IO~~IOIO~IOIOIO~~IOIOIOIO~~~~1010101O101O
.;- .m~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm~mmm~m~mmmmmmm~mmm
Cl> ftV~~N~~~~.~m~N~m~~mw-Mv .~~~~~~~mlOwNM
CNN----NNM.....----~--N-~------NN- -~""'_NN
:0 NNNNN- -M.~~~_-_1O --U)m_ww~,...,...,... ----
.. N M V~~ 1O~ U) ,...~~,...
f-
OeT 1 7 1995 rrEM 4 ~Ij "1
58 of 69
Tnbl~~ 5. RCSmVf! usage. -
- Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
Bike Study Report
9/3195
Reserve Usage Data
Date Day of WeelcBlkes Horses Cars Pickups Dogs Joggers Walkers Heavy Trucks
214/95 Saturday 16 1 0 4 3 5 58 0
215/95 Sunday 14 0 0 1 13 5 63 0
2/11/95 Saturday 0 0 0 2 4- 0 62 0
2/12/95 Sunday 24 0 0 0 5 2 35 0
2118/95 Saturday 0 1 0 0 1 2 47 0
2119/95 Sunday 27 0 0 2 13 12 67 0
2125/95 Saturday 5 0 0 0 3 7 26 0
2126/95 Sunday 12 0 0 0 1 5 26 0
3/4/95 Saturday 0 0 2 1 4 2 92 0
3/18/95 Saturday 1 0 0 0 5 0 42 0
3/19/95 Sunday 22 0 0 0 4 2 33 0
4/1/95 Saturday 0 0 0 0 2 2 133 0
4/2/95 Sunday 11 2 0 0 7 3 47 0
4/8/95 Saturday 1 0 0 1 2 5 44 0
4/9/95 Sunday 18 2 0 0 6 0 26 0
4/15/95 Saturday 2 0 0 0 4 4 41 0
4/16/95 Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
4/29/95 Saturday 5 0 0 1 5 6 44 0
5/6/95 Saturday 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0
5/7/95 Sunday 9 0 0 0 6 14 34 0
5/13/95 Saturday 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0
. 5/14/95 Sunday 7 0 0 0 2 1 37 0
6/3/95 Saturday 0 0 1 1 7 3 63 0
6/4/95 Sunday 31 0 0 1 11 6 49 0
6/17/95 Saturday 8 0 0 0 5 2 45 0
6/18/95 Sunday 25 0 0 0 11 6 69 0
6/24/95 Saturday 7 5 0 0 3 2 43 0
6/25/95 Sunday 9 1 0 0 4 3 43 0
7/1/95 Saturday 0 0 0 1 4 3 43 0
7/2/95 Sunday 12 5 0 0 6 7 33 0
7/8/95 Saturday 5 0 0 2 1 0 23 1
7/9/95 Sunday 17 0 0 1 5 3 54 0
7/15/95 Saturday 4 11 0 1 1 4 82 0
7/16/95 Sunday 9 0 0 0 6 5 18 0
7/22195 Saturday 6 0 0 1 9 4 52 0
7/23/95 Sunday 9 0 0 1 7 7 38 0
Total 316 28 3 22 171 133 1628 1
-
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ '.:t.
59 of 69 P~qC 1
-'
Tabla 6. Avarages of observations by day and usage - pedestrian.
Av. Specie. Av. No. Av. No.
Dav of Week Observed Observations Animals
Saturday 20 46 73
Sundav 18 44 74
Percent Chanoe 11 - 4.5 -1.3
Pedestrian Usaoe
Low 19 42 68
Hiah 18 45 76
Percent Chanae .9 8 10
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ . , t-'
60 of 69
o~ 0_ -N
~C:lt)l() It)1.() C'"')l.()
~ 0
co-
,,-
C!!
.. >
- ..
cnO
o ~~~ ~~~ ffi~~
U') U') ~
'- M N eX)
.. '.
.Q ~ CD 0
E en I ..... .....
- "
::0 ..
z E
.."
"'<
l!
..
>
<
NN NN ON m~m~Nv
~CMM MM NM .................... M
~ 0
..-
,,-
C!!
.. >
- ..
"' cnO
Ol
CO ~v~ ~V~ mlt)o
m ~ vvo- vvo vv~
~ I 0 t.t) N en
-- ... t.t) CO c:c
CV --- men. . .
"'t: 0(0 .cae v co ex) __
.. E 0 c
a:o - - Gl
~ - ~- 0"
~Gl ~ , .. ..Gl~
ua:U')", z~ i1iGl~Gl
"t:n>.cn 6 G) G>> .. m~Q. Sl
.!20'gM=~.! i;'>.>>I en ~ll.~
-(j)cu...o "'Cm-~o
U (I) c= a. ... "'C --" C en
W Gl > ~c~~ Ol
>-~ "' <( ..::oo.~oo
~- ~ enen~~zc
(l)m 0 ~~ COlt) m~
Q) Q) "0 C
:::I en ... 0
iii ~ ~ ;:
OJ Q) co!!
o <(> .. >
" - ..
