1

September 30, 2005 DRAFT Anchorage Parks & Recreation Department Off-Leash Dog Areas Strategic Action Plan Introduction Exercising dogs in parks is a legitimate and needed recreation activity in Anchorage. The overall goal of the off-leash areas is to provide a range of off-leash areas for exercise opportunities, to supplement the on-leash opportunities at all Anchorage parks, to accommodate the needs of dogs and their owners, while not compromising the needs and use of this shared public space for other park users or the natural resources of the parks. Parks and trails are shared, public spaces for the community that provide recreation opportunities and health benefits to residents and visitors of Anchorage. While on-leash dogs have always been welcomed in Anchorage’s parks and trails, dog owners have been asking the city for several years for legal, designated off-leash areas to exercise their dogs in. The Anchorage dog population, estimated at over 60,000 may also be increasing. The establishment of five off-leash areas in 2003

had a successful start yet there are some issues to be resolved. This action plan seeks to address some of those issues and provide recommendations that will enable the continued success of off-leash areas in Anchorage parks. Opportunities and Challenges Parks for all Users Our mission at Anchorage Parks and Recreation is to provide a balanced network of public spaces and programs throughout the community that preserve and enhance Anchorage’s heritage, lifestyle, special places and natural areas for future generations. Our challenge today is to balance the needs of all park users as new activities arise and existing ones become increasingly more diversified. How we got here A public involvement process was initiated in February 2005. The primary purpose of this effort was to address the concerns of members of the community, discuss the issues and opportunities at University Lake Park and Connor Lake Park and to

2

brainstorm for solutions that could work for all users. The nine Park District workshops held in the spring of 2005 engaged the community in all aspects of parks including off-leash uses with many people contributing ideas and solutions for this specifically. The public involvement process used was developed by The Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands for the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department. A complete Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department Public Involvement Plan is available upon request. Other public involvement methods employed in drafting this action plan include:

• A Mayor established a five member Off-leash Advisory Committee to help the Parks and Recreation Department strategize and plan for the continuation of off-leash areas in Anchorage;

• A random mail survey to 1600 registered voters/residents of Anchorage;

• 30 Stakeholder Interviews;

• 9 Park District Workshops in March and April 2005;

• Off-leash dog area open house and responsible dog ownership event June 2005;

• Letters, emails, phone calls to the Parks and Recreation Department;

• Department of Health and Human Services staff and Mayor’s Office staff input and participation.

Strategic Actions The Strategic Actions below will help set a framework for clear action while building on the mission and vision of the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department. Goals and Objectives

PARK STEWARDSHIP

Goal 1: Provide more off-leash areas as needed using the site selection criteria established.

Objective 1: Geographically distribute new off-leash areas throughout the five Park Districts with consideration given to varying types of parks, varying attributes, with varying adjacent and traditional uses to prevent overuse of a few popular areas;

3

Objective 2: When considering new off-leash sites, refer to the list of parks already identified for review by Animal Control Board members, PRC members and Parks Staff in July 2004. (See Appendices).

PARK AMENITIES

Goal 2: Develop design standards for off-leash dog areas within Anchorage Parks. Objective: Parks and Recreation will work with a local landscape design firm to develop park amenity standards including off-leash amenities such as fencing, water sources (fountain or pond), surfacing, interpretive signs with maps, public education brochures and garbage cans.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Goal 3: Continue channeling efforts towards public education on use and locations of existing off-leash areas; Objective 1: Finalize brochures, secure funding and sponsorship to mass produce for the purposes of establishing partnerships with canine product vendors and the volunteer group Trail Watch to help with public information dissemination and education related to the off-leash areas;

Objective 2: Continue with a positive campaign to educate dog owners about laws and etiquette on trails, especially regarding waste, and involve private sector businesses. Objective 3: Place interpretive signs with maps and Off-leash rules information in all off-leash areas in parks.

