Calgary Jeep Association
4x4 Related Groups => Land Issues, Trail Projects & Trail Stewardship => Topic started by: specialk on September 24, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
-
Please join us for an evening of information, discussion, questions and answers about the proposed land use framework for the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan.
Presenters: Bev Yee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Dave Bartesko, Senior Consultation Manager, Land Use Secretariat.
Where: Capitol Hill Community Hall - 1531 21 Ave, Calgary, AB
When: 7:00 PM Thursday October 3
Background:
The Government of Alberta is actively working on a land use framework for the South Saskatchewan River Basin to support effective and sustainable use of the land by all users. Information on this process is available here:
https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/RegionalPlans/SouthSaskatchewanRegion/SSRPPlanning/Pages/default.aspx
RMDRA has actively engaged the Land Use Secretariat and provided feedback and advice regarding access for all OHVs and particularly ORM use and access. In cooperation with other Southern Alberta ORM and OHV groups including Lethbridge Motorcycle Club, Crowsnest Quad Squad, and Alberta Off Highway Vehicle Association (AOHVA) we met with the Land Use Secretariat and the Assistant Deputy Minister to advocate for sustainable OHV and ORM access within the region. During that meeting RMDRA was offered the opportunity to host a consultation to discuss the Draft Plan.
THE DRAFT PLAN:
Release of the Draft of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan is expected September 18, with private and public consultations planned throughout the fall months. When released, a copy of the Draft document will be placed in this thread for downloading and discussion.
This is a great opportunity to have a direct audience with representatives of the Provincial Government and engage productively on achieving the access we need to grow Off Road Motorcycling. Please tell your friends and come out in force to strengthen our voice in the land use planning process!
-
And the meeting has be bumped... stay tuned....
-
Presenters: Bev Yee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Dave Bartesko, Senior Consultation Manager, Land Use Secretariat.
Where: Capitol Hill Community Hall - 1531 21 Ave, Calgary, AB
When: 7:00 PM Thursday October 17
-
Any one have a link or have or seen a copy of the ssrp plan that was supposed to be released yesterday ?
-
https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/SSRP%20Draft%20SSRP%202014-2024_2013-10-10.pdf
Found it.
-
Did a quick overview last night. Yes we have the potential to lose a significant portion of the trails club members have accessed in the past few years.
There are some proposed new provincialparks/wilderness areas and the new alberta trail guide will be used in classifying trails. ( no moterized group where invited when they wrote up this legisation).
I suggest every member here read this , become informed and attend this meeting on the 17 and voice your opinion in this.
-
i skimmed it too. here's some fun stuff
same old blanket BS plan with vague language that could lead to anything. i believe G.A.M.P. read the same way..... we see how that worked out.
The demand for outdoor recreational opportunities such as camping, hunting,
fishing, ski touring, paddling and trail use is growing, and these forms of
active living are a significant aspect of the quality of life in the region. The
provincial parks system provides a wide variety of outdoor recreational and
educational experiences to visitors and helps to conserve biodiversity of
natural landscapes. Existing provincial park recreation amenities in the region
are generally at or over capacity and demand will increase as the region’s
population grows.
The use of motorized recreation vehicles is popular within the region and
ensures people of all ages and mobility can access the natural experiences
the region offers. However, an increase in random use is contributing to
environmental impacts, public safety issues and conflict among land users.
North Castle, Porcupine Hills, Livingstone and Willow Creek areas have been
identified as priority locations for creating comprehensive and integrated
recreation and access management plans. Areas will be managed to
minimize impact of activities such as dumping of garbage and random
campfires. To ensure these areas meet the preferences, diversity and
expectations of residents and visitors, infrastructure enhancements will be
needed, such as camping, staging areas, trail systems, and access to and
within recreation and tourism areas.