, cnc
..
~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
en UJ"'" 0 N
:::I GJ...... 0 M
"'C u..... d u:i
c: CI,) "C...... ..... N
ca ~ GJ I
>- cn~
co .. ..
" '" ..
...0
~ ;0 ~
"' > ..
c < _
o c
- ::0
- 0
~ 0
~
CD ~ _ en
en CD Q) G Q) C Q) >.
.c CI) C) CD cn CD en nI
o ~ c:: C'llI c:: en c C
- :> ca fit (Q e co """
o ..... oJ: ::::I .J: Q. .r:; 0
en 0>. () CD U en ...
Q) >oCO>.c: 0 'E CD c G)
en nI~(QQ) C Q.) 0 Q) .Cl
~ 03~~ ~.J:~ 0 CI)~ E
Q) ('Q :::I Q) o.~ OJ 0 Q) Q) :3
~ en en 11. ~~ll. z~ll. Z
-'
15
co
....
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ' I ~.
61 of 69
.,~----"
~
IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF-
.. at en '" 8 l8 '" or; '" '" ... 0 '" .., ... '" '" ... N ..,
0 - ... ... ~ '" '" "! ... ... ... '" ..,
CD U > >. ai '" ,..; <0 '" ,,; ... - '" '" - ,..; ,,; <1 9 ai ~
.:! c >. " ,. ... ... - , - <'I , - - <'I'
e . " "
. ... '1:l C
~ ~ ~ =
..-_en
!:LO;;
'0_" ;~8S~;~~~~~~~~m~~g~~M~~~~;~~~~m~~;
........ .... T'" ........ N N
~ - .
. .. ~
"" E .
e c ..
"<""
z 0
. . " IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF- IF-
... :ll lil .., 8 8 - '" ~ '" l8 '" ... .., '" ll:l ...
... .., ... '" ... '" - ... ... -
'" u > '" ~ ,,; ~ '" g uj '" ..: ,..; ..: 'i 'i uj <1 'i '"
J! c >;, "
c . " 'C ,. - - '7
. ~ "E c: , ,
t! = = ::I
.-_en
,., Q"c;J
~ ..
c
. ,., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~re~~~~~~~~~~~~~re~
It: a:I . --
a:: 8. ~ - "
o 0
~. .S! ==
. a:: It) ii "" ..
8''''~ ~ E ~
8~0l. " :
w'" 11 z""
. 0 0
':-:4 ~
",., ..
. E IF- ~ ~ ~ ~ IF- IF- If. IF- IF- If. IF- IF- If. If. If. IF-
" E . . .; '" 8 8 ... 8 :ll 8 0 .., - '" .., lil '" ~ 0
iii ... '" '" .., - ... .., '" '"
" '" u > <0 .,; .,; ,,; <0 g 'i .,; '" ,..; ... ~ <i? ..: ..:
'" S c >. cw - 0
- <'I - - - - - - - ..,
C.""CI , , , , , , ,
.~'E=
~ == ::::I =
o---UJ
a.,cC:
'0." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ng~~N~~~~N~~~re~~~~~~~
~ . .
. - ~
"" u .
E !. .
,;. "",""
z c
..
"C
> is... >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. ~ >. >. >. >. >. >. >.
.<:l
. ftI >,. >0 I'll >.ftlI >.C'lI >ora,..tG >om >." >-111 >._ >.ca >.ca >o.ft1 >-" >0. >-... >.
'" ,... ~C'lIE.EC'lEC'lIE.E"~.E.E.E.E.E.E"EftlIE.E.E"
c: C!:~ 3~312~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~3~
0 " ::I" .::1. = " = . = . = " = " = " = " = " = . ::::I . = . = " = " =
.., ~0cncn0cncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncn
.. ~~lt)lt)~lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)lt)
>
~ ~~~~~m~~~m~~~m~$$e~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~
"
'" .~N-""--~~""-....__~~__ ~__~~~~~~__~~
.<:l ~ NNNN ~~ .. ~~ ~~ ~~~~
0
- C
0
>
~
..
E
E
:J
Vl
'"
"
:0
..
f-
OeT 1 7 J995 ITEM 1+ ;.'.
62 of 69
-
0- m<.O ('1')("')
-oCll')U') MU') 'q'1,()
~ 0
lll-
"t:J-
co!!
.. >
_ CD
me
o ~~~ ~~~ oog~
'" '" ~
~ ('l') 'II:T ,....
CD '.
.c"'- ex) Lt)
E.!! I .,.-
::J ..
z E
CD;:
01<(
l!