ENFORCEMENT

Goal 4: Increase enforcement at Off-leash area parks and all municipal parks. Objective 1: Increase Animal Control Enforcement Officer presence in both off-leash and on leash parks; Objective 2: Allow Parks staff authority to issue citations for off-leash violations; Objective 3: Have enforcement play a stronger role, including fines for violations, while balancing increased public education and information dissemination; Objective 4: Initiate funding for Park Rangers to help with off-leash and other park rule enforcement and to increase the overall safety of Anchorage Parks.

4

SUSTAINABILITY AND FUNDING Goal 5: To provide a funding strategy that will sustain Off-leash areas in Anchorage Parks.

Objective 1: Parks and Recreation Department should work with Animal Control to explore the possibility of increasing the number of dog licenses by issuing notices to off-leash area users who do not have their dog licensed (requirement of using off-leash areas in parks) to augment the funding for maintenance and enforcement; Objective 2: Expand sponsorship opportunities to provide for funding of interpretive signs, education brochures and other off-leash site amenities; Objective 3: Expand the opportunities for off-leash users to donate funds or work with the Anchorage Park Foundation and Anchorage Unleashed to contribute toward desired improvements for off-leash areas in parks; Objective 4: Increase MOA budget to provide for increased enforcement of leash laws and off-leash rules;

Objective 5: Include park bonds or legislative requests for capital improvements to existing or new off-leash parks in the long term funding strategy.

SHORT TERM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY (6 MONTHS -1 YEAR)

Goal 1: To make Improvements that can make existing off-leash areas more amenable to users. Objectives:

1. Remove gate in Russian Jack Springs Park on Boniface Parkway entrance to allow parking for off-leash area;

2. Finalize interpretive signs, construct and install interpretive signs at Connor Lake Park Fall 2005;

3. Place appropriate numbers of garbage cans in appropriate locations for ease of trash pick up by volunteers and maintenance staff or have maintenance pick up trash at University Lake;

5

Goal 2: To keep the community involved in this ongoing process by providing the Off-Leash Strategic Action Plan for public review. Objectives: 1. The off-leash action plan should be accessible to the public in hard copy format and on the web so feedback can be provided to the Parks and Recreation Department and the Off-leash Advisory Committee;

2. An Off-leash specific public meeting is recommended to allow members of the public who were not interviewed in the stakeholder process or who did not attend Park District public meetings in the spring a forum for providing input into Off-leash issues.

LONG TERM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY (2- 5 YEARS)

1. Evaluate current off-leash areas and new off-leash areas yearly;

2. Apply design standards to all existing and new off-leash areas;

3. Add new off-leash sites as needed;

4. Seek funding sources including grants, legislative requests, fundraising and bonds.

5. Build public-private partnerships to fund, maintain and to improve off-leash areas.

APPENDICES

1. Public Involvement Summary; 2. Evaluation of existing off-leash areas; 3. Existing and Potential Off-leash areas

table and map; 4. Interpretive Sign Design and Cost

Estimate; 5. Site Selection Matrix and Legend; 6. Off-Leash Educational Brochure.

1

Summary of Comments from Stakeholder Interviews This draft paper summarizes comments from stakeholder interviews conducted to gather input for the University Lake and Connor Lake Master Plan. The stakeholders interviewed represent community and special interest groups: community councils, neighborhood groups, Parks and Recreation Commission, Ted Stevens International Airport, Skijor Association, residents, Alaska Native Hospital, UAA, APU, Kayak Symposium, Anchorage Unleashed, Adopt-a-Park representatives, Audubon Society and bird watching tour representatives. BIG ISSUE General Comments Solution

1

Safety • Bags from poop stations are being removed • Signs being removed shortly after being

posted • Who assumes liability in off-leash areas? • Conflict with kids and dogs • Aggressive off-leash dogs • Risk associated with choice of going to off-

leash areas • Vandalism of off-leash rule signs • Homeless camps in wooded areas

2. Enforcement And Monitoring

• Better and more random enforcement at parks by Animal Control officers needed

• No enforcement allows dogs off-leash on private land

• Lack of enforcement in other parks – not designated as off-leash areas

• Off-leash dog tried to bite other park user – owner made no effort to call her dog back

