Town of Southampton
Southampton Town Hall
116 Hampton Road
Southampton, NY 11968

December 14, 2002

Dear Members of the Board:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about the Long Pond Greenbelt Management Plan prepared for you by a hardworking coalition.

The plan is comprehensive and thoughtful and no one could disagree with its first purpose, "protect and maintain the full range of species, ecological communities and natural processes characteristic of the Long Pond Greenbelt." (Pg. 4)

But we need to address some inconsistencies, some inaccuracies and some illogical solutions.

On pg. 25-"The major environmental concerns are erosion from inappropriate or uncontrolled use of horses, which can contribute to contamination and eutrophication of pond waters, the introduction of non-native weeds in horse manure as well as potential impacts to rare species and other wildlife."

Let's break this down into sections:

1. erosion: Soil erosion is a two part process-soil particles are loosened largely by wind or raindrop impact (also wet/dry and freeze/thaw cycles) and transported by the flow of wind and water. The four primary factors involved in erosion are climate, soil characteristics, topography and ground cover. (Gergus, 2002) The essential cause of erosion is water-look at the Grand Canyon for example. An improperly placed trail will erode regardless of the user. A properly place trail that avoids the fall line and maintains the appropriate grade will not erode whether it be horses or footsteps that use it. In a limited 5 year study (Summer, 1990 and 1996) suggested that foot traffic produced effects similar to horse traffic.
   In fact, the proposal on pg. 26, 4 & 5, seems designated to increase erosion. To designate a high use area by establishing a parking field and designating the one trail for equestrian use that comes off that parking area is to concentrate horse use to a small area. Concentrating any use is problematic. Furthermore, the greatest threat to trails is ATV and ORV use. Establishing a large area with a wide trail entrance near a road is perfect for ATV riders. Then, as has happened frequently in the past, horses will get blamed for ATV degradation of the trails. Better to encourage use that is spread out over all the trails, just as is hiking, to limit wear on any one trail.
2. Inappropriate or uncontrolled use of horses: I know that to people who don't ride, horses seem large, perhaps unruly and inappropriate. Due to the urbanization of America, the general population has lost its contact with and innate understanding of most animals. Horses are prey animals; they are the animals that other wild animals have for dinner. Despite their size, horses are fragile. Trash on a trail, motorized vehicles, and marshlands are dangerous to horses. The very first person who does not want "inappropriate or uncontrolled" use is the person who rides the horse. It is apparent that the use of these words paints an inaccurate picture of what happens in the woods.
3. contamination and eutrophication of pond waters: There is little data about impacts from horses but bacteriological and nutrient effects are seldom detectable except next to stables (Williams, et al, 1998). Five studies have taken place in the San Mateo County watersheds. It is important to keep in perspective that these studies involve settings where horses live 24/7 next to a creek. Thus far, data, even in this setting, have not confirmed significant adverse affects on the surface waters immediately adjacent to them. Leaking aging septic systems, residential over-fertilizing and certain agricultural practices are suspected where data exceed recommended standards. Given this, it is hard to conceive of a situation where the manure from a few horses on a trail could adversely impact surface water nearby.
   To help put the situation in some perspective, remember that only 12 per cent of horse manure is solid material. The rest is water. Manure left in loose heaps loses its nitrogen rapidly (New Hampshire, 1990) and nutrients volatize rapidly, so rapidly that using horse manure as a fertilizer requires that the manure be quickly turned into the soil before the nutrients are lost to the air. Since a horse may be on a trail for two or three hours once a week and we are talking about 5 or 6 horses (I have never met or ridden with more than 5 people out there), the trail deposits are really quite minimal.
   To fear eutrophication of the pond waters is certainly a hysterical overstatement. I have been riding horses for 20 years; only once in those 20 years has my horse pooped in the water-that occasion was crossing a fast running river that was about 200 yards wide in Pennsylvania. As far as I can determine, there is not a stream crossing about which to be concerned in the LG Plan. I agree that we need to protect the pond edges from BOTH footsteps and horsesteps. BOTH hikers and riders need to engage in Best Management Procedures (BMP) and avoid urinating or defecating any closer than 10 feet to a pond edge. However, please refer to the reference above to scientifically determine if such a fear is justified.
   Good management would provide a scenic view of the ponds for all visitors; hikers and trail riders are essentially site seers. If they see then they don't have to go in, especially at less than optimal locations. Signeage at the trailhead or at the site will do a great deal to keep hikers and riders away from sensitive areas,
4. Introduction of non-native weeds in horse manure: There is absolutely no research to substantiate this statement. I have attached a number of scientific studies and reviews of these studies. Let me use just one here to illustrate a few points: Seed Dispersal of Small Seeds by Big Herbivores: Foliage is the Fruit-The American Naturalist (1984):
   ~Most seeds are dry or otherwise inconspicuous and are not associated with specific dispersal agents (the horse) except for gravity, wind, surface water movement, soil erosion, birds, ants, dung beetles and rodents.
   ~Seeds must be sufficiently small, tough, hard and inconspicuous to escape the molar mill and spitting response of a large mammal. Seed coats must have the ability to resist digestion during a transit period of days to months. Horses are as likely to be an intense seed predator of seeds as they are to be a possible dispersal agent.
   ~The longer the seeds are in the animal (or buried in dung), the higher the seed mortality
   ~If a seed germinates immediately in the dung, the community of dung degrading organisms may kill it
   ~Severe mortality is likely through inter- and intra-specific crowding
   ~In horses, the larger the seed the longer it stays in the animal and the greater the chance that it will either be killed by digestive processes or be found by seed predators searching dung.
   ~Large herbivores carry seeds inside them, not outside them in hair.
5. potential impacts to rare species and other wildlife: I fail to understand what species and what impacts. Since we do not propose to increase the use of these trails by horses, but maintain the status quo, perhaps the committee could simply enumerate the impacts rather than referring darkly to some potential risk. If it has not happened in the last 400 years, it is unlikely to happen now.