CD
>
<(
NN ~1.l) ~M m,....MMm~
~CMM NM NM "'-.,.-.,.-N N
~ 0
.. -
"t:J-
o:.!!!
.. >
_ CD
me
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
~ 0 0 '" '" M
dl .. en ~ M ~
UJ >- .c "lit ...... 0 ...
CD 1:: m ..a 0 ...... N c:
a:: 8. ~ E ;:: lJl ....
CUll> 0 ::J.. ll>0:
"a:: "" z ~ .. Qj ~ ll>
.- L()ca CD CD "'Ola.Ul
Ol~~~ .. Ol_ ll>
O-O-t;.. tnut >- co,.,en...
o.a(2CD fo.c ~~.!!:g~a.
uoomCIJ CD ....'0- .-en
UJ.Q > ::Jc:~.<::lDll>
>.~ 0 <C 1ii=,o.2>>o~
~ffi CD ClJCIJ~~zm
~ 0) ,....,....~,.... CX),....
CD ~ ~ c
. :I Q.l IE; 0
.!! C3 <(> NO;
" "t:J ..
> 0:-
" .. >
.- _ CD
.Q me
& om~ Ncx)~ _CX)~
m N_~ N-N N_,....
en =...... N <0
::J - _ N cd
"0 g<a..... N _
c: Cl,CD
III m ~
> CD CIl
III 01"
"t:I ....0
> ~ 0
.Q CIl "t:J
en ~ S
c: c:
o ::J
-;: 0
~ U
~ - ..
Go) -= Q) CD CD ,C Q) >-
en CD C) 0) C) lU CJ) ftI
.Q ,.. c: .. c: .. c: e
o :> CO en CO !! ca .....
- ..... .r:. :) J::. ~ .r:. 0
o 0 ~ <.) .. <.) <.) ~
:g >.~iO'c: ~ c = c: ~
~ ftI"'-oQ) m dl ~ CD
~ C.2c:~ ~~~ m CIJ~ E
Q) CO ::I Q) 0.- Q,) 0 Q,) G) :::I
> rnrna. ~Ia. Z~a. Z
<(
~
Cl>
:a
III
I-
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 .~
63 of 69
~~~~~c.e~~~~~~N~~
- am,..... to M
o 0 ,..... to 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ID ~ 0
- ..-...... "l;f ......
.0 ,
E.!I!
" co
Z,E
.. c
g><
~
..
>
<
~;:;;.e:!::~~;::~~O)~~::~
,..... ,..... m ~ ~
N NO,..... N
- . . . . .
o ,..... ,..... m ,..... ,.....
N N I ,..... N
~ ..
.. c
.Q 0
E-
,,-
z ~
.. ..
00..
I!.Q
>- .,0
cu >
o <
., l:
C; .12
., -
Ul .l!!
.,'1:: (J) ..O),.....~om~coco~..-.......:::emco~
- 8. 0..- 0 0...... 0 0
..... >- ~ ...... ...... 0 "'It' 0
ma.> CO u "'1 ...... ~ -: ~
uC:::lt)U) G>> co ...... 0 ....... N
'c>>>.mC: Q. N...... U')..-
o ~ - 0 (I)
8.2ai:; '0
w (J) C; ..
>.j ~ .8
t5 ffi 8 E
"
'" ., Z
.2 OJ
OJ I! ..
., 00
< ~
>
<
.; -
c c
o l>> CD Q,) Q) Q) CD
"4::j tit en en en en 0)
ca ! c c: c: c: c:
t; a.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
]; ill II II II II II
~ - - - - -
en _ c: c: c: c c:
c OJ ., ., 2l ., .,
o cnf=: cn~ (1),,- U)~ U)~
-,;: OQ)Q)OCUCUOQ)Q)OQ)Q)omQ)
~ z>~z>~z>~z>~z>~
~
..
Ul
.0
o ~ ~
~ C .Q
en ~...... N M ~ m
.. - -
en .:! en
~ 00 ~
..
>
<
ci
-
..
:c
co
I-
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 .,,,
64 of 69
Table 11. Modified averages of observations.
A v. Species Av. No. Av. No.
Dav of Week Observed StDev Observations StDev Animals SIDev
Saturday 20 7 46 32 73 50
Sunday lii 1 44 32 II .2.l
Percent Chanae 11. 4.5 -1.3
Bike Useae
Low 22 5,6 82 37.4 52 22.28
Hiah 1.I 4.6 63 33.8 .ll 18.2
Percent Chanae 22 II II
Bikas Present
No 23 6 90 40 57 23
Yes II ~ ~ ~ ~ II
Percent Chanae 20 28 II
,-
-
DCTl'l1995 . ......~. ..
65 of 69
---.----
Table 12. Species observed.