• University policy requires registration of dogs brought to campus

• Secure funding for more/full-time Enforcement Officers

2

3. Education

• Need more education of trail etiquette • Need signage at all entrances of parks to

indicate area is off-leash, with rules • More educational outreach is needed •

• Provide educational materials such as brochures, maps to users of parks and trails

• Put signs in at all parks, include off-leash boundaries and rules information on signs

• Self-policing by user groups of non-compliant users

4. Environmental

• Dog feces in lakes could cause environmental health issue

• Quality of lakes and area around lake shores are muddy

• Nesting grebes and other water birds affected by dogs chasing them

• Other wildlife in area: otter, beaver • Erosion of lake bank, vegetation cover gone • Waterfowl numbers decreasing • Lake is natural shoreline for bird habitat • Some species sensitive to disturbance • Little erosion to Connor Lake prior to 2003 • Lake is rare natural area within urban context

• Put boardwalk in to limit ground erosion on wet trails

3

–few relics left in Anchorage • Lake provides food for nesting birds • Highest number of different bird species in

Anchorage: loons, swans, grebes, ducks • Other wildlife: lynx, red fox, moose,

goshawks, eagles, geese • Water quality issues with sheer numbers of

dogs in area • Both lakes are big wildlife viewing areas

5. Design/lack of facilities

• Need to have Master Plan for Park • “had they done a master plan – may have

been a different situation.” • Create other off-leash use areas to disperse

density of use • Dog parody – small dogs vs. large • Include water as an amenity for new parks • Lack of parking • No fence separating/designating an off-leash

area • Poor or lack of planning of park alienates

some users • Winter fencing at Connor Lake at entry to limit

conflict with fast moving skijoring • No parking at south end of Connor lake • “Park bonds fail because of lack of process

like this.” • “Had the Assembly not stacked dog parks,

had a Master Plan process – this would be different.”

• Asked for a Master Plan from Parks & Rec • “Rewarding people who broke leash laws by

allowing park they used to be legal off-leash

• parking strategy: future shared parking

with surrounding institutions • boardwalks • channel dogs away from

environmentally sensitive areas by a fence

• permanent fencing and signs

4

area.” • Residents, land owners not notified of area

being dog park – no process for public involvement besides testifying

6. Overused

• “Park is being loved to death” • use has increased dramatically with dog

parks • overused • too many dogs for the size of the area • sheer number of dogs there now not there

before dog park •

7. Compatible uses/land use

• “ A dog park is a dog park – does not allow for other multi-uses - no children allowed”

• Inappropriate location for dog park • Dogs on skijor trails going at fast speed • Orienteering happens here • Kayak symposium every May at University

Lake with 50-200 participants • Many passive uses of park such as walking • Park taken over by dogs with 300+ per day

over 1 week period • Soccer field is private property with Campfire

USA and Cook Inlet Soccer using the site • Nordic, skijoring, walking trails at park – multi-

use • Airport agreement with MOA does not permit

area to be used as Off-leash area • Separate areas of dog park and other uses

5

• Loss of multi-use area “is a people issue not a dog issue – social activity for people – dogs are where they are supposed to be.”