Planning for new tourism development such as recreation
trails and associated amenities needs to address environmental concerns,
in particular near watercourses, wetlands, and lakes with sensitive fisheries
vulnerable to increased human access. Trails in sensitive source water or
ecological areas will be assessed and may be relocated, closed or reclaimed.
Designated staging areas will also play a role in the management of public
lands and waters to enhance the recreation experience for users.
not all bad -->New Public Land Recreation Areas will be established in the eastern slopes
to support random camping and access to trails. These sites are highly
popular areas of random camping on public lands. They will be developed
to include basic amenities such as fire rings and gravel pad and no fees will
be charged. A Guardian program will be established to provide outreach and
education. A program will be established to provide “on the ground” outreach
and education regarding responsible use of public lands.
-
This is the trail classification system they will he using. http://www.albertatrailnet.com/downloads/Rec%20Corridors%20Trail%20Classification%20Manual.pdf
All of the trails that i have accessed during the nine days spent wheeling down south this past summer would be classifited as remote motorcycle trails.
These two trails will be part of a new provincial park. (http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/12/7eneza5y.jpg)(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/12/7uhy5ydu.jpg)
-
Here's another copy. Pretty much says the same thing as any past draft plan. Less reading but the same result.
I suggest motorized users should read this one while bent over.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gun/SouthernAlbertaDraftplan.png~original)
-
This is the trail classification system they will he using. http://www.albertatrailnet.com/downloads/Rec%20Corridors%20Trail%20Classification%20Manual.pdf
All of the trails that i have accessed during the nine days spent wheeling down south this past summer would be classifited as remote motorcycle trails.
These two trails will be part of a new provincial park. (http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/12/7eneza5y.jpg)(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/12/7uhy5ydu.jpg)
Hey your pics.. where is this
-
The one of nine new provincal park or wildlands in the ssrp area will be called high rock provincial park. That is where those trails are.
-
So basically all access to the divide and the passes is to be lost. Our government is insane. God forbid we drive into BC over the existing roads.
-
how far from calgary is this?
-
from page 20.
"Motorized recreation is a growing activity in Alberta for residents and visitors
and recreationists spend a substantial amount of money on their recreational
activities. The number of off-highway vehicles (OHV, including ATV-tracked,
quads, motorcycles, snowmobiles) registered in Alberta rose from 37,042 in
1987 to 138,177 in 201016. Additionally, 316,998 recreational vehicles were
registered in Alberta in 2010, a 23 per cent increase from 2005. Providing
areas for people to recreate is linked to the economic diversification of the
region. In 2009 snowmobiling enthusiasts spent $111.3 million on purchasing
new snowmobiles, accessories, parts, and clothing and another
$254.7 million was spent on operating and maintaining these vehicles
and on tourism-related activities17."
The above quote is the best part of that whole plan. (sarcasm)
What the he ll do you think will happen when you take all the 4x4 roads and designate them to bike and quad? I'm sure every time they designate another area the same percentage or higher will switch over to ATV's. Just by taking multi person vehicles off the trails you already more than double sales of single person vehicles.
-
how far from calgary is this?
It's very far and expensive in gas to go there... not worth it. Maclean is way better
-
Did a quick overview last night. Yes we have the potential to lose a significant portion of the trails club members have accessed in the past few years.
There are some proposed new provincialparks/wilderness areas and the new alberta trail guide will be used in classifying trails. ( no moterized group where invited when they wrote up this legisation).
I suggest every member here read this , become informed and attend this meeting on the 17 and voice your opinion in this.
just saying, but motorized groups were invited and i went. HUGE presence from the bike community at all venues. i went and presented a 4x4's opinions/issues at Cochrane venue.
-
Seemed like a pretty good turnout. Had to be over 100 people and there was a fairly good collection of Jeeps when I arrived. I know a lot of people that went through the whole GAMP thing were skeptical but it does sound like they are putting a lot of effort into getting input from all user groups. There are more meetings planned for November, it would be nice to see a good presence from our club there.