California Treefrog Pacific Treefrog Treefrog species
Alligator Lizard California Kingsnake Gopher Snake
Granite Spiny Lizard Lizard species Orange-throated Whiptail
Side-blotched Lizard Skink species Western Fence Lizard
Whiptail species
Audubon's Cottontail California Groundsquirrel Cottontail species
Coyote Mule Deer Valley Pocket Gopher
Woodrat species
Acorn Woodpecker American Crow American Goldfinch
American Kestrel Anna's Hummingbird Ash-throated Flycatcher
Bewick's Wren Black Phoebe Black-chinned Hummingbird
Biack-headed Grosbeak Blue-grey Gnatcatcher Brewer's Blackbird
California Gnatcatcher California Quail California Thrasher
California Towhee Cassin's Kingbird Cliff Swallow
Common Bushtit Common Raven Common Yellowthroat
Cooper's Hawk Costa's Hummingbird Dark-eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker Flycatcher species Gadwall
Gnatcatcher species Goldfinch species Great Egret
Greater Roadrunner Hawk species Hooded Oriole
House Finch House Wren Hummingbird species
Hutton's Vireo Lazuli Bunting Lesser Goldfinch
Loggerhead Shrike Mallard Mourning Dove
Northern Flicker Northern Mockingbird Nuttall's Woodpecker
Ora.nge-crowned Warbler Osprey Pacific Slope Flycatcher
Passerine species Phainopepla Plain Titmouse
Purple Finch Red-naped Sapsucker Red-shouldered Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk Rock Wren Rough-winged Swallow
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Rufous-crowned Sparrow Rufous-sided Towhee
Say's Phoebe Scrub Jay Sharp-shinned Hawk
Song Sparrow Sparrow species Starling
Swallow species Swift species Towhee species
Turkey Vulture Violet-green Swallow Vireo species
Warbler species Warbling Vireo Western Bluebird
Western Kingbird White-crowned Sparrow White-tailed Kite
White-throated Swift Wilson's Warbler Woodpecker species
Wren species Wrentit Yellow Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat Yellow-rumped Warbler
OeT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ ' .-
66 of 69
_._-
_~~~G~~_~CQ~M~G~~~C~~~~QG~~~G~~OG~~C
""'" N_GC__ _N NN~N_NN__N~~N__~~~~~NN_
e -
'" e
"0(
c .
~.c
" ....-
0
;: . NOOOGG_NO~CQONN_~~~~~M~__NONG~~~~NO'N
- ';~ _ _ NM NM ~G ~~~~
.c
,l! c g
'0 Q~
. .5 "
'" .
.... "
.. - N.~~GCMO_O.NOOMM~OGMo~_~m~~.O.~M~N~.
.. _ _ _ _N_N__ N_ N __ _ ~~ _
. .5 c
;; .c -
E u '"
C ;ii5
0( ..
-.. __~OOOO~ONOOO_GNOO~~NO-~NOOON~M.ONNN
~ C (;...!! N _
.! ~.c _ . II
~i~!5i
zc ..
G~.NGO.__~MOM_~~_NM_~~~~G_~MG~~OGC~O
.5 _N N_ N _N_N M_N NM.N__N
~ l!
~ ~ 0
..
.. ~ ~~~i~$~~~~~2~~~~~g~~~~8~~g~~~~~~~~m~
; " _ c
"8. . .0,2 M_ ___MM__ N.N. N___
-.. a ...-
~a:",~ l! U -
. c ~
~Hll > ~ .
o(J!.l!
8", 8 00
w.
~:tS ~ :~8~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~:~~~~ia~;
",Ill ..
.. E '0.." - - - - __NN
~ ~
iii "- .
.l! - ~
'" E .
E -= ..
:i<8
.~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ c - -
o 0
ji
E ~
~ .
z.l!
0
~~ON~~O~OG~~mN_OMO._~M~._GN_m~.Gcm~o
'O..~ __NN__ N__ NNMMNNN__NNN___NNMN____
" . .
.l!;:;~
-0 e !.:
" ~",'"
> z 0
;;
VI
.c o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 . .~..~.~.~..~.~.~.~~II~II~II~~~.~II~II~II~II~
~. ~1I1.~.~II~~.~II~II~II~~.~.E.~II~.~II~~~.~1I
.... sit ~~-~=~=~-=l=~=~=~=2~=~=~~~=~~~~ =~=~
0 II II ~ II ~ II ~ II. II ~.. .. ~ II II ~ II ~ II II ~ II ~.. II ~ II ~ II ~
'S: ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo~~~~~~~~~OO000
co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.<:; .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
co
.c ~NN~~~~~~~~~....;5~ ~~~o~iSS~~~~~~~~
iij
E
'c
<(
.~.-
M
~
"
:0
co
I-
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 '"
67 of 69
--
,
Table 14. Averages of observations of animal behavior and distance. F ,. foraging, I ,. interaction
with other animal or people, P ,. perched or sedentary, S ,. singing or courtship, T ,. transit
locomotion, Distance z average distance in feet from the Green Valley Truck Trail.
