Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Appendices

ARMS FOREST Trails Scoping Study Appendix

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Table of Contents 1 - Trail Typologies & Cross Section Details

3

2 - Cost Estimates

15

3 - Permitting

17

4 - Recommended Phasing Maps

21

5 - Trail Assessment Memo

25

6 - May15 Community Engagement Summary

42

7 - October 17 Community Engagement Summary

57

8 - Conceptual Design Alternatives

83

2

Appendix 1 Trail Typologies and Cross Section Details

3

Trail Section

Universal access trails provide recreational opportunities for people of all ability levels, allowing them to experience the natural environment and the many benefits it provides. While generally located on gentler terrain, these trails should provide a variety of user experiences and take advantage of naturally occurring features along the route. Natural features such as changes in topography, views, waterways and other places of interest should be considered during layout. The character of these trails is often quite refined, since imported materials are typically used to provide the required level of surface firmness and stability and the trail must be free of obstacles.

36” - 60” Tread Width Trail Profile Tread Width 36”- 60”

Cross Slope 2%-3%

Corridor Width 6’ - 12’

Construction/Material Firm and stable surface material. Generally imported but native material may be used if suitable. Generally free of obstacles. Passing spaces needed on trails with tread under 60”

Corridor Height 8’-12’ Longitudinal Slope 0 - 5% average, 5% - 8.33% for 200’ Max between resting interval, 8.33% - 10% for 30’ Max between resting interval, 10% - 12% for 10’ Max between resting interval

Turn Radius Varies Sight Lines/Distance Varies

Accessibility Follow USDA Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and Trails Standards

Draft Concepts

Easement Width Tread + 10’ min.

0%

2%

3%

5%

Average Slope

Arms Forest

Trail Typologies - Universal Access Trail

Burlington, VT l October 17,2019 8%

10% 12% 15% 25% 30%

With assistance from:

Short Segments

4

Trail Section

Short natural surface trails located close to trailheads, interpretive trails are usually short loops under 1 mile that include interpretive signage. Located on gentle terrain, interpretive trails are similar in character to universal access trails although these trails do not necessarily need to adhere to accessibility guidelines. Interpretive trails can be multi-use but should be designed for users of all ability levels. These trails provide an excellent opportunity to educate the public about the ecology of the forest and thus promote stewardship and responsible trail use. Additional interpretive topics could include history and geology.

36” - 60” Tread Width

Trail Profile Tread Width 36”- 60”

Cross Slope 2%-5%

Corridor Width 6’ - 12’

Construction/Material Native material, surface generally free of obstacles. Short loops, can include interpretive signage, benches for resting, boardwalks, steps (wood or rock)

Corridor Height 8’-12’ Longitudinal Slope 0 - 8%, 5% or less average grade prefered, 10% max

Turn Radius N/A Sight Lines/Distance Varies

Accessibility Generally provides universal access, some tread materials may not be firm enough, natural obstacles possible, steps will limit some access

Draft Concepts

Burlington, VT l October 17,2019

Easement Width Tread + 10’ min.

0%

2%

3%

5%

Average Slope

8%

Arms Forest

Trail Typologies - Interpretive Trail

10% 12% 15% 25% 30%

With assistance from:

Short Segments

5

Trail Section

Hiking trails provide an opportunity for park users to have a more rugged walking experience. With a very natural character, these trails utilize native material, are typically quite narrow and meander to work around obstacles. Ideally, these trails include loops 2-5 miles in length that provide some physical challenge. Hiking trails can provide access to interesting natural features that would be spatially challenging to provide a universal access trail or an interpretive trail. Structures are minimal but can include: steps/ladders, bridges - bog, bridges, walls, waterbars, grade reversals, turnpikes, and switchbacks.

18” - 36” Tread Width

Trail Profile Tread Width 18”-36” Corridor Width 4’ - 6’ Corridor Height 8’ Longitudinal Slope 0 - 10%, 8% or less average grade, 12% -15% for short segments with trail hardening Cross Slope 2%-8%

Construction/Material Soil, Native Material (wood, rocks) variable surface, naturally occurring obstacles, trail structures minimal but can include bridges, stone paving, insloped turns, walls, grade reversals, turnpikes, and switchbacks

Accessibility N/A

Draft Concepts

Easement Width Tread + 10’ min.

Burlington, VT l October 17,2019

Turn Radius N/A Sight Lines/Distance Limited/Varies

Arms Forest

Trail Typologies - Hiking Trail

0%

2%

3%

5%

Average Slope

8%

10% 12% 15% 25% 30%

With assistance from:

Short Segments

6

1

Trail Section Details

FULL BENCH NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL NOT TO SCALE

2:1 BACKSLOPE EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING GRADE CROWNED MINERAL SOIL, COMPACTED

BACKSLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 2:1, SCATTER THIN LAYER OF DUFF ON BACKSLOPE

UNDISTURBED MINERAL SOIL

TREAD - NATURAL SURFACE MINERAL SOIL, 2% OUTSLOPE

EXISTING GRADE 3/8" MINUS CRUSHED STONE (COMPACTED), 2% OUTSLOPE, 6" MIN DEPTH UNDISTURBED EARTH

UNDISTURBED EARTH

NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC DUFF EDGING TO DEFINE TREAD

EXCAVATED SOILS USED FOR SURFACING OR SCATTERED, COMPACTED, AND COVERED WITH DUFF ON DOWNSLOPE OF TREAD TO DEFINE

TOPSOIL OR DUFF EDGING TO DEFINE TREAD

18” - 48”

60”

18” - 48”

3 1

2

FULL BENCH NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL

FULL BENCH CRUSHED STONE TRAIL NOT TO SCALE

CROWNED NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

3/8" MINUS CRUSHED STONE (COMPACTED) TREAD, 6" MIN DEPTH, 2% OUTSLOPE MAX

2:1 BACKSLOPE CROWNED MINERAL SOIL, COMPACTED EXISTING GRADE

NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

UNDISTURBED MINERAL SOIL EXISTING GRADE 3/8" MINUS CRUSHED STONE (COMPACTED), UNDISTURBED EARTH 2% OUTSLOPE, 6" MIN DEPTH

UNDISTURBED EARTH

DUFF EDGING TO DEFINE TREAD NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

DUFF EDGING TO DEFINE TREAD

TOPSOIL OR DUFF EDGING TO DEFINE TREAD 60”

18” - 48” 60”

3 2

FULL BENCH CRUSHED STONE TRAIL NOT TO SCALE CROWNED NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL

4

CROWNED CRUSHED STONE TRAIL NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

7

Trail Section Details 3/8" MINUS CROWNED CRUSHED STONE OR MINERAL SOIL (COMPACTED), 6" MIN DEPTH, 2% OUTSLOPE MAX

3/8" MINUS CROWNED CRUSHED STONE, EXISTINGSOIL GRADE MINERAL (COMPACTED), 6" MIN DEPTH, 2% OUTSLOPE MAX 3/8" MINUS CROWNED CRUSHED STONE, MINERAL SOIL (COMPACTED), 6" MIN DEPTH, TURNPIKE STONES, 2% OUTSLOPE MAXSET TOUCHING

NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDISTURBED EARTH

NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

TURNPIKE STONES

CRUSHED STONE

STONE CRIB WALL, 3:1 BATTER

36” - 60”

UNDISTURBED MINERAL SOIL

36” - 60”

5 CROWNED TREAD WITH STONE TURNPIKE

6

NOT TO SCALE

STONE TURNPIKE PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE

7 TREAD W/CRIBWALL NOT TO SCALE

EXISTING GRADE 3/8" MINUS CROWNED CRUSHED STONE, 3/8" MINUS CROWNED CRUSHED STONE, MINERAL (COMPACTED), 6" DEPTH, MIN DEPTH, MINERAL SOIL SOIL (COMPACTED), 6" MIN 2% OUTSLOPE 2% OUTSLOPE MAX MAX NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TURNPIKE STONES, SET TOUCHING

3/8" MINUS CRUSHED STONE, COMPACTED, 6" MIN

CRUSHED STONE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAP

DUFF

STONE CRIB WALL, 3:1 BATTER

EXISTING GRADE UNDISTURBED MINERAL SOIL

36” - 60”

8

PLAN VIEW 6 7 STONE TREADTURNPIKE W/CRIBWALL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE

8

DRAINAGE LENSE NOT TO SCALE

CRUSHED STONE

9 CHECK DAM WITH BRUSH

Trail Section Details

NOT TO SCALE

WOODY BRUSH ARRANGED IN A HAPHAZARD MANNER, MATERIAL SHOULD COME FROM ON SITE LEAF LITTER, TOP SOIL (DUFF) SCARIFY SOIL ALONG COMPACTED TREAD ROCK OR LOG CHECK DAM ANCHORS SET ACROSS TRAIL FOR STABILIZATION, EXTEND CHECK DAMS ACROSS WIDTH OF TRAIL AND EMBED MIN 1’ INTO HILLSIDE

WOODY BRUSH ARRANGED IN A HAPHAZARD MANNER, MATERIAL SHOULD COME FROM ON SITE ANCHOR OR BARRIER ROCKS (AS NEEDED)

CHECK DAM SPACING: 15’ APART ON SLOPES OVER 12% 25’ APART ON SLOPES 8%-12% USE OCCASIONALLY ON SLOPES UNDER 8%

LEAF LITTER, TOP SOIL (DUFF) SCARIFY SOIL ALONG COMPACTED TREAD EXISTING TREAD

10 TRAIL NATURALIZATION

9 CHECK DAM WITH BRUSH

NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

WOODY BRUSH ARRANGED IN A HAPHAZARD MANNER, MATERIAL SHOULD COME FROM ON SITE ANCHOR OR BARRIER ROCKS (AS NEEDED) LEAF LITTER, TOP SOIL (DUFF) SCARIFY SOIL ALONG COMPACTED TREAD EXISTING TREAD

10 TRAIL NATURALIZATION NOT TO SCALE

9

Arms Forest Trail Construction Specifications

Trail Spec: Trail Surfacing Rationale: When native soils are not suitable for trail surfacing or when the trail’s intended use requires a

hardened surface, it is necessary to import and install surfacing. Often this is the case when the trail will be deemed to be Equal Access. Typically, the cost per ton of crushed stone surfacing is reasonable. The cost for transporting the material is much higher. It is worth paying more to have the correct material transported from a longer distance than to use local material that is not sustainable.

Construction Specification:

Material: Trail surfacing typically conforms to a specific sieve analysis. Quarries produce crushed stone that conforms to a variety of sizes ranging from stone dust to small aggregates that are 3/8” in size. It is important to monitor the material as it is delivered from the quarry to ensure it complies with the intended sieve analysis.

Dimension: The size of the surfacing is often dependent on the quality of the parent stone that is crushed.

The best material to use is a hard stone such as granite. The material is crushed to conform to a specific sieve analysis, or sizing chart. Please refer to Figure 1 for a suggested sieve analysis for crushed stone.

Installation: Step 1: Before the surfacing is installed, the trail tread is to be excavated and cleared of any vegetative material. All roots are to be clipped flush with the ground. The excavated material is piled on the edges of the trail, this will be used later to support the trail surfacing.

Step 2: The trail is then monitored for running grade. A naturally surfaced trail is most sustainable at grades that remain between 5-8%. This will prevent migration and erosion of surfacing. To maintain a sustainable running grade, 1 ½” washed crushed stone trail base may need to be installed to raise sections of the trail.

This material should be installed and compacted to ensure the trails remains flat.

Step 3: A non-woven geotextile fabric should be installed on top of the excavated soil, as needed, and wherever 1 ½” crushed stone is installed. The fabric allows the trail to float on top of the mineral soil, spreads out the weight of the surfacing, and prevents the surfacing from mixing with the mineral soil and crushed stone.

Step 4: Trail surfacing is typically installed at a depth of 6-10”. The surfacing is smoothed out using either hand tools or machinery. The surfacing’s depth will vary on the terrain, but it should be no less than 6” in depth. While smoothing out the surfacing, it is important to maintain an outslope of 2%, ensure that grade reversals remain intact, and that the surfacing is flush with the top of stone walls to ensure proper drainage.

Step 5: After the surfacing has been installed, it is compacted with a vibratory compactor. It is most effective to compact the surfacing after a rainfall. At minimum, the surfacing should be moist. Outslope and crowning can be monitored using a smartlevel. Please refer to Figure 2 for a detailed cross section of a naturally surfaced trail.

10

Arms Forest Trail Construction Specifications Figure 1: Crushed Stone Sieve Analysis for Naturally Surfaced Trail 3/8� Minus Crushed Stone Sieve Designation 3/8�

No. 4 No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200

Percent Passing 99% 65-85% 40-70% 25-50% 20-25% 10-20% 5-10%

Sources Include: http://www.americantrails.org/resources/trailbuilding/BuildCrushFinesOne.html Parker, Troy S. 1993. Open Space and Trails Program, Pitkin County, Colorado: Trails Design and Management Handbook. Boulder, CO: Natureshape.

Figure 2: Trail Tread Analysis

11

Arms Forest Trail Construction Specifications

Trail Spec: Wetland Boardwalk Rationale: Boardwalks are constructed when trails cross over or through sensitive wetlands where the

introduction of crushed stone and surfacing is not advised or permitted. The design of the Arms Forest Accessible Trail includes traveling through a designated wetland with active and intermittent water flows.

Construction Specification:

Material: Structurally sound and rot resistant construction material are to be used when constructing wetland boardwalks. A frost proof foundation is achieved by installing helical anchors. Pressure treated lumber is used for the framing whereas naturally rot resistant lumber such as Black locust, Ipe, White oak, or White cedar is used for the decking and railing components.

Dimension: The boardwalk should be built with a useable tread width of 5’. This allows for comfortable travel by two people walking side by side and provides room for two wheelchairs to pass each other. The railing, curbing, and barrier dimension depends on the height of the structure off the ground and the presence of open water.

Installation: 1. Helical Anchors: Helical anchors provide a frost proof foundation for the boardwalk. These are installed every 9’9” and are made of galvanized steel to resist corrosion. Depending on the quality of soil below the surface of the wetland, helical anchors are installed to depths ranging from 8’-20’.