• Other user’s use of area is reduced as it becomes a dog park

• Small dog owners are displaced - even on leash

• Single use not appropriate • Health education of patients and staff of

hospital – use the park and trail every day Park used as rehab by hospital patients and staff

• Hard to justify area as dog park • Native focus on land and healing through

nature incompatible with area as dog park and highly active use

• Dog wonderland now • “AK Natives using park have strong ties to the

land and lake – consider location of park to be asset to native way of thinking and wellness”

• Tour trail – conflicts • Adopt-a-park groups resigned/refused to

adopt because of new use designation – no input

8. Other sites

South of Earthquake Park on N. Lights Blvd Pt. Woronzof Bentzen Lake Taku Lake Bivouac Trail Use new parks for dog park – no other traditional uses established Minnesota Curve

6

Meadow Park Windsong Park Stormy Place

9. Loss of Multi-use & Community assets

• “Jewel in our system” • “welcome feeling of park is lost when taken

over by dogs • no longer peaceful, noisier • huge asset to Native Hospital as

neighbor/front yard • was neighborhood park – grew up to be

community park • What is greater good for area for all people

who live and work in area (major employment center)

• Was best kept secret until increase in size and use

• Was nice and peaceful before • Connor lake – “preserved for 100 years – had

variety of plant life, species richness and diversity) – only lake of its size which is completely natural”

• “Native Hospital use of area not in alignment with dogs running amok”

• “Dog park advocates cared nothing for the 10 years of work done by friends of university lake group”

10. Changes

• “liked it how it was before” • “was quiet in the summer” • greater community enjoyment before

7

11. Impacts to neighbors

• over 1000 UAA students live in dorms near lake and use area

• AK Native Hospital is largest area in state where Alaskan Natives congregate (over 35,000 natives per month come to area

• Largest consortium of health for Alaskan Natives

• 4000 employees • Economic and health center

1

Evaluation of Off Leash Areas Trial Period July 2003 – September 2004 Preliminary Report May 1, 2004

By Heather Charton Summary of Report Purpose: To evaluate the off-leash areas for the MOA’s Department of Health and Human Services

Areas of evaluation:

1. Use – how many residents are using all five trial off leash sites? Who are the users and what are their patterns of use?

2. Community desires: what do Anchorage residents want in an off-leash area?

3. Conflict – is there conflict, what kind and how to avoid this? 4. Environmental Impact – need to identify benchmarks for environmental

impacts based on individual ecological and social limits or carrying capacity of each park if dog parks are going to be successfully implemented over time.

5. Maintenance and funding – what kinds of maintenance, cost of maintenance, funding for implementation and maintenance?

Methodology: 1. Descriptive, qualitative study includes comparative analysis between Anchorage and other cities with off-leash areas including literature review. Site Criteria Models, Rule Models, External Funding Models and City-Citizen Agreement Models are also looked at for each of the case study cities examined. 2. Key informant interviews (14)

a. Contract administrator with MOA Health and Human Services b. Audubon Society President c. Anchorage Un-leashed President d. APU President e. Friends of University Lake member f. Anchorage Skijor Association Rep g. Off-leash advocacy reps from Seattle, Vancouver BC, Denver and Portland

3. Short survey of local park users

a. Observational survey of off-leash areas b. Short questionnaire administered

2

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations:

1. Planning Consider a more specific planning process before moving on with off-leash areas based on the Denver Model: a. Developed an extensive, stated, documented strategic plan for the

implementation of off-leash areas. b. Included a 1 year research period with site selection based on this

research c. Public meetings were held in each neighborhood with an off-leash area d. An advisory board was created to research and advise on issues relating

to off-leash areas.

2. Monitoring and Evaluation: a. To ensure success of an off-leash area, consistent, well-defined

monitoring and evaluation of each site is essential. b. Have this in place before embarking on a pilot project or site selection. c. Recommends the Seattle Steward Concept, the Denver Weekly

evaluation method and the Stop Light Concept. d. Pre-set expectations of what sites should look like in terms of health of

turf, doggie piles left un-scooped and vandalism provides baseline data to measure against.