Average Number of Animals
Disolavino Behavior
Dav of Week L ...!.. L ...L .L Distance
Saturday 13 2 13 16 28 135
Sunday 15 3 14 19 27 160
Bike Usaoe
Low 13 1 11 21 31 156
High 15 4 15 15 25 140
Bikes Present
No 13 2 10 26 31 177
Yes 15 3 14 14 26 134
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 1+ .,
68 of 69
.
N~Oao_Nq)tnOONIt'lNa'lOO
... N_ MN
"0 C
- 0
-..
"0 _
C .-
J! ~
"'0
~.nf"oo""Na;)MOCO""NM,...tOlI)tQ
. '0 III """f"oo__~""O'Io)NNMM"''''
__ NN
en....
~ 11 e
~ E '2
<;i.c(
_NN_N_NNQOCO.....-Oo
- --
"0 C
- 0
-",
"0 _
c-
J! ~
",0
" U':l1t'l,....nQNf"oo_f"ooO'lCD..,.O)tOIt)O
_ C ..,.MMM__NNl,OtQ""f"ooNN::::
. 0 0
CD"':;
e " -
" .c ~
> e "
"'''.ll
Zo
N__NN_NMOONNN-OO
... e
- 0
-",
... -
e-
II ~
>- "'0
-
" e ~~~~r---r---~~~~~~::~(lI;~
"
i: '8 . " ...
" ::.2 ~
"i U
" - _ u "
'" " " " "
~" ~ > Q..c
~- . 0: '" : "''''0
fj~8 " .n_MO'IMN..,.CQNOO,.....ao"'r--
w'" ili " N _ - - - -
......
Eli ~ - "
III ~
" "
!l ! ll'.ll
a; " ~o
"
.c '"
0 CD_MI,OI()MN_NOON,...COIt)"'"
"... _.._,... N_M '" - -
" "
> :! ~
co III "
"0 - "
ll.c
"0 {!.O
C
co
~ " ~~~~~~~Ng~~~N~~~
" .h
>
~ 8.~
"
., '" "
.J::. -.ll
0 ~o
> ....
.c
., N....NNMN__M""NN__
C
.2
0;
>
OJ
.,
.c
0
-
0
., >- >- >- >- >- >- >0
" ,.,co>oftl>oftl>-ftI>oftl>oco>-ftI>o
Ol ~~~~co~~~~~~
co _ _~_c_e-3
OJ ~ ftI ~ ftI ftI ~ co ~ ftI
(f)(f)(f)(I)(/)(f)(f.l(f.l(/)(/)(/)
>
<l: -
"
-oj i:
.__NN(""JM....,.~lt)tQtOr---r---lI)lI)
"
" .c
:0 0
co
....
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 "
69 of 69
DISTRIBUTEt /tl-/3-YS
J
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1995 ~~ LcLv.i./.......L-
/[,-/[-9.5.-
TO: POW A Y CITY COUNCIL I DFG
FROM: TERRY CALLAN I K,C. BUTLER (BLUE SKY BIKE PATROL)
RE: BLUE SKY BIKE COMMlTl'bE MINORITY REPORT
As members of the Blue Sky Bike Advisory Committee and the Blue Sky
Bike Patrol, we would like to summarize our viewpoint, representing the City of
Poway bike community.
The purpose of the six month trial period for bikes was "to determine if
bicycle access into BSER can be accommodated without detriment to the
ecological values of the reserve and it's pedestrian visitors". "At the conclusion
of the six month trial period, the City and the State shall make a detennination,
based on protection of the area's resources and safety. as to future bicycle access
at BSER and enter into a new agreement, if deemed appropriate." (REF.
Cooperative Agreement Stipulation #1 & 13).
Was it appropriate for the Bike Advisory Committee to recommend that
bike access be prohibited in BSER? Was it ever possible to have a favorable vote
for bikes from this committee? The answer to both questions is no. Due to the
make up of the (12) member committee that included (5) friends of Blue Sky and
(2) DFG employees, the vote of that committee was assured before the trial
began,
We the Poway bike community are asking for support from the City of
Poway and Department of Fish and Game to resume bike access in the Reserve
based upon a reasonable review of the real issues.
lSSUE #l--PROTECTION OF BSER, RESOUlll:ES '
The assumption that bikes have caused more damage than bikers,
equestrians, dogs and vehicles is unscientific and untrue. Both the SDSU User
Observation Study and the Bike Patrol report showed only 1.7% of bikes off
trail. This violation is our biggest concern and we feel improvement is possible
with further education and enforcement.