2. Framing: Beam brackets are installed on top of the helical anchors that allow transition to the pressure treated framing. Girders or headers are installed, depending on the height of the structure and the grade of the section of boardwalk. If possible, girders allow for quick and efficient framing. Headers will require joist hangers and custom framing for each joist.

3. Curbing: Wherever the boardwalk does not rise above 30” off the ground or where open water is present, curbing can be installed. Curbing is made of 4x4 rot resistant material. The curbing is routed on the top two corners and is suspended 2” off the decking by small blocks of wood. Fasteners are drilled through the curbing and into the framing below.

4. Railing: A 42” high railing is installed at all points where the boardwalk is over 30” off the ground, in the presence of open water, or if the environment poses other safety risks. Railing posts are installed every 5’ on center. The railing infill should be a vinyl coated wire mesh that has openings no larger than 2” wide by 4” tall.

This helps to prevent small children from being able to climb the railing. A top cap with a dimension of 1 ½” thick by 8” wide is installed at a 10 degree angle to help shed water and snow. Also, 1x6 trim is installed throughout to help add strength and character to the railing system.

12

Arms Forest Trail Construction Specifications

Hartland, VT

Hartland, VT

13

Arms Forest Trail Construction Specifications

Shaftsbury State Park, VT

Mount Agamenticus, ME

14

Appendix 2 Cost Estimates

15

These construction cost estimates should be considered approximate, for planning purposes only. Detailed design/engineering (and estimating) would be required for the potential large-span bridge.

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Burlington, VT Trail Segment

Final Concept Trails Cost Per Foot

New Trail

Existing Trail

Total

Cost Per Foot

Total

Trail Segment Total

Trail 1 - Interprestive Trail 4' Wide

1550

$

35.00 $

54,250.00

393

$

19.00 $

7,467.00 $

61,717.00

Trail 2 - Universal Access 5' Wide

551

$

45.00 $

24,795.00

1086

$

45.00 $ 48,870.00 $

73,665.00

Trail 3 - Universal Access 5' Wide

1297

$

45.00 $

58,365.00

1190

$

45.00 $ 53,550.00 $

111,915.00

Trail 4 - Interpretive Trail 4' Wide

1009

$

385.00 $

388,465.00

453

$

15.45 $

6,998.85 $

395,463.85

Trail 9 - Hiking 18" - 36"

642

$

22.00 $

14,124.00

0 $ $ $ Final Concept Construction Cost = $

14,124.00 656,884.85

Final Concept Trails - Alternate

Trail 1 - Interprestive Trail 4' Wide

1550

Cost Per Foot $ 35.00 $

Trail 2 - Universal Access 5' Wide

551

$

Trail 3 - Universal Access 5' Wide

1297

Trail 4 -Universal Access 5' Wide Trail 5 - Universal Access 5' Wide

Trail Segment

Trail 9 - Hiking 18" - 36"

54,250.00

Existing Trail 393

45.00 $

24,795.00

1086

$

45.00 $ 48,870.00 $

73,665.00

$

45.00 $

58,365.00

1190

$

45.00 $ 53,550.00 $

111,915.00

384

$

48.75 $

18,720.00

257

$

15.45 $

3,970.65 $

22,690.65

0

$

48.75 $

954

$

45.00 $ 42,930.00 $

42,930.00

642

$

22.00 $

14,124.00 0 $ $ $ Final Concept - Alternate Construction Cost = $

14,124.00 327,041.65

New Trail

Total

-

Cost Per Foot $ 19.00 $

Trail Segment Total 7,467.00 $ 61,717.00

Total

Appendix 3 Permitting

17

Permitting and Environmental Review The future development of new trail infrastructure, site improvements, and the other ideas expressed in the final conceptual plans for Arms Forest all seek to improve the recreational value of the forest to the City. As described on the Existing Trails and Natural Resources Plan, the property comprising the Arms Forest has identified natural resources constraints such as wetlands, riparian wildlife connectivity areas, vernal pool, RTE (Rare, Threatened and Endangered) and uncommon species. While the conceptual plan was derived in consideration of these resources, and the appropriate attempts at avoidance are recommended, it is possible that as these concepts are refined further, some impacts to identified resources are possible. This is particularly true given the fact that the resources considered for these concepts were derived from more “remotely sensed” sources; not reflective of detailed environmental site investigations or analyses. Moving ahead, greater due diligence on important natural resources will be needed.

Given the above, the following permits are potentially required to advance elements of the concepts.

City of Burlington: • Zoning Permit • Construction Permit VT ANR – Watershed Management Division – Stormwater Program • Construction General Permit – required when project involves >/= 1 acre of total site disturbance.

• Stormwater Permit – required when project results in > 5,000 SF of new impervious or more than 1 acre of redevelopment.

VT ANR – Watershed Management Division – Wetlands Program • Wetlands Permit – required for impacts to wetlands and/or wetland buffers, pending a formal delineation and acceptance by VT ANR. The potential presence of a vernal pool would also likely trigger permit requirements with VT ANR. Again, a formal delineation and acceptance process with ANR is needed.

VT ANR – Department of Environmental Conservation • Stream Alteration General Permit - required when project involves: 1) the movement, fill, or excavation of 10 cubic yards or more of instream materials within the top-of-bank to top-of-bank, cross-sectional limits of perennial streams; 2) activities to construct or maintain a berm in a flood hazard area or river corridor; and 3) in-stream emergency protective measures. The existing drainage within the Arms Forest has not been classified as either perennial or intermittent. A detailed determination of the stream would need to be undertaken prior to any construction activities that either directly (ground-level) or indirectly (span) impact the drainage. The proposed bridge or crossing of this drainage may trigger review under this permit program.

VT ACT250 • No permit required if total site disturbance is < 10 acres. Based on the current concept plan, the threshold for triggering this requirement appears to not be met.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS While potential impacts to Rare, Threatened or Endangered (RTE) species or natural communities are possible with the implementation of the concept, a much more ground-level assessment would be needed in order to ascertain how such impacts could be addressed. In some instances, species or communities are interconnected or associated with underlying riparian or wetland areas. In these circumstances, the presence (or absence) of RTE or natural communities might be a factor that is considered in determining compliance.

18

COSTS Costs associated with permitting of the conceptual plan are in two parts: Fees â&#x20AC;&#x201C; fees are paid to various city and state agencies to process applications. The exact fees vary considerably and often scale to the size of the project. In the context of the conceptual plans for Arms Forest, except for a proposed bridge structure, most of the other improvements are modest. Permit fee costs would likely be under $10,000.

Supportive Environmental Analysis and Design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the conceptual improvements have considered their potential impacts on identified natural resources (i.e., wetlands, riparian areas, vernal pools, habitats). In some cases, the recommendations seek to remove existing trails, improving existing impacts. To be able to quantify new impacts and areas of environmental restoration, more detailed site-level environmental review is needed. If focused on validation of the currently identified resources, such a study might cost between $30,000 - $45,000. Design detailing would also be needed in some instances to better quantify impacts; particularly in areas where avoidance of impacts is not possible. Additional design work (exclusive of the bridge) could be between $20,000 - $30,000.

See Disturbance and Impervious Surface table for area disturbance and new impervious surface calculations.

19

Disturbance and Impervious Surface Table

Final Concept Trails

Trail Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Surface Natural Stonedust Stonedust Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural

Trail Type Length Linear Ft 3,660 Interpretive Trail - 48" wide Universal Access - 60" wide 1,637 Universal Access - 60" wide 2,487 Interpretive Trail - 48" wide 1,462 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 734 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 1,385 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 884 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 374 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 642 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 1,622 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 714 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 309 Hiking - 18" to 36" wide 1,249 Totals: 17,159

Trail Closures Length Linear Ft New Construction, Re- Length Linear Ft Route Existing Existing to upgrade 1,550 393 551 1,086 1,297 1,190 1,009 453

642

5,049

20

Disturbance (square Feet) 7,772 8,185 12,435 5,848

278

1,926 834

309

927

3,709

37,927

New Impervious (square feet) 8,185 12,435

20,620

Trail Length FT 1,587 243 699 239 442 545 815 436 306 74 1,159 444 566 597 447 497 471 237 517 Total 10,320

Appendix 4 Recommended Phasing Maps

21

EY

N

AR

LL

Legend

14 0

KI

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Final Concept - Phase 1

DR

15 0

0 19

180

16 0

13 0

North Avenue Alliance Church

180

Upgrade existing trail to universal access trail, stonedust surface

P

190 19 0

B

EA

Off Property Trail

Parcel Boundary

Trail Connection

190

2

TH

Parking

Trailhead Kiosk

Trailhead/ Access Point

Trails by Proposed Typology Existing Trail Upgraded to Universal Access Trail Standards (Stonedust Surface)

200

LI

Elks Club Property NO PUBLIC ACCESS

RD

Stream

190

E

L TT

E GL

AY

Arms Forest Boundary

190

200

19 0

2

0 20

Trails in this area are recommended for decommissioning due to steep slopes, sensitive ecology and connection to Elks Property

Short section realignments to meet universal access grade requirements

1 Close Trail to Vernal Pool

Arms Forest

RT

190

E

AV

Study for possible bike access

17 0

0 19

Prepared by:

160

Study for possible bike access 230

December, 2019

240

0 24

250

260

1 270

14 0

190

150

0 18

170

250

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades and avoid parking lot, natural surface

IN

RL

PO

170

BU

IN

EE GR

Phase 1

W

17 0

0 17

N

• Close recommended trails

220

N

RO

Former Quarry Site

O GT

CK

RD

1

160 0 15

T

1

0 27

15 0

P ck Point To Ro

TH

AY Episcopal 170 Diocese of Vermont

230

190

• Install new trailhead kiosk and signage at High School entrance • Re-route the beginning of Trail 1 from High School parking lot to reduce steep grades

Burlington High School

170

14 0

• Re-route section of trail 1 out of the upper school parking lot along hillside and continue to base ofRock hill to reduce steep Point grades

• Upgrade Trail 2 to Universal Access trail standards. Provide a turnaround at the junction with Trail 3 & 4

22

TE

U IT

ST

IN

• Upgrade sections of Trail 1 where needed, install turnpiking in wet sections

Poposed Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

Existing Trail to be Closed

H

15 0

130

Proposed Natural Surface Interpretive Trail (Multi-Use)

O

0 15

150

0 15

1

Existing Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

N

18 0

Existing Natural Surface Interpretive Trail (Multi-Use)

Proposed Trail Universal Access Trail Standards (Stonedust Surface)

RD

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades, natural surface, new trailhead parking and kiosk

EY

N

AR

LL

Legend

14 0

KI

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Final Concept - Phase 2

DR

15 0

0 19

180

16 0

13 0

North Avenue Alliance Church

180

TH

190

EA

200

Short section realignments to meet universal access grade requirements

0 20

190

H

240

150

190

0 27

New hiking trail connection creating internal loop avoiding Diocese field

250

170

170

220

Former Quarry Site

N

O GT

RO

IN

RL

PO

270

BU

IN

CK

RD

250

260

0 18

0 15

EE GR W

N

17 0

0 17

ck Point To Ro

AY

• Create a designated trailhead parking area and install trailhead kiosk and signage at North Avenue Alliance Church

Episcopal 170 Diocese of Vermont

230

190

Phase 2

Burlington High School

170

14 0

• Create new Universal Access Trail along edge of the parking lot • Upgrade Trail 3 to Universal Access

Proposed Natural Surface Interpretive Trail (Multi-Use) Poposed Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

E

AV

0 19

160

9

14 0

160

Proposed Trail Universal Access Trail Standards (Stonedust Surface)

Existing Trail to be Closed Prepared by:

0 24

T

Trailhead/ Access Point

Existing Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

RT

3 230

15 0

Trailhead Kiosk

O

0 15

Upgrade existing trail to 1 0 universal access 7trail, stonedust surface

15 0

130

Parking

Existing Natural Surface Interpretive Trail (Multi-Use)

N

18 0

Parcel Boundary

Existing Trail Upgraded to Universal Access Trail Standards (Stonedust Surface)

190

150

Off Property Trail

Trails by Proposed Typology

Arms Forest 0 15

P

New Universal Access Trail, re-route around sensitive area on hillside, stonedust surface

3

Stream

Trail Connection

TH

3

19 0

Proposed parking area moved closer to entry, new trailhead kiosk sign, new universal access trail through edge of woods, stonedust surface

19 0

B

200

LI

Elks Club Property NO PUBLIC ACCESS

RD

190

E

L TT

E GL

AY

P

190

Arms Forest Boundary

ST

IN

Rock trail Point standards.

• Install a new segment of Trail 3 to create a Universal Access loop from the North Avenue Alliance Church • Close segment of trail through ecologically sensitive area • Build Trail 9

23

TE

U IT

RD

December, 2019

EY

N

AR

LL

Legend

14 0

KI

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Final Concept - Phase 3

DR

15 0

0 19

180

16 0

13 0

North Avenue Alliance Church

180

190

P

19 0

B

EA

TH

Parcel Boundary

Parking

Trailhead Kiosk

Trailhead/ Access Point

Trails by Proposed Typology Existing Trail Upgraded to Universal Access Trail Standards (Stonedust Surface)

19 0

200

190

0 20

Existing Natural Surface Interpretive Trail (Multi-Use) Existing Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

Arms Forest

4

150

1

18 0

15 0

4

Prepared by:

17 0

0 19

130

160

230

4

150

190

0 27

New trailhead access from bike path, natural surface and sections of elevated boardwalk, new bridge 15 0 160 over stream. Long range project.