3. Funding: The average cost of dog park start ups is $128,000 from the 4 cities studied. The average yearly cost for off-leash areas is $133,000. The average cost for start-up of one new park once off-leash areas are established ranges from $20,000-$50,000. 3 Funding Models Studied: a. All costs covered by the city or municipality b. Costs shared by city and citizens. The city provides funding for specific things such as the start up requirements of fences, parking lots, information kiosks, durable surface materials, signage and waste receptacles. The city would also treat dog parks as multi-use areas and routine maintenance of those areas would take place like other city parks. c. Costs covered primarily by city, offset by a user fee. The city contributes funding with assistance from volunteer and advocacy groups and an additional fee is collected from site users either with a tag or permit to use the dog park areas or a parking fee for the sites.

3

Successful dog parks have a combination of the city providing funding and citizens providing a substantial and committed volunteer base. 4. Education and Public Awareness

Recommendation is to adopt a 5 pronged approach to education like the Portland Model:

a. Outreach to the community by off-leash staff, partnerships with pet health and supply community;

b. A well designed user friendly website providing the rules, frequently asked questions, citizen comments, directions to the sites, status of each area in regards to monitoring efforts;

c. A brochure available for distribution throughout the city and clearly noted signage and informational kiosks at each site;

d. Promotion of “responsible dog ownership” similar to the Vancouver Model.

Dog Park Interpretive Sign

Materials Needed: Estimated Cost

½”x24”x36” Interpretive Sign $642 ¼”x24”x36” Aluminum Back Plate (w/dog profile) $334 2 each 6”x6”x8’ Pressure Treated Post $60 (30 each) Type II Classified Fill (for installing Post) $40 8 each 3/8”x2 ½” Lag Screws $10 18 each ¼”-20 x 5/8” Button Head “Pin-in-head” $20 Torx Tamper Resistant Stainless Steel Screws with Finishing washers

Total

Estimated Cost $1106 per Sign

Notes: Interpretive Sign costs include shipping ($75.00 each Fed Ex Economy). Total Estimated costs do not include Labor or Parks & Recreation Staff time. Aluminum back plate costs without dog profile is estimated at $167 each (Project Total $939)

Off-Leash Rules

Dogs must be leashed upon entering and leaving the off-leash dog areas.

Dogs must be legally licensed and have a current rabies vaccination.

Classifi ed dogs and female dogs in heat are prohibited.

The owner or custodian of the dog must remain in the dog area with the dog.

Dogs must be under control as defi ned in Title 17.

Dog feces must be cleaned up by the dog owner or custodian.

Holes dug by dogs must be fi lled in by the dog owner or custodian.

Owners or custodians are responsible for all actions of their dogs.

1

2

3

4

7

8

6

5

Off-Leash dog area users are required to follow area rules and regulations at all times including:

Municipality of Anchorage, Parks & Recreation Department, Department of Health & Human Services, Animal Care and Control