The Wildlife Monitoring Study unsuccessfully attempted to prove bikes had
a negative impact on animals. In reality, the average number of animals
increased on Sunday when bikes were present. It doesn't take a scientist to know
that bikes cannot be more detrimental to animals than large groups of hikers,
dogs (especially those off leash), and vehicle traffic,
The real conclusion on resource impact is that bikes caused no significant
damage. We witnessed more environmental damage from winter flooding and
illegal vehicles than bikes could ever cause.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 I'
, .
---....-.- -
I
ISSUE #2--SAEEIY
The User Study indicated that 50% off all bike violations were due to
speeding (in excess of lOmph). Unfortunately, a radar gun was never used,
making this data suspect due to subjective guesstimates by the student observers,
The Bike Patrol observed less than half as many speed violations.
Nonetheless, the purpose of a speed limit is to minimize the risk of
accidents, The true measure of safety, then, is how many pedestrians were
injured by bikers, During the (6) month trial, there were no incidents recorded.
In fact, during the (3) years we have studied bikes at BSER, we have never had a
documented incident.
The real conclusion on safetv is that bikes have been no problem in BSER.
In 295 hours of observation, SDSU students did not record any significant
multiple user conflicts, In 200 hours of bike patrol, no conflicts were recorded,
Based on the data, how can the majority of the committee conclude "that
bicyclists could not be compatible with other users of the reserve"? Very simply,
the majority of the committee (ie, the docents, county and DFG members) have
the mistaken belief that their way of experiencing the reserve is more pure than
others, This "majority" really represents a minority of the Poway trial
community, who successfully co-exist on all other trails in the city. The
misguided attitude of those users who don't want bikes on "their trails" has no
place on public lands,
The same group that is so concerned about bike impact on the reserve
environment is responsible for attracting 30,000 visitors per year to BSER by
advertising throughout San Diego county, What's wrong with this picture?
In summary, it is our hope that reason and not emotion will prevail on the
decision for bike access in BSER. Pressure to close the reserve to bikes comes
from a small minority of trail users. The majority of signatures on our bike
petition last year came from, not bikers, but hikers who recognized the right of
all low impact users to visit BSER, How would hikers feel if they were singled
out from other users and banned from BSER? Would they respect and obey the
ban?
Banning bikes will not stop bike use in the reserve, especially by those who
violated rules during the trial. BSER is the critical link between the best
mountain biking in the city from Lake Poway to Lake Ramona, Blue Sky
provides the only access to the city's future trail between Lake Poway and Old
Coach,
DeT 17 1995 ITEM 4 . I
I
,-.-
We challenge the City, County, and State to help reduce trail user conflicts
by being creative in adapting to the publics' biking needs and not by excluding its
use. This philosophy has worked successfully throughout the Poway trail system.
Please help to keep BSER a part of that multiple user system!
Dist: Don Higginson City of Po way - Mayor
Susan Callery City of Poway - Deputy Mayor
Bob Emery City of Poway - Council Member
Betty Rexford City of Poway - Council Member
Mickey Cafagna City of Poway - Council Member
Bob Thomas City of Poway - Dir. of Comm. Servo
Jim Bowersox City of Po way - City Manager
Dan Cannnon City of Poway - Public Service
John Anderson DFG
Jan Goldsmith State of California Assemblyman
Anachment February-July Bike Patrol report
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ' I
~ . .
- I,
.
7/24/95
TO: BSR BIKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FR: T. CALLAN +0<:-
RE: FEB-JUL (6 MOS) BIKE PATROL REPORT
YSER SURVEY DATA:
DAYTIME SHIF[ HIKER lllKER.. EQ1J.ESI IQIAL
SAT 12-4 17 762 185 18 965
SUN 8-12 17 1101 228 23 1352
SUN 12-4 12 855 179 11 1045
TOTAL # 46 2718 592 52 3362
TOTAL% 81 18 1 100
, . A VE/4 H.R. 59 13 1 73
YIOLATIONS OBSERVED:
BIKE OFF TRIAL 9
BIKE SPEED 29
DOG LEASH 37
PLANT GATHER 5
HUNT IFISH 4
COMMErsr.rS:
1. (38) BIKE VIOLATIONS VS. (46) HIKER VIOLATIONS, OBSERVED,
2. BIKE ACTIVITY PEAKED IN FEB AND DECLINED STEADILY THRU
TRIAL PERIOD FROM (19) TO (9) PER 4 HR SHIFT.
3. PERCENTAGE OF HIKER, BIKER & EQUESTRIAN REMAINED
CONSTANT THRU TRIAL.