0 15

0 18

170

170

IN

Former Quarry Site

N

O GT

RO

220

RL

PO

250

BU

IN

CK

RD

250

260

270

14 0

T

240

0 24

TH

EE GR W

N

17 0

0 17

Proposed Trail Universal Access Trail Standards (Stonedust Surface) Proposed Natural Surface Interpretive Trail (Multi-Use) Poposed Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

Existing Trail to be Closed

190

0 15

New bridge 75’ - 100’ long 50

ck Point To Ro

AY Episcopal 170 Diocese of Vermont

230

190

Burlington High School

170

14 0

Phase 3

Off Property Trail Trail Connection

190

200

LI

Elks Club Property NO PUBLIC ACCESS

RD

Stream

190

E

L TT

E GL

AY

Arms Forest Boundary

ST

IN

Rock Point

• Create new trailhead along the Burlington Greenway, install kiosk and signage • Build new segment of Trail 4 ( sections of sidehill trail, boardwalk and bridge) connecting Arms Forest to the Greenway

24

TE

U IT

RD

December, 2019

Appendix 5 Trail Assessment Memo

25

130

160

14 0

140 150

15 0

170

0 19

180 16 0

180

180

190

190

180

160 0 15

Legend Arms Forest Boundary

170

19 0

210

200

15

25 3.3

24

210

24

21

0 24

240 260

26.1

20

3.4

160

7

270

4

9 4

27.1

5.1

11

5.2

250

170

16 0

20

170

0 18

0 15

190

26.2

15 0

170

250

8

150

15 0

17 0

21 0

0 27

190

13

26

14 0

190

Vascular Plant

230

0 17

15 0

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

28

11

23

20

130

180

22

24

17 0

160

0 13

120

190

18 0

23

0 19

110

22

22

130

110

50

Prepared by:

15 15 0

Transition Hardwood Limestone Forest 0 12

0 15

3.2

14

11

150

190 200

0 15

11

Vascular Plant

0 20

14

Existing Trail Multi-Use

Existing Trail Universal Access Mesic Maple Ash-Oak-Hickory Forest 1

16

16

Existing Multi-Use Nature Trail

190

200

17 0

3.1

Stream

Uncommon Species

18 11

Existing Social Trail

Existing Trails by Typology

190

17

Parcel Boundary 110

Existing Trail

220 0 16

27.2

0 15 17 0

0 17

0 17

230

170

0 17

190

190

0 15

180

Contour Interval = 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; SCALE (ft) 150

200

190

100

170

0 16 0 15

14 0

50

0 15

0

20 0

N

0 11

1

0 14

11

130

120

July 10, 2019

130

Wetland

19

220

120

Trail Assesment

130

190 19 0

2

180

18 0

180

0 170 17

140 Arms Forest Trails Master Plan

180

17 0

170

13 0

190

26

130

160

14 0

140 150

15 0

170

0 19

180 16 0

180

180

17 0

170

13 0

190

180

190

180

180 200

17 0

19 0

210 190

200

70% and

190

25 - 45% 8 - 25% 0 - 8%

13

25

210

24

26

21

0 24

240 260

26.1 3.4

160

7

270

4

9 4

12

27.1

5.1

11

5.2

6

250

170

16 0

20

170

0 18

0 15

190

26.2

15 0

170

250

8

10

150

15 0

July 25, 2019

3.3

24

20

17 0

21 0

Prepared by:

0 27

190

Trail to be closed and re-naturalized

Above

230

14 0

15 0

Slope Analysis

28

11

23

20

0 17

180

22

24

17 0

130

Existing Trail Multi-Use

0 12

18 0

160

0 13

120

22

23

0 19

110

110

Existing Trail Universal Access

45 - 70%

15

15 0

Existing Trail Hike Only

Proposed MultiUse Nature Trail Proposed Multi-150 Use Trail

22

130

Existing Multi-Use Nature Trail

190 200

0 15

Stream

Proposed Re- Routes by Typology

3.2

14

11

190

16

15

220 0 16

27.2

0 15 17 0

0 17

0 17

230

170

0 17

190

190

180

0 15 170

190

20 0

0 16 0 15

0 15

14 0

0 11

170

3.1

Existing Social Trail

Existing Trails by Proposed Typology 0 14

11

17

Parcel Boundary 110

Existing Trail

0 20

0 15

150

Arms Forest Boundary

1

Wetland

11

130

120

Legend

190

16

11

130

29

18

14

140 Trails Master Plan Arms Forest 120 Trail Assesment Proposed Trail 130 Typologies & Slope Analysis

190 19 0

2

19

220

160 0 15

18 0

180

0 170 17

190

27

ARMS FOREST TRAIL ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM 131 Church Street Suite 300 Burlington, VT 05401 O ff i c e : 8 0 2 . 8 6 2 . 0 0 9 8 | w w w. s e g r o u p . c o m

TO:

Max Madalinski, Associate Parks Project Coordinator Burlington Parks, Recreation & Waterfront

FROM: SE Group CC: DATE: 7/25/2019 RE: Trail Assessment Report Designated as an Urban Wild, Arms Forest represents a unique block of open space in Burlington, and the current network of trails and unmanaged use represents an unsustainable condition that undermines sensitive ecological areas of the site. In many cases, the trails do not conform to current best practices for trail design. This assessment report includes notes and recommendations (keyed to the Trail Assessment Map) that address the current uses, which include hiking/walking/running and mountain biking. Winter activities include cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. The ultimate allowed uses within Arms Forest remain to be determined, dependent on the outcome of working through the process of synthesizing input from City staff, the public, and stakeholders. Our initial assessment is that multi-use trails that are appropriately designed, constructed, and maintained could be compatible with the goal of ecological protection. Re-routes for some sections of trail are recommended in various locations, and some trails are recommended for closure. This analysis will serve as the foundation for the subsequent trail siting and concept development process. This document also includes information on typical trail typologies.

Trail 1 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail Proposed Trail Typology: Universal Access Length: 523’ Tread: 5’ wide average, natural surface, generally good condition, some wet areas and a couple of bridges that are in fair/good condition they have some siting issues, some tread cupping Notes: • This is one of the main trails into Arms Forest • Other possible trail alignments were explored from the church parking lot’s southeast corner, but ledge outcrops make an accessible path challenging Recommendations: • This trail should remain but could include upgrades to raise grade and create a continuous multi-use stonedust path through to the bike path

28

Trail 2 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 463’ Tread:18” – 24” wide, natural surface, low usage, crosses a wet area onto the Elks Property Notes: • This trail is just a cut through to the Elk’s property Recommendations: Closure

Trail 3 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Hike only, some sections closed Length: 1897’ Tread: 18” – 24” wide, natural surface, some exposed ledge sections but minimal trail widening for most of the trail, exposed rocks and roots but fitting rugged trail character and in generally good condition, moderate usage, Notes: • Trail passes through some sensitive wildflower areas but narrow 18”-24” tread width is maintained for most of the trail • First third (trail 3.1) of trail is steep and rugged going through sensitive natural communities. This section should be closed or converted to hike only • Section 3.2 follows rolling terrain up a few ledge sections. Trail maintains narrow character except where trail switches back over short rock outcrop where it widens to 48” Just past this section is a herd path to the vernal pool • Section 3.3 the trail climbs and descends again over rugged ledge outcrop which can be very slick when wet • Section 3.4 This part of the trail goes straight up the steep slope at an unsustainable grade. There is a wooden bike jump at the top of the slope that should be removed Recommendations: • Section 3.1: closure • Sections 3.2 & 3.3: hike only • Section 3.4: closure

29

Trail 4 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail Length: 414’ • Tread: 18” – 24” average width, natural surface, good condition, rolling sidehill Notes: • This trail connects two of the upper parking lots at the back of the High School • Trail goes through a circle of benches near upper entrance Recommendations: • Upgrade to 5’ wide multi-use path typology. This will provide an easy/moderate route from the High School to the Bike Path • Clean up or remove old sugar house near parking lot

Trail 5 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail , lower section closed w/re-route Length: 730’ Tread: 24” – 48” wide, natural surface tread with sections of crushed limestone to fix wet areas. The trail widens as it descends to the bus turnaround.

Notes: • Main High School entrance, new parking lot will have some public parking here • Main entrance for XC Races Recommendations: • Lower section (5.2) is steep and should be closed. A re-route around this section is possible that follows some of the natural benches around rock outcrops • Trail 6 shows conceptual alignment. Final alignment will need to be field staked to maintain consistent 5% - 8% grade

Trail 6 Proposed Trail Typology: Re-route, Multi-Use Nature Trail Recommendations: • Proposed 5’ wide, multi use trail natural surface or stonedust surface, maintain 5% - 8% average grade • Close down/naturalize section 5.2

30

Trail 7 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use, Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 250’ Tread: 24” – 48” wide, rugged natural surface Notes: • Trail begins at North Ave. sidewalk and climbs steeply passing through rugged root and ledge section • Not a very well used entrance, it’s difficult to see from the sidewalk and is overgrown with vegetation Recommendations: Closure

Trail 8 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 531’ Tread: 18” – 24” wide, rugged natural surface Notes: • Moderate/advanced technical singletrack trail • Low/moderate usage • Rolling sidehill that also provides some technical rock features Recommendations: • Ride arounds needed at rock features to make suitable for beg/int ability levels

Trail 9 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 230’ Tread: 18” wide, rugged natural surface Notes: Little used heard path, provides a short technical loop when combined with trail 8 Recommendations: Ride arounds needed at rock features to make suitable for beg/int ability levels

31

Trail 10 Proposed Trail Typology: Re-route - Multi-Use Length: ?

Tread: 18” – 24” wide, natural surface Notes: • Alternate route down through rock outcropping, sidehill trail with climbing type turns, maintaining 8% average grade • Moderate ability level • Conceptual alignment following natural benches, using large existing trees as “anchors” for turns with interesting path through rock boulders • Final alignment will need field verification and flagging

Trail 11 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Nature Trail, becoming Universal Access trail at junction with trail 1to bike path Length: 3679’ Tread: Variable, 5’-6’ wide average, some wider sections where the trail is steep or there are rock outcrops. Some sections have been improved with crushed stone or turnpiking in muddy areas. Some muddy areas still existing.

Notes: • This is the main route through Arms Forest and sees the most amount of use • The High School uses it for XC Races • There are some steeper sections that could be re-routed to lessen the grade • There are also a few ledge sections and wet areas that should be addressed Recommendations: • Turnpiking for 377’ just before junction with trail 1 continuing to junction with trail 20.

• Possible re-route (trail 12) of the first 350’ of trail as it descends from the upper high school parking lot at steep grade • Upgrade entire trail to follow the characteristics of a walking/nature trail at 5’ wide, <5% average grade with short sections 8%-10% • Opportunities exist for interpretive signage along route • This trail leads onto the Elks property and is currently the best connection to the bike path. An alternate route outside the Elks property may be possible but would be costly due to the steep slopes and its location within the stream buffer could present permitting challenge

32

Trail 12 Proposed Trail Typology: Re-route - Multi-Use Nature Trail Length: ?

Tread: 5’ wide, crushed stone or natural surface, nature trail character Notes: Re-Route of upper section of trail 13

Trail 13 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 1402’ Tread: 18” -24” wide, natural surface, rugged sections Notes: • Gentle rolling terrain with some rock outcrop sections • Low/Moderate use • Wet section for 150’ west of junction with trail sections 3.3/3.4.

Recommendations: • Fix wet sections

Trail 14 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 779’ Tread: 18” – 6’ wide, natural surface, eroded sections up steep slope, ledge outcrops, rough trail near junction with trail 17 Notes: • Steep and eroded • Passes through sensitive natural communities Recommendations: Closure

Trail 15 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 408’ Tread: 18” – 6’ wide, natural surface, eroded sections up steep slope, ledge outcrops, rough trail Notes: • Steep and eroded • Passes through sensitive natural communities Recommendations: Closure

33

Trail 16 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Hike only Length: 571’ Tread: 18” – 24’ wide, natural surface, rugged sections over ledge and roots Notes: • General rugged trail going to high point on Elk’s property • Popular viewpoint of lake Recommendations: • Maintain rugged character • Trail hardening in sections • Out and back hiking trail only • Close all other trails on highpoint area

Trail 17 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 400’ Tread: 18” – 24’ wide, natural surface, rugged sections over ledge and roots Notes: Trail passes through sensitive natural communities Rugged with steep eroded sections Recommendations: Closure

Trail 18 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use, Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 662’ Tread: 18” – 24’ wide, natural surface, rugged sections over ledge and roots Notes: • Trail passes through sensitive natural communities • Rugged with steep eroded sections Recommendations: Closure

34

Trail 19 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Type: Closure Length: 450’ Tread: 48” – 60’ wide, natural surface Notes: • Access path to Elk’s property trails.

• Used by the high school xc-team for races.

Recommendations: • Closure

Trail 20 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use, Proposed Trail Typology: Hike Only Length: 1214’ Tread: 24” –36” wide, natural surface and boardwalk Notes: • Access trail to Diocese • Trail used by Crow’s Path • Trail passes through a wetland and has a bunch of wet sections; most sections have been upgraded with puncheon (bog bridges) • The puncheon are made with two running planks making them suitable for walking only Recommendations: • Complete puncheon

Trail 21 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 932’ Tread: 18” –36” wide, natural surface, rugged, steep eroded Notes: • An old ropes course is located off the side of this trail, and it appears abandoned and in disrepair • The trail passes through the course straight down the stream bank and up the other side. There are old check steps, but these have become eroded and unsafe with rebar sticking out. This work should be removed, the trail closed, and the stream bank restored Recommendations: Closure

35

Trail 22 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 1069’ Tread: 18” –36” wide, natural surface, a few muddy sections Notes: • Trail 22 creates an opportunity for a rugged inner loop within Arms forest. It passes by some interesting rock outcroppings with a short technical side loop over area high point • This trail is in a less sensitive area of the forest and provides an opportunity for mountain bike use • There are a few wet sections that should be addressed but much of the trail is in good condition • This area feels more remote than other parts of the forest, the “wild” character should be maintained Recommendations: • Fix wet sections

Trail 23 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 281’ Tread: 18” – 24” wide, natural surface, some rugged rock outcrop near junction with trail 25 Note: • Short rugged trail connection creating inner loop.