Page 25, 1) Separate trails for pedestrians and equestrians are preferred, to minimize occasional user conflicts:
Shared trails maximize the space available. In practice, what happens is that everybody uses "equestrian trails' but the equestrians may not use the trails that are designated for others. So, in fact, the equestrian trails get more use than the other trails.
Does the committee have some factual basis for this fear of conflict? Have there been incidents of hikers being injured by horses?
In fact, lightly used trails may grow over and require more maintenance, whereas moderate horse use may help to maintain a multiple-use trail (Williams, et al, 1998).

Page 26, 3) A parking area for vehicles with horse trailers needs to be established: This is certainly a policy decision. But there has to be a careful consideration of purposes. As noted before, a parking area draws ATV and dumping abuses of the trails. Furthermore, in a later section, you will be excluding non-residents from use. If so, then a parking lot seems unnecessary.

Page 26, 4) The horse trailer parking staging area should include about three parking spaces, and should consist of a row of back in spaces each about 35 feet deep with at least 10 feet behind that, free of bumpers, barriers, ties and trees for unloading the horses. Each parking space should be at least 15 feet in width to allow for horses to be tied to the trailer: If you do decide to establish such a place, it would be wise to consult someone who actually drives a trailer. The description you have here lacks practicality. As kind as the authors are trying to be, a better arrangement is a pull-in-pull-out situation: it takes less room and requires less skill for the driver.

Page 26, 5) Tethering poles, two at each site, twelve feet apart about ten to fifteen feet behind the parking space: In your plan under 4) above you already provide tethering for horses. "Each parking space should be at least 15 feet in width to allow for horses to be tied to the trailer." This part of the plan needs to be eliminated entirely. We do not need both a highline and tying to the trailer. An upright pole is a magnet for vandalism as well as a problem for use-how is an equestrian supposed to reach 12 feet up in the air to attach his line?

As I draw out this plan, you would need a site that accommodates 50 feet of open space for each trailer.

Page 26, 7) A 6ft circle of gravel with water spigot: Since we could only ride on the proposed trail adjacent to the proposed site of the parking field for maybe 1 ½ hours, it is not necessary to provide a water spigot. Since you expect only local use, a horse van is only a few minutes from home. In addition, most of us carry a few gallons of water with us for our horses to drink. The thoughtfulness is appreciated, however.

Page 26, B Carrying capacity 1) Horse trails . . .heavy or intense use of horses within the Greenbelt is both potentially damaging and impractical. Consequently the number of horseback riders will be kept low by (i) requiring Town access permits, which will be available to town residents only and (ii) prohibiting commercial trail riding enterprises: We assume the authors envision a great rise in the number of trail riders. We agree than a commercial trail riding enterprise is not compatible with the preservation of the trails just as a commercial outfitter for hiking the trails or biking the trails is incompatible. However, requiring a permit for horseback riders is both arbitrary and capricious. If the committee is concerned about carrying capacity, then require a permit from ALL users, especially hikers. Require than ALL users be town residents. End the Southampton Trails Preservation Society practice of sponsoring hikes for anybody, limiting the hikes to residents.