OCT 1 7 1995 ITEM 4 ' '
- -
David B. Stanton
9926 Backer Court
San Diego, CA 92126
17 October 1995
Members of the Poway City Council:
I have been a docent at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve for nearly three years and Treasurer of Friends of Blue Sky Canyon
for just over two years. While I did not actively participate in the six month bicycle study, I assisted Robert Patton with the
analysis of the wildlife data and attended some of the Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings. Therefore, I have an
understanding of that data and would like to take this opportunity to discuss the findings of the User Observation Study and
the Wildlife Study, both of which were conducted in the Reserve from February through July of this year, and to refute the
claims made by Terry Callan and K. C. Butler in their Blue Sky Bike Committee Minority Report.
The Blue Sky Bike Committee Minority Report charges that, due to the makeup of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, the
deck was stacked against them from the very beginning. While the committee may have consisted of twelve members, there
were only seven voting members. Of these seven, only two, including Terry Callan, are actually members of Friends of
Blue Sky Canyon. Friends supported Al Torretto's participation in the study, but was not actively involved in the study or
the committee. If Mr. Callan and Mr. Butler truly believed that the committee was biased against them, why didn't they
raise their objections when the committee was formed? Why did they even agree to participate in the study? Why did they
agree to be bound by it? It is easy to raise charges of impropriety when the vote, and the results of the study, go against
you.
The Minority Report discusses three issues, the first of which is protection of BSER resources. Both the User Observation
Study and the Wildlife Study concluded that bicycles were detrimental to the Reserve. The Minority Report claims that the
User Observation Study findings were unscientific and untrue. While tlle bicyclists claim that other user groups caused
more danmge than bikes, the Bike Patrol did not docwnent a single instance of damage to the Reserve by vehicles or
equestrians and only a 0.3% incident rate of possible damage by hikers, compared to their reported 1.7% of bicycles off
trail. They also claim that the Wildlife Study unsuccessfully attempted to prove that bikes had a negative impact on
wildlife, and they site an increase in the number of animals present on Sundays. It is true that the Wildlife Study reported a
I % increase in the number of animals observed on Sunday morning. What they fail to admit is that three counts were taken.
The number of species observed was used to document wildlife diversity, the number of individual observations was used to
document the frequency of observations, and the number of animals observed was used to document population density.
While the total number of animals observed did show a slight increase on Sunday mornings, the number of species observed
declined by II % and the total number of observations declined by 5%. We also exanlined days when there were no bikes
present in the Reserve and days when there was low bike usage, defined as five or fewer bikes. In these studies, the total
number of animals observed, number of observations, and number of species observed showed declines of 8% to 22%.
The Minority Report next discusses the issue of safety. A claim is made that the User Observation Study indicated that
50% of all bike violations were due to speeding. In reality, this study documents that 26% of the total bike violations were
safety related. This percentage includes both speeding and failure to yield. I can find no data in the User Observation
Study to support the 50% claim. Data collected by the Bike Patrol shows that 29 of the 38 bicycle related violations, or
76%, were for speeding. While they challenge the accuracy of our studies, they completely ignore the fact that their own
data paints an even more damaging picture. They further claim that, since no pedestrians have been injured by bikes in the
past six months, that bikes must be operating safely. They fail to recognize the fact that many people, myself included,
have reported near collisions on several occasions. Some time ago, an elderly woman was struck on the arm by a speeding
bike. Clearly, speeding and failure to yield are unsafe behaviors. Just because an accident has not yet occurred does not
IC-11-"j"i
:a:<-j
- -
mean that one never will. The bicyclists also claim that they have been studying this issue for three years, but the Bike
Patrol was only in operation during the six month study period. How, exactly, did they collect three years worth of data and
where is this data?
The third issue raised by the bicyclists is user conflicts. While the data collected during the study may not document any
serious user conflicts, the anecdotal data documents several incidents which were reported by docents and the public. I have
had bicyclists close to within a few feet of me before making their presence known, and I have observed and been involved
in near collisions. User conflicts have been reported in the anecdotal data, and this data must be studied to get a full picture
of the situation.
The Minority Report closes with the argument that banning bikes in the Reserve will not stop bike use in the Reserve.
Following this line of reasoning, we should stop imprisoning murderers, because murders continue to occur in our society.
The bicyclists accuse us of being emotional and unscientific, but their Minority Report is full of accusations, innuendo, and
unsupported facts.
The purpose of these studies was to detennine if bicycle users should be allowed to use Blue Sky Ecological Reserve. The
user observation study was intended to detennine if bicycles and pedestrians could successfully share the trails and if
bicyclists could obey the rules. The user observations clearly show that 21.2% of the users in the reserve (the bicyclists)
committed 73.3% of the violations. The most serious of the violations from a public safety point of view, speeding and
failure to yield, accounted for 26% of the total violations. Nearly 20% of the violations involved bikes present in the
Reserve during restricted hours. Since one possible outcome of this study is that bicycles could be allowed restricted access
to the Reserve, it is relevant to look at their adherence to this rule during the study period. Today, with the reserve closed to
bikes, there continues to be documented bicycle use in the reserve. Can bicyclists follow the rules? Clearly, they cannot.