• Rock ledge sections near trail 25 has some challenging rock outcrop features for mod/advanced riders Recommendations: • Provide ride around for technical sections

Trail 24 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 281’ Tread: 18” – 24” wide, natural surface Note: • Short rugged multi-use trail with some technical sections over rock outcrop creating inner loop Recommendations:

36

Trail 25 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 281’ Tread: 18” – 24” wide, natural surface, rugged with small rock outcrops Note: • Short rugged multi-use trail with some technical sections over rock outcrop creating inner loop Recommendations:

Trail 26.1 - 26.2 Existing Trail Typology: Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Hike only Length: 840’ Tread: 18”” wide natural surface herd path Note: • Little used narrow path along woods line, more of a herd path than trail • Overgrown in areas • Ends in Diocese field Recommendations: • Add puncheon in wet areas as a hiker only connection to trail 26 • Close section 27.2 leading to mowed Diocese field and create new multi-use trail that connects back with trail 11

Trail 27.1-27.2 Existing Trail Typology: – Multi-Use Proposed Trail Typology: Hike Only Length: 377’ Tread: 18” – 36” wide, natural surface, wet and rocky sections Note: • This is a spur connection off the main trail (trail 11) leading to the Diocese field • It is pretty over grown in areas and needs side-cutting and turnpiking through muddy sections • A short spur leads to the base of rock quarry, this is a good spot for some interpretive signage about the history of the site Recommendations: • Consider closing lower section (27.2), the trail leads to Diocese field and comes out next to private residence

37

Trail 28 Existing Trail Typology: Herd Path Proposed Trail Typology: Closed Length: 415’ Tread: 18” wide, natural surface Note: • Herd path to vernal pool • This is a sensitive ecological area and should be closed, or established with interpretive signage Recommendations: Closure

Trail 29 Proposed Trail Typology: Multi-Use Length: 460’ Tread: 18” – 24” wide, natural surface Note: Alternative rugged multi-use path connecting to trail 1 and singletrack loops.

38

The following pages include information on typical trail typologies.

39

Vermont Town Forest Trail Design Guide

Trail Corridor Hiking

4’ - 6’ width,

(high challenge)

8’ height

Tread Width

Longitudinal Slopes

Cross Slope

• 0 - 12% 12” - 24”

15%+ for short segments with trail hardening

2% - 10%

NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS: NON-MOTORIZED

• 0 - 10%

Hiking (moderate challenge)

4’ - 6’ width, 8’ height

• 8% or less average grade 18”- 36”

• 12% -15% for short segments with trail hardening 2% - 8%

Notes Native material, variable surface, naturally occurring obstacles, trail structures minimal but can include steps/ladders, bridges, bog, bridges, walls, waterbars, grade reversals, turnpikes, and switchbacks.

Native material, variable surface, naturally occurring obstacles, trail structures minimal but can include steps/ladders, bridges, bog, bridges, walls, waterbars, grade reversals, turnpikes, and switchbacks.

• 0 - 5% average • 5% - 8.33% for 200’ Max between resting interval

Hiking (Universal Access Trail) Walking/Nature Trail

6’ - 12’ width, 8’-12’ height

2% - 5%

Native material, surface generally free of obstacles. Short loops, can include interpretive signage, benches for resting, boardwalks

2% - 5%

Native material, surface generally free of obstacles, unavoidable obstacles 2” or less.

Singletrack trail can incorporate small structures or parallel trail features for skills advancement, bridges should be minimum 36” width

• 8.33% - 10% for 30’ Max between resting interval 36”- 60”

6’ - 12’ width, 8’-12’ height

2% - 3%

Firm and stable surface material. Generally imported but native material may be used if suitable. Generally free of obstacles. Passing spaces needed on trails with tread under 60”

• 10% - 12% for 10’ Max between resting interval • 0 - 8%

36”- 60”

• 5% or less average grade prefered, 10% max • 0 - 5%

Mountain Biking (easy)

4’ - 8’ width, 8’-12’ height

• 5% or less average grade 24”- 48”

• Short sections 10%-15%

2% - 10%

Native material, unavoidable obstacles 8” or less. Singletrack trail can incorporate technical features, rocky sections, tree roots, and include berms, rollers, banked/insloped turns, switchbacks, rock gardens, drops, jumps, and so forth. Bridges should be minimum 24” width.

Native material, unavoidable obstacles 15” or less. Singletrack trail can incorporate technical features, rocky sections, tree roots, and include berms, rollers, banked/insloped turns, switchbacks, rock gardens, drops, jumps, and so forth. Bridges 24” or less, short sections may exceed criteria

2% - 5%

Native material, surface generally free of obstacles, unavoidable obstacles 2” or less, usually benched/sidehilled with grade reversals before and after turns, climbing turns used on shallow slopes 7% or less, 20’+ radius. Steep climbing turns that follow the fall line should be avoided

• 0 - 10%

Mountain Biking (moderate)

• 10% or less average grade for sustainable tread

4’ - 6’ width, 8’-10’ height

18”- 36”

• 15% max for short segments with trail hardening

2% - 8%

• 0 - 12% • 10% or less average grade for sustainable tread

Mountain Biking (advanced)

Mountain Biking (uphill only route) 28

4’ - 6’ width, 8’ height

12”- 24”

• 2 - 5%

4’ - 8’ width, 8’-12’ height

• 15%+ max for short segments with trail hardening

18”- 48”

• 5% or less average grade, 10% max

Vermont Town Forest Trail Design Guide

NST: NON-MOTORIZED

Trail Corridor

Tread Width

Longitudinal Slopes

Cross Slope

2% - 5%

Native material, surface generally free of obstacles, unavoidable obstacles 6” or less.

Structures such as steps will need wider landings (4’-5’) to accommodate the horses stride. Turns should have a radius of 5’-8’, climbing turns are easier for a horse to navigate than a regular switchback. Passing areas should also be used on steeper terrain.

2% - 8%

Native material, variable surface, naturally occurring obstacles, trail structures minimal but can include bridges, berms, insloped turns, walls, grade reversals, turnpikes, and switchbacks.

Structures such as steps will need wider landings (4’-5’) to accommodate the horses stride. Turns should have a radius of 5’-8’, climbing turns are easier for a horse to navigate than a regular switchback. Passing areas should also be used on steeper terrain.

2% - 8%

Snowshoe trails are compatible with most other summer natural surface trails. They can be on grooomed, packed or loose snow surfaces, which may be shared with xc-skiers.

• 0 - 5% preferred • 10% or less average grade for sustainable tread

6’ - 8’ width,

Equestrian

8’-12’ height

18”- 48”

• Up to 15% grade for no more than 200 feet

• 0 - 5% preferred

Multi-use (hike, bike, horse)

• 10% or less average grade for sustainable tread

4’ - 8’ width, 8’-12’ height

18”- 48”

• Up to 15% grade for no more than 200 feet

4’ - 6’ width,

WINTER NON-MOTORIZED

Snowshoeing

8’ - 10’ height 18”- 48”

• 0 - 12%

• Easy 0-4% Average Grade, 10%-12% max hill grade

6’ - 12’ width,

XC - Skiing

10’ - 12’ height 3’ - 12’

• Intermediate 6%-12%, Average Grade, 12%-18% max hill grade • Advanced 12%+ Average Grade, 18%-40%+ max hill grade for short distances 2% - 5%

• 0 - 5%

Fat Biking

4’ - 6’ width,

• 5% or less average grade

10’ - 12’ height 18”- 48”

• Short sections 10%-15%

Notes

2% - 5%

XC_trails can be single or bi-directional with enough terrain variation for interest based on ability level. Trail surface can be on grooomed, packed or loose snow. In general ensure sight distances of 50 feet and 100 feet on downhills and tight curves. Bridges should be 6’ - 12’ wide, avoid placing at the bottom of a steep hill. Provide a runout. Curves should be wider than other trail types with a radius of 20’ min 100’.

Similar to singletrack although the bench should be slightly wider to accommodate a groomer in the winter. Mechanically groomed, the hard packed trail is approx 20″ wide. Turns should be wider and flatter than typical singletrack to accommodate the grooming machine, 25’ Radius works well for most situations.

29

Appendix 6 May 5, 2019 Community Engagement Summary

42

BURLINGTON ARMS FOREST 131 Church St, Suite 300, Burlington, VT 05401 Office: 802.862.0098 | www.segroup.com

PUBLIC WORKSHOP RESULTS & STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Over the course of two months, SE Group conducted two public meetings and received feedback from four stakeholder groups. One of the public meetings was primarily for residents of the Killarney neighborhood while the second was open to the general public. The stakeholder meetings were broken up into property owners. Of the five property owners, four have committed to a cooperative management system. In addition to the public workshop, the City of Burlington conducted a survey that asked many of the same workshop questions. The survey received 232 responses.

The stakeholders discussed concerns about the current uses and existing conditions, future management of the site, restricted uses, site access, parking, management balance, and stewardship.

ARMS FOREST PUBLIC WORKSHOP MAY 15 TH

Workshop participants were asked how they are most likely to access Arms Forest. Responses leaned heavily toward Foot/Human Power and Bicycle. And the vast majority of participants indicated they live less than 2 miles from Arms Forest, with quite a few showing they live adjacent.

1 43

Additionally, participants were given space to write in thoughts on access and amenity improvements.

Results indicated majority support for Trail Improvements, Formalized Trailheads and Trail Markers/Direction Signage, while Parking with Direct Access to Trails was not required. Other thoughts provided in the Write In area voiced concerns regarding the preservation of “sensitive areas” and having defined areas for bike activity.

Workshop participants were asked to rate the desirability of certain activities that could be offered at Arms Forest. Results indicated heavy support for: • • • • • • •

Hiking Running Accessible Path Ecology Tours Birding/Wildlife viewing Snowshoeing XC-Skiing Education Programs/Outdoor Classroom

Responses were split on the following activities: • • • • •

Dog Walking Biking Natural Views and Resting Spots Interpretive Nature Trail + Education Signage Groomed Winter Trail

2 44

Results indicate that the follow activities are generally viewed as neutral or not required: • • • • • •

Races (XC-Running, XC Skiing) Geocaching Fat Biking Arts (fairy houses, natural installations, plein air painting, stick shelters, etc.)

Lessons, Skills Camps, Clinics (orienteering, trail running) Organized/Guided Community Events (theater in the woods, haunted walk

3 45

4 46

5 47

Space was provided to Write In additional Activities, Programs and Events. There were multiple mentions of signage and maps, but also sentiment that there should be no additional activities developed with the idea of “keeping it wild.” This was especially evident under “Events.”

Participants were asked to write in how they currently engage with Arms Forest. Responses indicate that people appreciate the quiet solitude the space provides as well as strong appreciation for challenging and close mountain bike trails. Current use of the forest leans mostly toward walking and nature viewing as well as biking. Participants indicate they typically access the forest on foot through the Elks Club property or bike path. Some people indicated they do not want MTB trails, however there is also support with the caveat that any MTB trails be designated and well-marked.

Participants were asked to share their knowledge and experience with the Natural Resources that exist in Arms Forest. Users mentioned the vernal pool, ladyslippers and having seen deer, fox, owls and other birds the most. When asked about human activities that may conflict with the conservation of these resources most of the comments referred to mountain biking and dogs.

6 48

7 49

8 50

Comments from Comment Box: • • •

•

• • • •

•

If you want to protect the “fragility” of the woods (i.e. rocks and soil) you wouldn’t consider MT Bike (or perhaps any bikes) for a minute! Sara Beuchaud.

Show the need to make Arms a focused place of conservation and that restrictive practices for recreation need to be in place to “save” this jewel.

I am really unhappy with Parks and Rec trying to turn a natural area into something to be more “useful” or “accessible” to humans. Can’t we have one natural area that exists without trying to add exercise equipment, workout stations, better paths, wooden bridges, etc. I want minimal improvements, if any at all.

It is important to consider the drainage of rainwater onto Killarney Drive. Currently water causes property damage and the City refuses to improve the near century old sewer/rainwater drains in the road. Any trail improvements should include a plant to safely flow water away from property.

It’s people’s homes! And largest investment. Thanks for hosting a great, informative event.

Please keep mountain bikes out of Arms Forest. My 2 year-old granddaughter was nearly hit by a biker coming fast down a hill with no trail. They are an unacceptable safety and liability risk.

Keep it as a quiet serene walking, strolling place. Bikes – no! off-leash dogs – never.

No bikes, no dogs off leash! L Ayer I love this place and its tranquility. I don’t think responsible users threaten that experience and I hope we aren’t threatening the unique ecosystem. Happy to change small behaviors to limit trails to protect area but don’t want to see users limited. Bikers and dog walkers could be key stewards.

In my opinion, mtn biking has been well established in Arms Park for over 15 years. The best way to avoid rampant “freelancing” of new mtn bike trails I’d like to see FOTW come in and create and maintain sustainable network of trails >> improve existing single track and reroute if needed.

9 51

ARMS FOREST COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS (OPEN OCT-JUN) 232 people responded to the Arms Forest Survey. The results SE Group attained from the city included eleven write in questions regarding trail conditions, way finding, plants, wildlife, safety, general feedback. Below are selected answers from the survey responses.

Tell us what you like about the trail conditions.

• • • • • • • •

Number and variety of trails Good for walking and biking Natural feeling and looking Good condition Good but not too perfect Variety Interesting Easy to navigate

• • • • • • • •

Hard to navigate Poorly placed Convenience for biking Rustic feel Recent trail improvements Availability Close but felt far away Relatively unimproved

• •

Reduce non-primary trails If mountain biking is allowed, have wellmade trails Discrete signage Mountain biking creates ruts and berms, degrading the trails Mountain bike specific trails—like the technicality Keep it wild More consistent trail conditions

How can the trail conditions be improved?

• • • • • • • • • •

Better mapping and marking Protect for wet conditions Signage Control where bikers go Formalize trails Keep bikers off Close non-main trails to protect sensitive areas No mountain biking Better markings More defined

• • • • •

Tell us what you like about navigating through the trails.

• • • • • •

•

Not clear where each trail leads or if they loop Fun to wander Varying conditions Like the wild aspect of not having signs Sometimes you are guessing where you are ending up I don’t like it, it takes too a long time to make sense of them

• • • •

For new users no signage may be hard, but I like the wild sense of not having signs Many route options Wilderness feel Level trails are good for accessibility issues If you get lost its easy to get unlost

How can the trail navigation be improved?

• • • • • •

•

Navigation and signage Map No need Low impact signs Close non-main trails Arrows pointing main path directions

• • • • 10 52

Color coded or shape coded way to know what trail is what.

Stay on the trail signs Trail markers at junctions Basic maps Not too many markings (or none)

• • •

• •

Accessibility improvements on a few trails “you are here maps” More signs, I often get lost

•

Make people find their way, no signs FOTW could provide signs if they get involved No improvements

Tell us what you like about the plants in Arms Forest.