Furthermore, since the Paumanok Path travels on the Long Pond Greenbelt, a non-resident rider or hiker would have to stop on the trail at the Township line and skirt the Greenbelt to pick it up on the other side. The goal of a continuous trail from Rocky Point to Montauk would remain only a dream.

Page 26, 2) Trails will be monitored to assess the ecological impacts of horseback riding: Perhaps the parameters of study need to be outlined now. An assessment of before and after, acceptable degrees of change, etc., need to be defined so that we can determine just what it is we are assessing.

Pg. 26, C 1) Horse traffic in sloped areas should be avoided as horses tend to loosen soils and destabilize hilly areas: ALL traffic should be avoided in sloped areas. The need to place all trails properly is paramount to success. Horses are not any worse than hikers, especially when we consider that there are so many more people with feet than with horses, on a trail that attends to the parameters of fall line and grade. See research presented.

Pg. 26, C 2) Horses can trample rare plant communities: As discussed before, anything, including native deer, can trample plant communities. Horseback riders want to avoid marshland as this is dangerous for their horses; if a plant community is fragile ALL users need to be diverted away.
Pg. 26, C 2) Horses . . .bacteriological and nutrient impacts: See research presented.
Pg. 26, C 2) Horses . . .spread exotic non native weed species: See research presented.

Pg. 26 and 27-The turtle proposal. Please refer to the letter on the next page that was already sent to this committee. Furthermore, please see the recent article from the NY Times I have included in your folder.

Researchers (Bennett and Zuelke, 1999) concluded that all recreation has temporary effect on behavior and movement. They studied birds. Direct approaches caused more disturbance than tangential approaches, rapid movement by joggers was more disturbing than slower hikers; children and photographers were especially disturbing and passing or stopping vehicles were less disturbing than human foot traffic. Horses and riders did not disturb birds.
Sporadic human use can disturb wildlife. However, "many animals are less afraid of a horseback riders than hikers. Riders seldom touch flora or fauna. Riders can be a dedicated and energetic volunteer and advocacy group. The horse-rider relationship promotes a non-anthropocentric worldview that facilitates ecological understanding. Horses can be useful for patrols, supplying trail maintenance and doing surveys. Horse traffic can be used to maintain firebreaks and seldom used trails" (Williams et all, 1998).

Pg. 28 7) Water bars are unsuitable for drainage on a horse trail because of the potential for tripping, stumbling or kicking of bars: In book after book, brochure after brochure and at conferences on trail building, horse people recommend and build water bars. Crossover culverts are a good refinement, but horses can simply step over a water bar, just like a hiker.

Pg. 28, 8) Road/horse intersections must be designed to that there is enough space on both sides of the road to allow for riders to gather in a group and cross en masse: We disagree with the committee. Since use of the Long Pond Greenbelt by horses will remain about the same, wide openings are not needed "for groups" as there will not be and there are not now "groups." Riders need as much space as a hiker to cross a road. Riders need the same site distance as hikers to cross a road. Furthermore, opening up a crossing will be an invitation to ATV riders to enter the trail.

Pg. 28, 3 Accessible trails for persons with disabilities. As a person who has been disabled for 20 years, I know from experience that planners often think that a person is either not disabled or else is in a wheelchair or on crutches. Planners forget that just like in everything else in life, there are degrees of disability. I took up horseback riding because I am disabled. I cannot walk more than ½ mile, but I can ride for hours and for miles. The only way I can access the out-of- doors is on my faithful mule. Will you require the handicapped users to a) get a permit and b) be a resident?

Pg. 33 G Enforcement 1) . . .telephone hotline 1-877-BARRENS: What a great aide the horseman is to the enforcement provisions of the plan! My companion and I have personally called in at least 20 violations as they occurred on public lands to the 1-877-BARRENS number.

Pg. 32, F The long-term success of the Long Pond Greenbelt Management Plan will depend largely on the cooperative stewardship efforts of all concerned agencies, organizations and individuals: Nothing could be more true. Long term success is based on scientific, not emotional structure.

Thank you for your time and attention. Management plans are difficult to build, but as we work together we will be able to provide a healthy and rational plan for The Long Pond Greenbelt.

Sincerely,

Cyla Allison, Ph.D. cyla@nshaonline.org