S ign Sponsored By :Your Name/Company Name/Pet Name Here

Off-Leash Area Boundary Map

O’Malley

W Klatt Road

Soccer FieldsParking

C S

treet

Park

ing

LittleLeagueFields Parking

Off-Leash Area

Welcome to the South Anchorage Sports Park Off -Leash Dog Area

ANCHORAGE

PARKS & RECREATION

Healthy Parks

HealthyPeople

N o rth e rn L ig h ts B lv d

Wis

con

sin

St

Po

stm

ark

Dr

R a s p b e rry R o a d

S tra w b e rry R o a d

8 8 th Av e

W. D im o n d B lv d

K in c a id R o a d

D im o n d B lv d

A b b o tt R o a d

O 'M a lle y R o a d

H u ffm a n R o a d

D e A rm o u n R o a d

E a s t K la tt R o a d

1 0 0 th Av e

D o w lin g R o a d

In te rn a tio n a l A irp o rt R o a d

Tu d o r R o a d

3 6 th Av e

B e n s o n B lv d

1 5 th Av e

D e B a rr R o a d

N o rth e rn L ig h ts B lv dS

an

d L

ak

e R

oa

d

Jew

el L

ak

e R

oa

d

No

rth

wo

od

O 'M a lle y R o a dL

ak

e O

tis P

kw

y

Bir

ch R

oa

d

Hill

sid

e D

riv

e

Ab

bo

tt L

oo

p R

oa

d

La

ke

Otis

Pk

wy

Bra

ga

w S

t

Bo

nifa

ce P

kw

y

Ba

xte

r Ro

ad

Pin

e S

t

Pa

tte

rso

n S

t

Mu

ldo

on

Ro

ad

6 8 th Av e

R a b b it C re e k R o a d

U p p e r D e A rm o u n R o a d

H u ffm a n R o a dJoh

ns

Ro

ad

Vict

or R

oa

d

Jod

hp

ur S

t

We s t K la tt R o a d

Old

Se

wa

rd H

wy

Old

Se w

a rd H

wy

Se w

a rd H

wy

Se

wa

rd H

wy

S p e n a rd R

d

Min

ne

sota

Dri

ve

Min

ne

sota

Dri

ve

Arc

tic B

lvd

Arc

tic B

lvd

C S

tA

St

4 th Av e

Turp

in S

t

Ae

ro

Ave

E . 6 th Av e

Bo

nifa

ce P

kw

y

P o in t Wo ro n z o f

F ire w e e d L n

C o m m e rc ia l D riv e

3 rd Av e

Go

lde

nv

iew

Dr

.

La toucheSt.

Fo

rest

Pa

rk

Turn

ag

ain

Airc

raft

Dr.

Tundra

No

rth

wo

od

Dr

.

O ld K la tt R o a d

S h o re D r. Tim

be

rla

ne

Dr

.

Oceanview Dr.

Ja rv i

Vic tor

Jeanne

Sulta na

Toilsome Hill Dr.

Gilm

an

Do

gg

ieS h e b e n o f

Tra

ils E

nd

Pro

s pe c

t Dr

.

Orc

a S

t.

Old

Se

wa

rd H

wy

5 th Av e .

1 s t Av e

6 th Av e .

Tideview

1 7 2 n d

1 6 1 s t Southpark

Cre

stv

iew

Re e f

8 4 th Av e

8 0 th Av e

8 8 th Av e

E . 5 6 th

3 6 th

1 0 th Av e .

Pip

er

Fo

lke

r

M e rrill F ie ld D riv e

F ro n ta g e R d .

Vik in g

Wes

leya

n

C h irik o f

Wa ld ro n

Airs

trip

Ensign

Bashore

7 7 th Av e

D a v is P a rk

To E a g le R iv e r

S e a rs M a ll

U n iv e rs ity M a ll

5 th Av e . M a ll

A la s k a R e g io n a l H o s p ita l

N o rth w a y M a ll

P ro v id e n c e H o s p ita l

tunnel under Lake Otis

Elm

ore

Str

ee

t

G le n n H w y

Ship Creek

Tu rn a g a in A

rm

K n ik Arm

C o n n o rsL a k e

We s tc h e s te r

L a g o o n

L a k eH o o d

L a k eS p e n a rd

Je w e l L a k e

Sand Lake

Campbell Lake

G o o s eL a k e

C h e n e yL a k eC h e s te r C re e k

Little Rabbit Creek

Rabbit Creek

S. Fork Little Campbell Creek

N. Fork Little Campbell Creek

South Fork Campbell Creek

North Fork Cam

pb

ellCreek

D e lo n gL a k e

Fish

Cree

k

U n iv.L a k e

Ta k uL a k e

Pott er Creek

FurrowCreek

An c h o r a g e C

o a s t a l

Wi l d l i f e Re f u g e

C O O K

IN L E T

Legend

0 .40 .4 0 0 .40 .4 0 .80 .8 1 .21 .2 1 .61 .6 2M ile sM ile s

Existing Recreation Trails

Sub-Area Park District Boundaries

ExistingOff-Leash Dog Areas

MOA Parkland

Existing and Potential New Off-Leash Dog Areas

Anchorage Parks & Recreation Department

1. South Anchorage Sports Park2. North Gasline Trail - FNBP3. Connor Lake4. Russian Jack Springs Park5. University Lake

Off-Leash Dog Areas

TSAIA Land Under Permit to MOA for Park Use

4

2

5

2

1. Valley of the Moon2. 2 acres behind Animal Control 3. Hundeplatz area at Kincaid4. BLM Ridge Trail & Richter Loop Trail at FNBP5. Storck Park/Section 36