• • • • • • •

• •

Lady slippers, fringed polygala, wild columbine Variety Rare Trillium Their presence Seasonal progression of many different types of flowers Unique

• • • •

Indifferent, don’t really notice them Special and unique flora not usually found in urban setting Unique and variety Like that they haven’t been destroyed, don’t want more species loss Species diversity Their presence

How can the plantlife be improved?

• • • • •

•

Don’t let bikes in Less off trail Education about staying on trail Define trails to limit soil impact and off trail No mountain biking

• • • •

Trails and signage to be clearer about where to walk or not walk or ride Better stewardship Leave alone Make sure people stay on trail Close-off side trails

Tell us what you like about the wildlife in Arms Forest.

• • • • •

• • • •

Scarlet tananger woodbthrush Fox, deer, mink, otter, muskrats, peregrine and a wide variety of birds Hearing and knowing red fox, deer, and barred owls are there Vernal pool Seeing and hearing their existence

Don’t see much Like that they have a place to live That there is some How wildlife use it as a corridor between the Intervale and the lake shore and woody cover areas along the shore.

Tell us what you like about the safety in Arms Forest.

• • • • •

Board walks Open I feel safe Seems fine to me Close to houses

• • • • •

Well trafficked Mountain bikers may be a slight concern As a lone female it can be rough Mountain bikers coming at high speeds I have seen homeless camps

•

Maybe have park staff or police come by a couple times a year to check for homeless camps Limit MTB to specific trails

How can safety be improved?

• •

Having dogs on leash Mountain bikers have almost hit several people I know

• 11 53

• • •

• •

Define trails Signage Speed of mountain bikers

Well laid out system Parks and rec can come through time to time

Additional feedback or information that you would like us to know.

• • • • • • •

• • •

• •

•

Please save this unique and diverse area Protect environment for the future Well signed trail network for walking and running Bikes will destroy this area We love that we have access to this space Please consider better bike trails Off trails should be stopped in the interests of preservation and conservation Keep it an urban wild Stop letting dogs off leash There are many areas for walking, Arms is a unique biking area, protect at all costs Would rather over-protect than under Education about staying on trail!

• • • • • • • • •

•

12 54

Better trails would lead to more use which will make the area safer Maybe have specific bike friendly sections?

Clear markings at NAA Church Modify trails to make them work for all users Keep the difficult MTB terrain I don’t think the area needs more management and infrastructure MTB access without needing a car is important, some of us do not have cars FOTW could do an amazing job there.

Keep it natural If you open it up to FOTW thousands of riders may come here—that would be a bad move Prefer that area to be a low-profile park known to residents

STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION 1: CITY STAFF, DIOCESAN OFFICE, LAKE CHAMPLAIN LAND TRUST JUNE 18 TH Diocesan Office • • •

• • •

• • •

Conservation is important and must be balanced with recreation if it is balanced at all Must be ecological improvement Can’t be neutral o No more status quo o No crossing bikes into rock point Needs to be clear there are different management schemes between properties (Rock Point and Arms Forest) Conservation is non-negotiable, must stay true to conservation easement Wants to focus on trail education o Teaching nature in a way so it’s not trampled o Teach practices that are encompassed in conservation o Educating people to use the trails appropriately o Leave no Trace o What good stewardship looks like? o Interpretation and Education important Preservation of resources should be #1 priority Recreation and education are important but are ranked below preservation and conservation The design should reinforce the management policies

Lake Champlain Land Trust • • • • • • • •

Conservation easement doesn’t mean no public access, it just means more monitoring First priority is ecological enhancement of the site Establish volunteers from people who want to be involved Wants trail education but doesn’t want to much signage Trail design is important to the protection of natural communities People may ignore educational signs so be strategic where we put them if any Support the goals of the Coalition agreement, respect previous grants and donations Be smart about where we put trails to not endanger animals

KEY TAKEAWAYS • • • •

Establishing a formalized trail system can discourage the building of new unsanctioned trails Bike rack on both sides will help people transition between the two properties and understand the different management styles Must analyze where trails should go regardless of where they are today Conservation and ecological improvements interest all parties

13 55

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK: NORTH AVENUE ALLIANCE CHURCH JUNE 19 TH * *Feedback provided via email, no formal discussion

North Avenue Alliance Church We're not overly concerned with the current uses and existing conditions of the site; we've had a good experience with trail users. Only two potential concerns come to mind: 1. Some folks will occasionally cut across the northern field between our main building and our playground, which might cause some soil erosion should activity increase. A potential remedy might be a designated pedestrian/bike lane extending along the edge of the parking lot that extends from the main driveway of the parking lot to the trail access.

2. Over the years, there have been occasional illicit drug usage/exchanges on the southern parking lot, which lies between the main driveway entrance and the trail entrance. The Burlington police are aware of this and have been monitoring it, but I thought you should be made aware as well. This section of the parking lot also isn't currently covered by our security cameras, though it is our plan to eventually extend coverage to include it.

•

Under new management, the NAAC is now willing to be used an official trail rest point for water/bathrooms

STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION 2: BURLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY SERVICES JUNE 21 ST Marty Spaulding Director of Property Services for Burlington School District • • • •

Burlington High School construction will change access points Potential for parking during the weekend and evening hours (staff parking lot only and advertising for only weekend availability) The trailhead at the high school property needs to consider steep grading. o Possibly at the corner of the staff lot?

The bike path entrance off of North Ave will continue to exist.

STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION 3: BURLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL JUNE 27 TH •

• • • •

Burlington Invitational 5K Cross-Country Race is their most intensive use of the property. o Starts at North Beach, accesses the trails at the upper BHS parking lot, continues down the main trail, does a loop that is partially on Elks Club land, meets up with the Bike Path, and heads back to North Beach. o For the last race event, Dan They use the trails for some training.

They would love to have a full 5K trail network in there (but don’t necessarily expect it).

The steep trail that connects to the upper school parking lot is problematic from a safety perspective due to the grade.

The cross-country ski team runs on the trails in the early season

14 56

Appendix 7 October 17, 2019 Community Engagement Summary

57

BURLINGTON ARMS FOREST 131 Church Street Suite 300 Burlington, VT 05401 Office: 802.862.0098 | www.segroup.com

DRAFT CONCEPTS PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND SURVEY FEEDBACK On October 17, 2019, Burlington Parks, Recreation and Waterfront (BPRW) and SE Group hosted a public engagement session at the Miller Community Center. The session allowed for community members to drop-by, learn about proposed trail concepts, and provide their feedback on three conceptual design alternatives. Approximately 20-25 community members attended.

After the meeting, the same information was made available online and an online survey was open through 11/22/19 which also asked community member to provide feedback on the conceptual design alternatives. 65 responses were received on the online survey.

PREFERRED CONCEPT When workshop and survey responses are combined, Concept A is the most preferred concept. 37 survey and workshop respondents preferred Concept A, 12 respondents preferred Concept B, and 30 respondents preferred Concept C. Workshop participants, which tended to skew towards more local neighborhood residents, strongly preferred Concept C while Survey Respondents, which seemed to represent a broader city perspective, strongly preferred Concept A.

Combined Survey and Workshop Preferred Concept

Concept A 47%

Concept C 38%

Concept B 15%

1 58

Workshop Preferred Concept

Survey Preferred Concept

2 59

CONCEPT FEEDBACK SUMMARY CONCEPT A 1) What do you like about this concept?

Respondents reported liking the multi-use aspect of Concept A, and noted really valuing opportunities to bike, but also to ski, snowshoe, hike, etc. The universal accessibility of this concept was also very well received as was adding interpretive and educational signage. Folks also liked the consideration of sensitive areas and thoughtful reroutes included in the concept. Connection to the bike path was also highly valued.

Responses that seem to capture a lot of the sentiments: •

“Responds to all needs.”

•

“Diverse opportunities for all types of people”

•

“It is an equitable approach to creating space for all user groups and is not a vast change from the current structure.”

•

“The increased access and information, trail heads and signage. Ensuring multi uses that include biking. Formalizing connectivity to the bikepath via bridge”

•

“- reroutes of steep/erodible trails - addition of interpretive signage”

2) What concerns do you have about this concept?

Respondents primarily expressed concerns about bike use in Arms Forest. Some respondents felt that any bike use in the forest would have a negative impact on resources or experiences. Others felt that the proposed trails and bike use in Concept A represented a “step backward” and wanted to see more mountain bike specific trails. Potential impacts to natural resources. as well as the accessibility of the bridge/bike path connection and observation deck were also referenced many times.

3) What is missing from this concept?

Access to the Elks land was brought up frequently. Folks also talked about ski trails, more advanced or dedicated mountain bike trails, and use by the BHS XC teams. An idea for “a short universal access boardwalk/trail from S corner of church parking lot to NNE border of vernal pool” was also suggested 4) What other thoughts do you have?

Many folks rehashed their overall preference for the concept and expressed their feeling about bicycle use (both for and against). Other themes and ideas included the need for parks patrol or oversight, and dog use. One respondent suggested “A off leash time early in the morning for dog owners. They will let their dogs off leash anytime unless we set a specific time.”

CONCEPT B 1) What do you like about this concept?

3 60

Respondents reported liking interpretative signage in this Concept as well as the less “ambitious”, less developed nature of the concept. Respondents also reported valuing having some biking use included in the concept. A lower density of trails was reported as desirable by some respondents, and there were some folks who valued NOT having a connection the bike path/greenway.

2) What concerns do you have about this concept?

Respondents number one concern with this concept was the lack of connection to the bike path/greenway. Some respondents also indicated concern with interpretive signage detracting from the site. Similar to Concept 1, many respondents expressed concerns about bike use in Arms Forest, either there shouldn’t be any at all or that there wasn’t going to be enough or the right type of experience provided under this concept. Many respondents indicated being concerned about the accessibility of the concept.

3) What is missing from this concept?

Most of the responses to this question for Concept B referenced connections to the bike path/greenway or universally accessible trails and access.

4) What other thoughts do you have?

Little new ideas or input were shared in the responses to this question for Concept B, although many reiterated their feelings about bike use (positive/negative), universal accessibility, dog policy, and access to the bike path.

CONCEPT C 1) What do you like about this concept?

Respondents who supported this concept reported liking the exclusion of bicycle use from the concept, fewer interpretive signs, and the lack of accessible trails. Many also reported not liking the concept for the same reasons. Some respondents also noted this was likely to be the cheapest option.

2) What concerns do you have about this concept?

Respondents number one concern with this concept was the lack of bicycle use allowed. The lack of a connection to the bike path/greenway and a lack of universally accessible trails was also mentioned by many respondents.

3) What is missing from this concept?

Most of the responses to this question for Concept C referenced missing bike access. Connections to the bike path/greenway and universally accessible trails and access were also mentioned frequently.

4) What other thoughts do you have?

Little new ideas or input were shared in the responses to this question for Concept C, although many reiterated their feelings about bike use (positive/negative), universal accessibility, dog policy, and access to the bike path.

4 61

VERBATIM CONCEPT FEEDBACK Responses below include verbatim responses from both the workshop and survey.

CONCEPT A: 1) What do you like about this concept?

Workshop • • •

Incorporates different types of trails, different uses and different levels of difficulty.

More trail access than other options This recognizes the limits that need to be put on mountain bikes due to the impact on sensitive ecology—clearly placing “conservation” value of this land ahead of “recreation”. This needs emphasis.

• ADA trails • Great to address the increasing interest in mountain biking, as well as adaptive cycling off-road.

Survey • Access via the SE corner of BHS bus circle, usually a quiet area and convenient for small groups of hikers (or bike riders) to gather for a group hike. Good consideration of the sensitive areas.

• It answers all needs.

• I like that there is an accessibility feature to this concept. It would be great to perhaps have one of the main trails be accessible, although I would be concerned about the cost to do that.

• Diverse opportunities for all types of people • Biking • I don't support any biking on these trails; I don't think it is necessary here and I don't believe it is very environmentally healthy. I would support a small interpretive trail and a small universally accessible trail.

• I like the mixture of universally accessible and other types of trails; I hope that folks who have mobility challenges might be able to enjoy this natural area. I appreciate the reroute of the odd trail over the BHS hill as I would like to be able to walk through on my way home from North Ave but it's always so off-putting as-is. I also like the path on the east side of the vernal pool. I always end up bushwacking through there and it's weird that there's no path.

• Universal access and Interpretive trails combined with lots of multi-use trails. Trail realignment to avoid steep grades. Closure of trails on steep slopes adjacent to Elks Club property • I like accessibility for everyone. Does this include wheelchair?

• Inclusion of biking and the vernal pool overlook.

• It is an equitable approach to creating space for all user groups and is not a vast change from the current structure.

• Access for All • connection to the bike path, multi use trails • Biking opportunities, re-routes of steep, unsustainable sections, Vernal pool viewing from an established trail • Not much 5 62

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

I like the use of the full property to maximize walking, biking opportunities on the parcel. I appreciate the attempt to connect to the bike path The universal access trail helps provide a nature experience for those with accessibility issues.

Provides something for many groups/types of uses.

I like that it includes all types of trails for a diverse experience and provides accessibility for many user groups.

I like access to the Greenway; universal access trail and mix of multi-use and hike only trails.

I like this plan best because it has the most trails/access, but see below. avoiding diocese field, natural incorporation of high school parking area Variety of uses / options for different access. Maximum trail distance achieves.

Walking Different types of trails, highlighting aspects of the site, the bridge could be cool when completed I like the multi-use accessibly. Simple to navigate and maintained trails for non-gas use.

Broad use for varying user groups.

I like the idea of the universally accessible trail. As our population ages, this will be very welcome.

There needs to be some sort of public access from the Burlington Bike Path to the Arms Forest Trail network It looks like a thorough upgrade.

The increased access and information, trail heads and signage. Ensuring multi uses that include biking. Formalizing connectivity to the bikepath via bridge.

Shared, multiuse trails. Improved climbs Accessible for a variety of users and abilities something for everyone Keeps recreational biking!

Maintaining bike access, trail reroutes, better connection to bike path Biking!!!