Does their failure to adhere to the rules threaten public safety? I believe that it does.
The intent of the Wildlife Study was to document animal populations in the Reserve on Saturday mornings and Sunday
mornings. Had there been no bicycle use in the reserve on Saturdays, then a straight forward comparison between Saturday
and Sunday would have been possible. Since bicyclists did not obey the rules, our use of Saturday as a control day was
invalidated. Robert Patton, A1 Torretto and I discussed the results and we all agreed that the only available alternative was
to look at non-bike verses bike days. Since there were so few days with no bikes present, we also looked at low bike usage
days verses high bike usage days. The data we collected clear shows a decline in species diversity, and number of animals
observed.
The bicyclists ask that you use reason, not emotion, to arrive at your conclusion. I urge you to do the same. Look at the
data collected in both studies and at the anecdotal data. The data is clear. The bicyclists have failed to demonstrate that
they can abide by the rules and share the trails with other users of the Reserve.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion.
Sincerely,
0~(V~--=
David B. Stanton
Anna Gateley-Stanton, PLS, CCLS
9926 Backer Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (619) 232-2155
Fax: (619) 239-2155
October 17, 1995
Members of the Poway City Council
poway, California
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I have been a docent at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve since February
1993 and have been the secretary for Friends of Blue Sky Canyon for a
little over two years. As a volunteer for both the Reserve and
Friends, I have spent more hours than you can imagine promoting the
Reserve, its programs, and everything it has to offer, both tangible
and nontangible. Like many others, I have come to love Blue Sky and
consider it a kind of retreat from the pressures of everyday life.
As one of the original docents, I have seen many people come to
the canyon for the first time, not knowing what to expect. After only
an hour and a half, they leave with a greater appreciation for nature--
they understand "the big picture." Children of all ages enjoy watching
the many animals found in the Reserve. Whether catching a glimpse of
a deer or watching the littlest "stink bug" crossing the Green Valley
Truck Trail, everything is new and exciting when you are able to
experience it in its native habitat and learn a little more about the
animal.
Unfortunately, many visitors, myself included, find it frustrating
to see mountain bike riders come speeding around turns and weaving
their way through groups, expecting those on foot to "get out of the
way," which is what we have been told by many riders. On one special
hike this summer, a group of 25 to 30 people were observing a
rattlesnake track during a tracking hike on Saturday afternoon when a
woman on a bike came speeding around a corner, only to be forced to
come to a skidding halt to avoid colliding with those on foot. This is
only one instance that comes to mind of the many safety violations that
occurred in the Reserve.
It is also very upsetting to see first hand the damage done to
plant life when the bikes come down off the hillside, ignoring the
rules requiring them to stay only on the Green Valley Truck Trail and
the road to poway Lake. They also ignore the signs and ride down on
the streamside trail, the Ramona Water District pipeline road, and on
any trail they find, not to mention making their own trails.
ltl-n-'i<:)
~Lf
Members of the Poway City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 2
As I understand it, the 6-month bicycle study was originally
recommended to DFG by Friends of Blue Sky in October/November of 1993,
but DFG was not interested at the time. Later, after the City became
involved, a study was again brought up, and this time the
recommendation was acted upon. The study, I am told, was to determine
the effect of bicycles on the wildlife and to see if bicyclists can
obey the rules and regulations imposed upon them if they are allowed to
ride in the Reserve.
After reviewing the voluminous information presented to you in
study materials, I am sure you will see that the presence of bicycles
does in fact impact the wildlife. Unfortunately, due to illegal
bicycle usage on Saturdays, the wildlife study control data set was
even smaller than everyone would have liked. Those analyzing the data
and preparing the report, graphs, etc. were forced to look at three
different sets--Saturday v. Sunday, days of hike bike usage v. days
with low bike usage, and days with bikes v. days with no bikes (which
were very few due to the illegal Saturday usage).
Also, from the data collected during the study performed by SDSU
students (an impartial third party), it is glaringly apparent that
bicyclists cannot and do not follow the rules and regulations. As
shown in the study, the bicyclists made up about 20 percent of the
users observed. At the same time, that small, 20 percent group of
users committed over 70 percent of the total violations recorded by
these impartial observers. It is obvious that no matter how the
bicycle contingent tries to divert your attention by stating the study
was unfair and biased, they proved beyond a doubt that they cannot and
will not follow the rules if allowed to ride in Blue Sky.
I know you will give this matter much thought and review all of
the information and testimony presented to you before making a
decision. I am hopeful that you will make an informed decision and not
one based on who yells the loudest or threatens political pressure,
because as is usually the case, it is the upset minority group
(approximately 20 percent of the users) and not the majority group (the
remaining 80 percent of the users) making most of the noise.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
Sincerely,
~f-d~-~
Anna Gateley-Stanton
ags
-