Potential New Sites

5

1

2

3

4

5

33

1

DRAFT Off-Leash Dog Areas Site Selection Criteria Matrix Legend

Numerical Ranking of Criteria 5 = Very high compatibility, may be a good site for proposed use. 4 = Moderately high compatibility, with a few minor issues to be resolved. 3 = Moderately compatible for a proposed use with some issues to be resolved. 2 = Moderately low compatibility, many issues to resolve. 1 = Low compatibility; many irresolvable issues. 0 = Not Compatible; irresolvable issues. X = Determines that site is incompatible If an X is given to any criteria, then that site may be deemed incompatible and alternate sites will be considered. Total scores will help determine which sites best meet the selection criteria. Those sites with high scores will be considered highly compatible for the proposed use versus sites with lower scores. Research and site assessments will be executed on each site considered for the proposed use to determine their compatibility rankings. Explanation of Site Criteria Existing or Planned Uses -If area has Master Plan, are new uses of the area compatible with the Plan? -Does new proposed use of area conflict with current or existing and planned uses? -Are the proposed uses compatible with surrounding land uses? Environment - Will water quality be affected by proposed use (streams, lakes, other water bodies in area)? -Is erosion a possibility with sustained use? -Will vegetation be impacted with sustained use? Wildlife -Are there existing species (plants, animals) that may be affected by proposed use? (ie: federally listed endangered or sensitive species, protected nesting grounds for migratory species.) -Will habitat be impacted? -Are encounters with large wildlife likely? Neighbors -Will new uses impact neighbors adjacent to area (noise, parking, property infringement)?

1

Access -Are there provisions for parking and maintenance? -Is the area ADA accessible? Public Safety -Is the area safe from traffic, crime? Carrying Capacity -Can the size of the area support the number of users, current and additional? -Size of area/number of users = density Drainage -Is the drainage compatible with the proposed use? -Does it hinder or enhance the proposed use? Terrain -Is the terrain appropriate or compatible with the proposed use or activity? ie: hilly terrain may be incompatible for siting of children’s playgrounds. Water availability -Do water features exist that would be a desired component for the proposed use? Open Areas -Are there open areas that are desirable for proposed use? Fences, able to fence or Natural Barriers present -Do fences or natural barriers exist that would render the area more desirable for a proposed use? -Can the area be fenced if no fence or natural barrier exists? Size -Is the size of the area appropriate for the proposed use? Trails -Are there trails linking, accessing to and from the area that would make it a more desirable location? Volunteer or Community Group Adoption -Is there a group already in place or will be in place that is committed to stewardship of the area? Land Ownership -Is land privately or publicly owned? -Is the land city parkland, state or federally owned lands?

2

Potential Off-Leash Dog Areas Matrix Draft 2

Sites exi

stin

g or

pl

anne

d us

es

envi

ronm

ent

neig

hbor

s

acce

ss:

mai

nten

ance

, pa

rkin

g, A

DA

carr

ying

cap

acity

drai

nage

terr

ain

wat

er a

vaila

blit

y

open

are

as

fenc

es, c

an b

e fe

nced

or

natu

ral b

arrie

rs

MO

A P

arkl

and

5 = High compatibility4 = Moderately high compatibility3 = Moderately compatible2 = Moderately Low Compatibility 1 = Low Compatibility X = Incompatible

(Refer to Legend)

Tota

l

wild

life

Publ

ic s

afet

y(fr

om tr

affic

, crim

e)

trai

ls

volu

ntee

r/co

mm

unit

ygr

oup

adop

tion

size