Large percentage of multi-use trails. Protection of sensitive areas.

It allows all uses, including mountain biking.

Connection to greenway.

I like the mix of trails, connection to the Greenway, and opportunities for multiple user types without conflicts.

2) What concerns do you have about this concept?

Workshop • •

• •

Impacts to vernal pool (negative impacts) There are off road wheelchairs and handcycles that allow disabled people to access “nonaccessible” areas if trails are wide enough (36 inches). If access provided for some, it should be available to all (or at least most).

Mountain biking has/appears to be greatly limited Monitoring of mountain biking is a chief concern

6 63

• •

Mountain bikers who presently live within riding distance to our local network will now need to drive at least an hour round trip to access other mountain bike networks Too much access for mountain bikes

Survey • Observation deck is not accessible Multitude of trail types will greatly increase environmental impacts • biking • Regarding the use of trails by mountain bike riders-- without a 75 - 100 foot bridge to gap the ravine that parallels the Rec path, the multi-use trail is a short out-and-back loop from North Avenue Church. However the most likely users are those that create a longer route using the Rec Path.

• Keep people out of and away from the vernal pools, please • It is very ambitious and may never be built.

• That's a lot of trails • The bridge avoiding the Elks property seems like it would be pretty expensive to make. I am also concerned about paving a universal trail in Arms. I like the natural character of the place and would hope that access could be granted to wheelchairs, etc, through forms of hard tread surface other than pavement.

• - too much trail development/site disruption in this small area of intact natural communities. - is this park the best location for this proposed universal access trail interaction with rich forest spring flora and limestone outcrops vs. Rock Point's planned trail and the potential at Ethan Allen Park? - Will these plans connect easily to Elks Club property trails should future public access be attained?

• too many trails to keep up with regular maintenance • Expensive • See Above • There is too much interpretive trail. This wide flat type of trail will have far more impact that a natural bike/hike rugged trail.

• Until the future bridge is built to the bike path (10 years ?) cross country skiing access will be greatly diminished or not possible with access from the bike path. It is unrealistic to believe that hikers, skiers and snowshoers will not access the elks club field for the many years until this bridge is not built. also longterm will require snowshoes, skiers and hikers to remove their footwear to access the trails and have to place then back on again. this breaks uop an existing continuous hike/snowshoe/ski experience unmatched in Burlington. More connectivity between bike path, trails, north beach should be the goal while improving existing paths and protecting natural areas.. this plan seems to seek to break up the area and exclude continuous walk/hike/ski/snowshoe through the area.

• Even recreational bikes can damage and many bikers are not kind nor caring about rules and will plough by you as if you are on a racetrack. Having experienced this first hand numerous times, I absolutely do not want to see bikes here.

• Denial to public from Elks' property.

• Will the bridge and observation deck accommodate wheelchairs?

• are any trails off limits to bikers? I hope most allow bikes 7 64

• • •

•

• • •

•

• • • •

• • •

•

I do not believe there should be any biking on the trails.

Cost may make the project fizzle out I am not hot on the observation deck over the vernal pools. Observing what? Why do we need a structure? If a bridge is needed due to sogginess, that's okay with me, but not otherwise it's better natural.

Allowing recreational biking. I don't trust mountain bikers to stay on trail or to maintain speeds that are safe for small children and older people. I have some concern about the vernal pool viewing platform but would defer to the judgement of the City Naturalist and others on whether this is a good idea. the mixture of multi-use and hiking trails seems confusing for users, hard to enforce and arbitrary. Why not just make all trails multi-use?

Too many trails- And trails that aren't completely "natural" There's no mountain bike specific trails. Also, "gnarly mountain biking trails" is a vague and meaningless term. I would like to see flowy, fun & accessible mountain bike trails built here. All of these concepts represent a step backwards in this gem of a resource for mountain bikers who don't have the means to drive to trails outside of town.

Having to bring in substantial material for the accessible trail. I'd like to see that more of a natural surface with us of short bridge sections as needed for wet areas rather than turnpiking with outside materials.

Mixed feelings about access to bike path: it will encourage more traffic which will impact wildlife negatively but allow more people to enjoy the park.

I'd like to see more multi-use natural surface trails. I think most of the hiking trails could be multiuse.

Will the parking at BHS be incorporated into the BHS Re-visioning plan?

I think all of the plans are poor because they are predicated on the Elks land not being included.

Please go back to the Elks and convince them that this is an important project that will benefit the community, and they should be a part of it.

Bridge and boardwalk meeting the bike path seems overly complicated/expensive Does the proportion of mileage allocated to each of the different use types reflect we we wish people would use the area or how (realistically) we can expect them to use it?

You will RUIN this highly sensitive habitat recharge zone if mountain biking is allowed. I’m a mountain biker. Read what the research says about mountain bikers impact on wildlife. Allowing mountain bikers (and I mountain bike A LOT) will RUIN Arms Forest. Please visit Saxon Hill and see the destruction and complete absence of wildlife due to the startle effect. An absolutely INSANE idea to even remotely consider today’s mountain bikers into that forest. INSANE!!! I wrote letters about this to our council members. Please refer to the research and my own personal experience with mountain bikes in sensitive forest settings. I walk daily in that forest. I see deer, Fox, owls, Martin, weasels and wild orchids!!!!!! These animals and plants will DISAPPEAR (they already are disappearing due to increased interest in mountain biking these last three years. Not only should these plans not include mountain biking but bikes should be permanently banned. Again, I’m a serious mountain biker that rides all over the VT and the Adirondacks. Bikers will ruin everything in that park. Everything.

The number of trails could be confusing and impact more of the area than necessary

8 65

• • • • • •

• • • • • • •

•

•

Maintenance and water runoff would be a concern for cost effective and viability. Also have periodic "pull off" area to allow for passing or reat areas.

Closures of existing trails.

I think this is plan has too many trails. It takes away from the natural feel of the forest. Too busy.

Also, biking is not needed in this area.

Impervious surfaces for Universal Access are a concern so close to the Lake My concern is increased foot traffic. This forest is a gem. It ought to be protected and maintained, but not advertised and covered in trails. This looks nice, but it isn’t my first choice.

I started biking the trails which would be located on the Elks Club property when I was 10, and continue to today with my 7 year old. These narrow, technical trails are the only reason I would consider biking there today. Loss of these trails would be a horribly decision. Why is the Elks club not on board with public use of their land? Those trails should be left as is, or improved and protected if the Land Owner gives their permission.

Minimal hiking/biking trails away from other types of users Trying to please everyone, ends up with nothing all that great for any group Hiking trails would need to be clearly differentiated from trails bikes are allowed on Access to the bike path would be better via Elks property Trailheads will bring in more users, so the net impact on the forest may actually be worse than just leaving it in its current state. too much impact on the environment The hiking only trails should be multi-use. Interpretive trail should be multi-use, but include signs about ecology. Too many interpretive trails are over developed- most folks using the trails will not be using the signs but are more interested in being out in nature. Is the universal access trail needed? How many people would routinely be served by it? Could that population be served by soemthign like universal trail by the church?

The lack of connection through the Elks property is problematic. The reality is that those trails exist, and people will continue to use them. Seems odd not to address that issue with this project.

Appears to involve lots of adding new things to the property such as non-natural trails and a new bridge.

3) What is missing from this concept?

Workshop • • • •

Would like universal access to vernal pool Elks!- Can we get them back on board How to mark the parking area by the alliance church so it is very clearly visible from North Ave Trail concept with no bikes and only foot travel?

Survey • An interim connector to link the multi-use trail to the Rec path, e.g. consider a temporary rightof-way at the West end of the Elks Property that already has erosion-control steps to the Rec path.

• Nothing 9 66

• •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

There is no kiosk at the Rock Point entrance which still has comping off of their small parking lot.

- a short universal access boardwalk/trail from S corner of church parking lot to NNE border of vernal pool for this amazing educational (and stewardship!) opportunity in an urban wild! - BHS XC running trail/race network still possible?

A technical/rugged mt bike trail! short term and long term access to the trails for winter hikers, snowshoers and cross country skiers to the trails from the bikepath. Wth connectivity to North Beach park.

Ski trails?

Lookout point or tower. more advanced bike trails?

Well, I like the mixture of kinds of paths, but I find it hard to believe that mountain bikers will stay to the paths that are designated for them. Sadly, it seems to be that if you give them an inch, they take a mile, yada yada. I wish I felt more confident that this would work, but we are already seeing the whole area being advertised at Cambrian Rise as a mountain biking mecca. Will riders be cool with limiting themselves in what they feel is rightfully their mecca? Hard to tell.

What about access through elks? Are they out?

Not sure Bike park Elks! :-( Can you indicate the bus stops and bike share hubs along North Ave to make it more accessible to visitors?

Access via Elks...

Mt bike trails, bike park / pump track Banning Bikes.

Waste receptacles would be crucial. Acceptance of class A&C ebikes for responsible rides.

Perhaps an "overlook" type landing Shorter loop option for bike path entrance.

The natural feel of a forest would be missing in this concept.

Total Mileage for each trail type Progressive bike trails which local kids could increase their skills.

Hike/bike loops that do not require a substantial portion on interpretive trails more just hiking trails Elks connections

4) What other thoughts do you have?

Workshop • •

•

Very clear signs will be needed for identifying different types/accessibilities of the trails Eliminating the single-track mountain bike trails will lead to “freelancing” cutting new trails through previously untouched areas. o Many of the current mtn bike trails were created in just this way Signs directing mountain bike to near available alternatives should be part of plan

10 67

• •

I would like universal access to be focused on disabled people or older people so that they can get into the woods.

Where else can the city work with fellowship of the wheel to develop mountain biking so riders don’t have to drive?

Survey • Ideally, bike riders would be able to connect to the Rec Path, Institute Road, and non-sensitive areas of the Episcopal Diocese. A 2-mile loop would provide a significant experience for mountain bikers. A 1/4- or 1/3-mile loop would be an appropriate scale for children on bikes but probably too short for most adults that seek more than a 10-minute experience (exercise) on a trail.

• A off leash time early in the morning for dog owners. They will let their dogs off leash anytime unless we set a specific time.

• I didn't think that Rock Point allowed biking, but the map shows a multi-use trail starting off of the bike path.

• New access from bike path would be expensive, compared to existing access from the Elks property. A bridge would not be required • More rugged trails will provide what a majority of people want. If there are more trails to ride/hike on, then people will be less inclined to make their own unofficial off shoots into the woods.

• connectivity for desired public uses is the key. not excluding the public with unbuilt (but planned 10 years or more away wooden structures that only then will allow access. i want to be able to ski, winter hike, and snowshoe this area without purposeful obstacles placed to limit my access.

• Pathways as well as more structured paths for variation.

• trails seem to avoid elevation gain, that is not helpful for fitness for trail users. you might need more hilly options?

• No other thoughts particular to this concept. My overall thought is to keep the Arms Forest as close to the way it is now.

• I appreciate what appears to be an effort to be a sincere effort to please a lot of different folks here.

• Please keep some level of biking in this parcel. It is well used by the community and is the way many people like to travel through natural areas. Well maintained trails have much less impact on the land than walkers who tend to go off trail and look for shortcuts.

• Having hiked here for many years with my dog I really enjoyed the solitude and the wildlife.

• make signage obvious for connecting to Rock Point, then start building trail on the other side of 127 toward Ethan Allen AND/OR make a big loop around Sea Caves • See previous • Don’t allow us (mountain bikers) anywhere near Arms Forest.

• I feel parks patrols or BPD should have patrols during the busy recreation months. Maintenance and community days should be arranged to integrate into the recreation culture like the bike path • Closing existing trails in an “urban” park is going to lead to other rogue trails being built. Find a way to sustain what’s there. Bridges are expensive, especially 100’ long ones. Why is that needed?

11 68

• • • • •

I am a biker. But I think this area should be off-limits for bikes. The bike path is right there for biking.

We have to have biking! This is an equity issue for our city as we have no sanctioned MTB in the city yet. Kids need the opportunity, even if their parents cant drive them!

I don't think recreational biking should be allowed Wish the maps had a scale for size/distance. Wish you provided a comparison to the current trails.

Overall, digging this plan the best.

CONCEPT B: 1) What do you like about this concept?

Workshop • None Survey • Lots of hiking trails • I am in favor of not allowing bikes in Arms Forest if a reasonable length of trail cannot be found on the property.

• Keeping people away from sensitive habitat sites.

• It seems less ambitious.

• I like the idea of interpretive signs • It leaves the park more wild • preserves much of what's already there, and helps hide it from the bike path, local knowledge required Okay, I'm being selfish • I like that there isn't a universal trail. The lack of pavement is better for helping people escape the city, and also is better for trail runners as it is less abusive to run on natural surfaces.

• - reroutes of steep/erodible trails - addition of interpretive signage • Seems more attainable, then concept A. • Slightly better mileage of rugged trail?

• nothing • Not open to all abilities...

• simple and probably cheaper than option A. It retains biking • The potential for an accessible trail. I also like that there is no formal connection to the bike path.

• I like the biking trails and accessibility • I like the same things that I liked about the first concept, mainly the reroutes of the trail near BHS and the vernal pools.

• Closure or rerouting of trails around steep gradients and sensitive ecologies. Lack of bike path connections could discourage use by recreational bicyclists. The more limited trail network would reduce areas of soil compaction.

• Inclusion of biking. Might feel more natural with fewer trails.

• Not too many trails, so it does not become a "spaghetti bowl." Good amount of multi-use trails that actually cover some ground and take you somewhere, not just in a circle.

12 69

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

Environmental Education multi use trails Biking opportunities, trail re-routes, more natural trails without the ADA trail Better but still missing any focus on biking I like how the lollipop look from the HS is a natural surface trail and not bringing in substantial outside material.

Less dense trail development leaves a more remote feeling experience Mixture of multi use trails plus recreational biking permitted.

Fewer trails/less invasive construction Multi use trail More multi use options.

I like that it is less busy than Concept A. Multi-use trails for biking I like the multi use trails and less overall impact on the forest.

Ensuring mixed use NA Keeps recreational biking! trail realignment Mountain biking.

It still permits some mountain biking.

Realigning steep entrances from BHS. Shorter universal access trail. If designed well, the short part of interpretive trail by the North St Church could allow most users to use it, but leave it more natural.

Not as big a fan of this concept, as it lacks connections to/from the greenway.

Appears less destructive than Concept A

2) What concerns do you have about this concept?

Workshop •

Made up of a lot of interpretive trails which might be difficult to maintain because of terrain and demands that each type of trail requires (ADA, hiking, biking, etc.)

•

For the hike only trails, it will be hard to avoid the multi-use bike trails because they connect and intersect and that will be a problem for those who want a foot travel experience.

Survey • • •

•

No accessible trails Access from bike path is indirect I don't agree with biking here Concept B lacks a Northern access from the Rec Path. Currently there is access by a cut-out at the West end of the Elks property. It also does not allow North End or BHS students to form a mountain bike club with a nearby trail. High School level MTB clubs are a rapidly growing team sport option that often appeals to kids that do not perform well in other sports (social, cultural, income barriers).

Interpretive signs would be a waste of money and detract from the 13 70

• •

•

•

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

•

No access to Bike path...the public will make one. No full access trail for all forms of locomotion.

I think the natural surface trails are easily prone to overgrowth of poison ivy, grass that can house ticks, and requires more frequent maintenance by park services. I don't like that it isn't accessible to people who might use wheelchairs, have a slow or impaired gait, or strollers.

Narrower trails can be difficult to navigate if they're crowded. I don't like that it cannot connect to the bike path.

I did like how in Plan A there was a larger interpretive loop around the label that says "Arm's Forest". The trail is still here in this plan, but it is only multi-use on the southern portion. There is no access to the Vernal Pool, which I understand makes it more secluded, but I would assume people will still make a social trail to it. It would be better for the ecology of the area to have a set way to get to it. I don't like how there is no access from the bike path. It makes connectivity of people between Arms and Rock Point difficult since you have to walk on a road.

- too much trail development/site disruption in this small area of intact natural communities. can BPRW commit to mountain bike/multi-use trails in Ethan Allen Park as well as Leddy Park so they are "restricting/guiding" vs. prohibiting this trail use in our parks? - Will these plans connect easily to Elks Club property trails should future public access be attained?

No connection to the Killarney Drive neighborhood No connection to the bike path, which means people will make their own and it won't be maintained. Still too much interpretive trail. purposely excludes connectivity to hikers/snowshoers/skiers from bike path and north beach park. while expensive a universally accessible trail is good for everyone... parents with strollers, etc.

Again, I don't think there should be any biking. no link to bike path It seems less accessible, in a nutshell. As much as I love the privacy of this area. I am also aware of how many folks need more nature in their lives and would like to make sure they can experience some of the joy I've had here.

I don't trust mountain bikers to stay on trail or maintain speeds that are safe for small children and older people.

Always good to connect to the bike path. Otherwise too small an experience Too many people sharing the same trails.

The trails don't seem to flow together in any logical way.

Bikers biking in the wrong area no connection to bike path No formal vernal pool viewing could lead to multiple herd paths in the area There's no mountain bike specific trails. Also, "gnarly mountain biking trails" is a vague and meaningless term. I would like to see flowy, fun & accessible mountain bike trails built here. All of these concepts represent a step backwards in this gem of a resource for mountain bikers who don't have the means to drive to trails outside of town.

It doesn't plan for access to the bike path No universal access trail. I think it is critical to have accessibility for all in more than a token effort. No connection to the bike path is a mistake. It would increase vehicle traffic for users and limit access form a safe thoroughfare.

Not enough trails.

14 71

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

I think all of the plans are poor because they are predicated on the Elks land not being included.

Please go back to the Elks and convince them that this is an important project that will benefit the community, and they should be a part of it.

No Connection to Bike path!? All access denied No access to the bike path / green way No connection to the bike path No connection to bike path. Many users of this network are coming from NNE via bike path.

This would become a high speed bike trail in no time. It would take away the quiet feel of walking in the woods.

No access from bike path I am concerned that if any biking is allowed on the property it will devolve into business as usual--biking all over the property on and off trail.

Lack of connection to bike path, fewer trails than Concept A. Multi use trails require a lot of bike/pedestrian interaction by forcing bikes into interpretive trails NA No connection to greenway/bike path. That is definitely needed! differentiation between hiking only trails and multi-use trails No connection to the bike path.

No formal connection to the Greenway/Bike Path from Arms forest; more exclusion of bike traffic as compared to concept A Interpretive signs take away from the wild feel of Arms. recreational biking The hiking only trails should be multi-use. Interpretive trail should be multi-use, but include signs about ecology. Too many interpretive trails are over developed- most folks using the trails will not be using the signs but are more interested in being out in nature. Why not connect to greenway?

Lack of connection to existing network.

3) What is missing from this concept?

Workshop • None Survey • • • • •

• •

Observation deck This is a very good trail network for foot access to Arms Forest.

Handicap accessibility.

Vernal Pool access and access from the bike path.

- a short universal access boardwalk/trail from S corner of church parking lot to NNE border of vernal pool for this amazing educational (and stewardship!) opportunity in an urban wild! - BHS XC running trail/race network still possible? - direct connection to the bike path, which is costly without Elks Club access. see above Connection to the bike path is a must.

15 72

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Connectivity should be designed in and encouraged. looks like you want to ruin one of the best recreational areas in Burlington through micromanagement and control. elitist minimizing access from the masses.

Universal access.. universally accessible trail The access to the bikepath. Can't believe I'm saying this! But it is public land, and folks should be able to access it easily.

Universal access. It's important to include at least some opportunity for the mobility impaired in wheelchairs.

Access from the bike path/lake. This is a must, or a rogue path will be created by users.

Not sure vernal pool access, connection to greenway Bike park Elks Bike path/Greenway access. People will make their own trail if one is not built No access to Greenway. No universally accessible trails. connections to bike path Bike path access. Recreational bike trails + bike park / pump track Universal access. I don't know how much demand there is for it, or if users express a preference for these trails over the interpretive trails, but if so, I'd want to have something for them. I think a connection to the waterfront path is important for showcasing this area, but not as a through connection. But it does come at a high cost so maybe skipping it makes sense.

Lack of cohesive feeling with the bike path Connection to bike path. I miss the observation deck from plan A. No interpretive trail. That is a problem.

Access from bike path Bike Path connection Handicap accessibility I would like to see it link up directly to the bike path connection to the bike path Not enough access to the forest.

Connections!

4) What other thoughts do you have?

Workshop •

Just because the trail design here would accommodate biking doesn’t mean BLANK have to allow them. Bikes. It can manage through time.

•

Partner with youth to maintain trails

Survey •

The safest use of Arms Forest is from pedestrians/runners/hikers, with no bikes allowed. As someone who hikes and rides a mountain bike, the full recreation potential from this area is best 16 73

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • •

left to foot traffic only. However, a bike-friendly passage/connector trail from the South-bound bike lane on North Avenue, West to the Rec Path would be a great way to have a route that allows bike riders to travel South from the New North End, and loop back (North) on the Rec Path without having to cross busy North Avenue. For example, a single track trail from the Elks Club to the Rec Path (exists now) would be perfect.

Off lease early AM hours so dog owners won't just let their dogs run loose all day like they are doing now.

There's no kiosk coming from the Rock Point parking lot by the diocese office, although there is a trail there.

I have watched trail use over 20 yrs closely (daily dog walks), When biking began around 20008 and picked up from there, it created many multiple trails every which way and created much erosion on the higher places. There seemed to be little regard for the environmental impact. It seems that there must be better places to engage in mt. biking and other thrill seeking use.

Rather than an interpretive trail, just use signage at the entrances to the trail system. Leave big signs out of the woods. this interconnected area that includes elks club, rock point land, arms property, north beach park, etc is a gift that Burlington should enhance and celebrate and should not be destroyed by being chopped up in little inaccessible pieces. a universally accessible trail is going to be very expensive and disruptive to environment potentially, and the bike path already is available for use.... so it might not be that critical.

Again, I would like to see minimal improvements made. I like the feel of the forest now and I do not believe there should be any biking.

Not my fav option Too limiting, folks may bike on this regardless or try to make their own paths to Greenway.

See above Doesn't seem like a destination park Too many trail closures.

"Multi use" does not really work on a trail that allows for recreational biking. The bikes push walkers aside.

Trailheads will bring in more users, so the net impact on the forest may actually be worse than just leaving it in its current state.

Not really a fan.

CONCEPT C: 1) What do you like about this concept?

Workshop • • • •

Creates the most wilderness Least environmental impact Helps maintain natural habitat Most wild/least invasive with 36 inch-60inch trails

17 74

• • •

I agree to all statements above even though ill miss some of my favorite areas which are apparently very sensitive. That’s ok! Ill find new things to love and appreciate Agree with all statements above. Especially important to protect the amphibians coming and going from vernal pools Least environmental impact.

Survey • Maintains the most of the natural areas Most respectful of natural areas No bikes • No biking. I think this bests supports keeping this area as natural as possible with minimal human impacts. Keeps more habitat for plants and wildlife and less disruption in both.

• Concept C is certainly the least expensive option to implement.

• It could be a great start.

• I like the idea of interpretive signs • I do not agree that bikes should be allowed to use these trails. I can barely use the bike path due to the aggressive nature of the bikers for the most part. I would like a place for citizens/children/pets/wildlife etc. to have a place to walk in nature without being barraged by people on bicycles. That is what the bike path is FOR!!!!

• I like that there isn't a universal trail. The lack of pavement is better for helping people escape the city, and also is better for trail runners as it is less abusive to run on natural surfaces.

• - reroutes of steep/erodible trails - addition of interpretive signage - trails limited to hiking trail: 18-36" width • Everything! Maintains the original designation of "Urban Wilds" and eliminates the degradation and development of innumerable trails throughout the region that the introduction of bikes created over the last 10 or so years. See my answer to Concept B • Less interpretive trail.

• nothing same comments a for B • I like this plan the best. It preserves the woods in a more natural way and doesn't allow biking.

• Not accessible nor universal...

• nothing • I like this concept the best. It keeps the forest pretty much the way it is now which I think is a good thing. I like 1 main interpretive trail.

• N/a • I like that biking is not allowed....sorry, bikers! I know most bikers are nice, but they just bring that speed element into things. And some of them are not nice, and not nice combined with speed is a bummer to plants and people. I don't need any more of that energy in my life, honestly. But I feel guilty saying this. I am a slow living type. I don't really get thrill sports, tbh.

• Biking not allowed. Hooray!!!!!!!! Reroutes of steep and erodible trails.

• I like the no biking part. Honestly, too small a venue for good mtn biking. More interested in safe walking/running/skiing etc and maybe wheelchair/sled ski entry points. A bit safer for most.

• XC skiing.

• The hiking trails have good connectivity to form lengthy and productive loops and tours of the property without dead-ending.

• Natural surface and Environmental Education • trail re-routes, 18 75

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Nothing Doesnt allow for bikes or mulit-use Nothing special, just the same elements (reroutes and interpretive trail) from the previous options. I do like the specific thought put into snowshoeing and XC skiing.

No Bikes!!

Lower human impact Xc sking, and snow show access Nothing.

This is a good mix of trails. I like the way it connects the trails. I like having both an interpretive trail, and a multi-use trail.

Ecologically aware, least impact of soil.

I like that it makes Arms Forest more of a haven for people and for wildlife and plants.

Nothing This is my first choice trail realignment Nothing.

Fewer interpretive signs, I think? biking is not allowed, and it presents a more minimal trail network with less impact on the environment.

Not much to like, too minimal & eliminates current uses.

Appears the least destructive and excludes biking. I used to bike around these trails too and it's a fun spot, but now that I mostly walk the trails, it's awfully obnoxious having bikes zoom through out of nowhere.

2) What concerns do you have about this concept?

Workshop • • • • •

Missing an access point from the Greenway Same as above Official access is messy but realistically will be available because someone ……

Don’t people seek the vernal pools in this location? Will a lack of a trail stop them Minimal access for educational opportunities

Survey • •

•

no accessible trails There appears to be foot access from the Episcopal Diocese school but no signage. I think this should be an approved access point so pedestrians from the Rec Path can reach the West side of the Arms Forest without having to walk uphill on the sidewalk to the access off North Avenue.

It spoils the tranquility of a nature walk to go from Rec Path to the busy BHS - North Avenue intersection.

No bikes

19 76

•

• • •

•

• • •

• • • • • • • •

• • •

• • •

It is not accessible to those who use wheelchairs, have impaired gaits, or strollers. The main trail doesn't go in a loop and is less attractive for a walk being point a to point be and then turn around go back the way you came.

I do not have any concerns about this plan as long as it is approved with the condition of maintaining the natural habitat.

I like occasionally ducking in there on my bike I did like how in Plan A there was a larger interpretive loop around the label that says "Arm's Forest". The trail is still here in this plan, but it is only multi-use on the southern portion. There is no access to the Vernal Pool, which I understand makes it more secluded, but I would assume people will still make a social trail to it. It would be better for the ecology of the area to have a set way to get to it. I don't like how there is no access from the bike path. It makes connectivity of people between Arms and Rock Point difficult since you have to walk on a road.

- can BPRW commit to mountain bike/multi-use trails in Ethan Allen Park as well as Leddy Park so they are "restricting/guiding" vs. prohibiting this trail use in our parks? - Will these plans connect easily to Elks Club property trails should future public access be attained? too simple None No biking?! In a cycling friendly city, where there is already many "hiking only" areas, bikes need a place to go much in the same way that skateboarders will use the skatepark. There must be a connection to the bike path. biking would not be allowed is a deal killer. Also, no connection to bike path is bad... accessing this property from the bike path is important.

Just the cost to make an interpretive trail.

Disallowing biking is excluding a lot of people who enjoy a quiet and eco friendly activity. Biking is popular and Burlington lacks mountain bike trails. no biking, no link to bike path Still no connection to the bike path.

Absence of any universal access trail. Could a short loop be created with trailhead at either the high school or the Alliance Church?

No biking.

There are no multi-use trails (ie. not trails for biking). This will be impossible to enforce and is a nieve concept. High School cycling leagues are popping up all over Vermont. The school will eventually want bike trails. no connection to the bike path, no multi use trails for biking Keeping people (and dogs) on the trails There's no mountain bike specific trails. Also, "gnarly mountain biking trails" is a vague and meaningless term. I would like to see flowy, fun & accessible mountain bike trails built here. All of these concepts represent a step backwards in this gem of a resource for mountain bikers who don't have the means to drive to trails outside of town.

It removes biking which is well used in this area.

No biking, no universally accessible trail. Too limiting to serve the diverse community of Burlington.

No access to Greenway. Too limiting, no universally accessible trails.

20 77

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

I think all of the plans are poor because they are predicated on the Elks land not being included.

Please go back to the Elks and convince them that this is an important project that will benefit the community, and they should be a part of it. no access via elks No bike path access! No biking!

Does prohibiting more things just mean more unauthorized use?

Needs to connect to bike path and allow biking.

Ban biking? From a network that abuts the highly trafficked bike (recreation) path? No way.

There has been biking on these trails for a long time, how will you offset the negative publicity from the mountain bike community?

Limiting the types of recreation, fewer trail options and lack of connecting to bike path No biking, no connection to bike path even for hikers, interpretive trail cannot be walked in a loop None Biking prohibition. lack of biking trails No biking.

Biking would not be allowed. Non-starter. No formal connection to the Greenway/Bike Path from Arms forest; Disallowing biking in Arms will probably just result in the proliferation of illegal, unsustainable mountain bike trails. Better to offer sustainable trails and allow bikers to use them. Arms is not so heavily trafficked that conflicts are a problem.

Biking should be allowed as well.

This removes access for people on bikes.

3) What is missing from this concept?

Workshop • •

Access from Greenway ADA compliant trail

Survey • Access from bike path • No foot access or trail exit at the Northwest corner of the Forest.

• Handicap accessiblity • A potential connection to the bike path • bathroom?

• Vernal Pool access and access from the bike path.

• - a short universal access boardwalk/trail from S corner of church parking lot to NNE border of vernal pool for this amazing educational (and stewardship!) opportunity in an urban wild! - BHS XC running trail/race network still possible? - interpretive signage on western hiking trail spur that is present in plans A & B. - direct connection to the bike path, which is costly without Elks Club access.

• does not really improve on what we have already 21 78

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Mountain bike trails, connection to bike path.

Biking access and access from bike path Nothing...love it Bike trails Universal Access trails.

Absence of any universal access trail. Could a short loop be created with trailhead at either the high school or the Alliance Church?

Biking.

Multi-use trails. Bike path/lake access.

Biking opportunities, established vernal pool viewpoint, greenway connection Bike park Biking and planned access to the bike path No bike access, no wheelchair access. Too restrictive in user base. connection to bike path No bike path access! No biking!

Universal access. I don't know how much demand there is for it, or if users express a preference for these trails over the interpretive trails, but if so, I'd want to have something for them. I think a connection to the waterfront path is important for showcasing this area, but not as a through connection. But it does come at a high cost so maybe skipping it makes sense.

A cohesive feel with the bike path Inclusion.

I think a connection to the bike path (so called "Greenway") would be good thing. But not absolutely necessary.

Access from bike path Bike trails NA Biking! biking trails; connection to the greenway There isn't any biking.

Bike access.

Biking, connection to greenway.

Trail access for bikes.

4) What other thoughts do you have?

Workshop •

I think it is difficult to figure out all the uses. The difference between detailed trails for hiking and mountain biking isn’t clear. You have to pay attention to sort this out!

•

While I like this concept best, as an avid (an ecologically sensitive) MTBiker, I fear that the technical trails I like to ride will go away/no longer exist for use. That’s a shame, and may lead to (not by me) ‘bootleg’ trails elsewhere…

•

Connection to Donahue Sea Caves would be cool 22 79

Survey • • •

•

• • • •

• •

•

•

• • • •

• •

I'm a little confused about the bigger goals . . . not sure why biking would be encouraged in a natural area and/or on sensitive trails.

Off leash dog hours in the early AM so people won't let their dogs loose anytime of the day.

Overall I feel that the "citizens" who LIVE in Burlington have had less of a voice with respect to use of the parks than have the people that we anticipate bringing in tourist money :( I feel strongly that we need to respect the local community and their wishes rather than bowing to pressure from the "powers that be" whose sole goal is bringing in more money.

I understand that the cost of a bridge would be high to provide access from the bike path, but it is probably necessary to keep the forest and Rock Point connected for trail users. I don't know if junction signs are planned for the forest, but I think they should be included. I like getting lost in the woods, but it would make the forest a lot more friendly for less experienced trail users to have signs at all junctions so they can find their way in and out with ease.

This will maintain the integrity of the "natural forest" as was indicated when the Arms Woods first came into the public domain.

Multi use rugged trails will be the best solution for a majority of users that will regularly go into the woods. don't ruin the connectivity of this wonderful area, MANAGE THE RESOURCE WHILE PRESERVING THE CONNECTIVITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With the growth of youth mountain biking Vermont Youth Cycling League https://vtyouthcycling.com/ ... and school mountain bike clubs, access to this land for a BHS mountain bike club would be important. We are trying to grow the sport to get kids active and outside, ball sports shouldn't be the only options for school age kids.

This concept bests fits what I believe the use of the forest should be.

On this and the last concept there was an interpretive trail...how many signs would there be?

Sometimes interpretive trails can be downright distracting from the nature...and a little tacky. I don't know about them. I prefer poetry trail, tbh, where you can jump off to contemplation.

I think excluding biking from a trail network so close to Burlington would be a huge missed opportunity. Burlington could really benefit from having mountain bike trails close to downtown and right off the bike path, so people can easily ride to and from the trails.

I think it is repugnant to allow hiking, XC skiing & snowshoeing on a trail where biking would not be allowed. I participate in all of these activities and am ashamed there are people in my neighborhood so opposed to biking in the woods that they would recommend a plan that totally excludes this activity that is central to so many Burlington residents & tourism in the city/state.

Please don't do this. make a natural connection to rock point trails. this connection is a bit ridiculous Add bike trails plus bike park / pump track. Think about the kids...

Leaving more to nature is good, but how much benefit is it really when right across the street there's a major road directly through a wetland, travelled by hundreds or thousands of noisy and polluting cars every day, between this site and the wilder parts of the Intervale.

No matter what concept there needs to connection to bike path and bikes, xc ski and snow shoing allowed This one is terrible.

23 80

• •

• • • • • • •

This concept really keeps a more natural feel to the area. The real value of Arms is its natural/forest feel, right in the middle of the city. We need to preserve this gem.

People at the meetings seemed pretty upset about bikers. I’m not. Let people enjoy the place.

But let’s not advertise it so huge numbers start showing up. Also, what are you going to do, have police patrol and cite bicycles? That would be ridiculous!

It would be a missed opportunity to not increase the recreation opportunities for Burlingtonians of all abilities and interests.

Biking trails must be kept and improved.

There are so many trails in the Burlington area that allow bikes, I'd like to have one that is primarily hiking Let bikes use this area recreationally as it abuts the bike path.

Please biking.

Trailheads will bring in more users, so the net impact on the forest may actually be worse than just leaving it in its current state.

Worst plan, IMO.

24 81

OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS •

RE: Stay on Trail Strategy: Use dead trees in the forest close by to lay them along both side of a trail, creating a visual cue to “stay on trail.” This technique is being successfully used at Niquette Bay State Park and has been used for decades in Europe along their trekking trails in many countries. o Low cost to create o Could use volunteers to fetch the logs o Natural

•

I ride my off-road handcycle in Arms Park about once a week, weather permitting., mostly on the weekends I rarely see other bikers there.

What I see often are people walking dogs, frequently off-leash. What I also find often, (very often,) is dog poop that has been left behind.

The way I discover this is by running through it on my bike, which is really disgusting. But beyond my personal discomfort, dog poop is bad for the environment of the park and the lake, and not picking it up it is illegal. My impression of all of the plans I saw for the park presented at the Miller center on Thursday is that they are designed to discourage biking in Arms Park. I think this is really unfortunate, as the park provides a fun local place to enjoy mountain biking without having to drive to a remote location. I have heard people argue that bikes are bad for the environment and ecology in the park, but I do not agree. Bikers stay on paths and move in patterns that are predictable and that wildlife gets used to, and my experience with the mountain biking community is that it is made up primarily of people who are sensitive to environmental preservation and who treat trails with respect. In contrast, dogs, especially dogs off-leash create major disruptions for wildlife by running off paths, chasing animals, barking, and potentially damaging rare plants. They are also sometimes aggressive to humans. It seems to me that the current situation has created an environment where dog owners feel comfortable breaking the law by walking their pets off-leash and allowing them to poop without cleaning it up, and I do not see anything in the new plans that will address this problem. I think it's more likely the new plans will maintain this situation, if not reinforce and encourage it. Given what I understand to be your goal of increasing use of this park, I urge you to consider the deleterious effect more dog owners will have.

My desire is that mountain biking be preserved and promoted in Arms Park. Dog walking should be discouraged or eliminated.

25 82

Appendix 8 Conceptual Design Alternatives

83

Y

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Concept A

DR

A

LL

Legend

14 0

KI

E RN

15 0 13 0

North Avenue Alliance Church

LE

TT

P

190

TH

190

P

E

TH

19 0

200

Trail re-route around sensitive area

Observation deck overlooking Vernal Pool, interpretive signage

200

Arms Forest

E

190

250

150

190

0 27

170

250

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades and avoid parking lot

IN

220

N

O

GT

Former Quarry Site

AY W

17 0

EN

E GR

0 17

P ck Point To Ro

TH 230

190

Burlington High School

170

Contour Interval = 1’ SCALE (ft) 0

75

150

225

300

October, 2019

240

260

14 0

N

Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

0 18

170

RL

BU

RD

New multi-use trail connection creating internal loop avoiding Diocese field

Episcopal 170 Diocese of Vermont

Rock Point

Natural Surface Trail (Multi-Use)

Interpretive Trail

270

14 0

New trailhead access from bike path, sections of elevated boardwalk and bridge over 0 15 0 16 stream. This would be a long 150 range project that will take more time and effort to implement.

TH

PO

Universal Access Trail

0 19

160

230

0 24

CK

Observation Platform

17 0

130

RO

Trailhead/ Access Point

AV

15 0

T

Interpretive Signage, Kiosk

H RT

18 0

150

IN

Parking

O N

New bridge 75’ - 100’ long

Parcel Boundary

Prepared by:

0 20

0 15 0 15

Stream

Off Property Trail

Trails by Proposed Typology

190

Trails in this area are recommended for removal due to steep slopes, sensitive ecology and connection to Elks Property

Arms Forest Boundary Trail Connection

190

RD

Parking area moved closer to entry, New trailhead, kiosk sign and path through edge of woods

19 0

E

L AG

Y BA

180

Elks Club Property PUBLIC ACCESS DENIED

LI

0 19

180

16 0

E

UT

IT

ST

IN

RD

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades, new trailhead parking and kiosk

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Concept B

R

YD

NE

R LA

L

Legend

14 0

KI 15 0 13 0

North Avenue Alliance Church

P

190

TH

190

E

TL

Parking area moved closer to entry, New trailhead, kiosk sign and path through edge of woods

Arms Forest Boundary

Stream

OďŹ&#x20AC; Property Trail

Parcel Boundary

Trail Connection

P

19 0

190

RD

Parking

Trailhead/ Access TH Point

19 0

Interpretive Trail

200 0 20

Prepared by:

H RT E AV

190

18 0

0 15

15 0

17 0

0 19

130

160

230

240

0 24

190

150

160

170

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades and avoid parking lot

IN

RL Former Quarry Site

220

N

TO

G

CK

RO

250

BU

T

170

0 18

0 15

IN

New multi-use trail connection creating internal loop avoiding Diocese ďŹ eld

0 27

15 0

RD

250

260

270

14 0

PO

G 17 0

P ck Point To Ro

TH

AY

W

EN

RE

0 17

Episcopal 170 Diocese of Vermont

230

190

Burlington High School

170

14 0

Rock Point

October, 2019

O N

Arms Forest

150

0 15

Natural Surface Trail (Multi-Use)

Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

190

Trails in this area are recommended for removal due to steep slopes, sensitive ecology and connection to Elks Property

Interpretive Signage, Kiosk Observation Platform

Trails by Proposed Typology

Trail re-route around sensitive area

200

LIT

E

GL

Y

BA

180

Elks Club Property PUBLIC ACCESS DENIED

EA

0 19

180

16 0

D

ER

UT

IT

ST

IN

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades, new trailhead parking and kiosk

Arms Forest Trails Master Plan Concept C

DR

AR

LL

Legend

14 0

KI

Y NE

15 0

13 0

North Avenue Alliance Church

LE

TT

TH

Parking area moved closer to entry, New trailhead, kiosk sign and path through edge of woods

Arms Forest Boundary

Stream

OďŹ&#x20AC; Property Trail

Parcel Boundary

Trail Connection

P

19 0

190

RD

Parking

Trailhead/ Access TH Point

19 0

Interpretive Signage, Kiosk Observation Platform

Trails by Proposed Typology

Trail re-route around sensitive area

200

LI

E

GL

P

190 190

Y

BA

180

Elks Club Property PUBLIC ACCESS DENIED

EA

0 19

180

16 0

Interpretive Trail (Hike Only)

Natural Surface Trail (Hike Only)

190

200

Prepared by:

October, 2019

0 20

Trails in this area are recommended for removal due to steep slopes, sensitive ecology and connection to Elks Property

H E

AV

190

18 0

0 15

150

0 15

RT O N

Arms Forest

15 0

17 0 0 19

130 160

230

240

0 24

270

14 0

New trail connection creating internal loop avoiding Diocese ďŹ eld

190

150

160

170

250

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades and avoid parking lot

IN

RL Former Quarry Site

GT

CK

N O

RO

RD

BU

T

170

0 18

0 15

IN

0 27

15 0

PO

250

260

GR 17 0

W N EE

0 17

220

P ck Point To Ro

AY

TH

Episcopal 170 Diocese of Vermont

230 190

Burlington High School

170

14 0

Rock Point

I

E

UT

IT

T NS

RD

Trail realigned to minimize steep grades, new trailhead parking and kiosk