-
I had to leave at 8:30 anything happen after that??
Ps. Go Andy Go
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Getting over the nausea over the whole thing. This kinda crap makes me want to vomit.
Will post up a more correct version in a couple of days.
There are things we can do to minimise this and that is by getting involved in the process. Read the plan. There is an online wirk book available. And there are something like 18 public consultation meetings for this all over southern alberta during the next month or so.
They said we will not be any losing any designated trails. Note ; all trails down south are designated quad trails.
They said they will be using a trail classification system for manegement. That is what they used at gamp.
And as we all know gamp is a total failure in recreational manegement but a perfect example of access manegement.
Speaking of gamp it was started but never completed, nore never will be as the purpose was to close over 20,000 kms of trails and give us less then a hundred miles of trails to access.
These quiestions where asked to the deputy minister and there was the usual typical response that a used car salesman would tell you.
-
smells like bad....
when are the next consultation meetings Andy? i couldn't go last night, had a driveshaft grenade on my way home from work so i needed to address that first.
-
They said we will not be any losing any designated trails. Note ; all trails down south are designated quad trails.
The stuff south of the highway is designated for all motorized users, not quads. There is no designations north of the highway.
-
Online workbook to give feedback on the plan: https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/ (https://www.banister.ab.ca/ssrpphase3/)
Information sessions: https://landuse.alberta.ca/Newsroom/Pages/PublicConsultations.aspx (https://landuse.alberta.ca/Newsroom/Pages/PublicConsultations.aspx)
There are stakeholder meetings and public meetings those days. You have to register for the stakeholders meetings.
Calgary - November 13th
Airdrie - November 20th
Okotoks - November 27th
Cochrane - November 28th
-
The stuff south of the highway is designated for all motorized users, not quads. There is no designations north of the highway.
Exactly and you've pointed that out. Which means if there are no designations present right now there will be no designation of trails north of highway 3 later. In other words they stick to their word and we loose everything we have access to right now. All the trails south are marked quad and I will bet they turn into quad just like the sign indicates.
-
Gun,
i ride much of the racehorse creek area and have never seen a sign????
i also wonder why the bike community is ok and optimistic with the plan?
i get that many of us (including me) are bitter at GAMP and threw the towel in back in 2005 but the bike community got only 12kms of trail in Waiporous back then.
They invested heavily at Maclean (as was asked by srd) with all the signage you see (and the bridges, up and overs you do not see). Their hard work paid off with 60 more kms at Fallen Timber given to them and it looks like another 400kms coming soon.
Now i am talking true bike trails, not quad trails as we do not use them.
So, i wonder looking back, if we as a 4x4 community put as much effort as the bike group did at Maclean, would we have been given more at Waiporous?
So, doom and gloom your sport into oblivion or take a chapter out of the bike community and get involved again and make the .gov aware of continued effort...or not and wheel where ever the heck you want as you always have.
But, maybe its time for us doom and gloomer 4x4 guys to just shut up and let the new generation give it a go without the constant negativity from the old guard.
Yeah, i ride now but i KNOW i will wheel again when i am too old to ride 2 wheels. So, i will hope that the new generation of wheelers makes things happen for me by then or i too will wheel wherever i want legal or not.
i have said time after time that Maclean was the place to get in shape with signs, bridges, etc as it IS legal and based on the payoff to the bike community, it would have been worth it.
Cheers.
-
Tom I can understand the bike community not being part of the doom and gloomers of the 4x4 community. You continue to say bikers "single track" only got about 12 km and that's correct at the GAMP time but you fail to see the fact the bikers got the 1000km of quad trails to use as well. You are allowed on them but you choose not to use....that's your choice. I'd say you folks are coming out of that pretty good when now you have 1000km of quad trails plus what ever single track you can muster up.
Doom and gloom....absolutely...I've seen plan after plan get introduced with the same result. If my reminders to not trust ASRD and the PC government with trails for the 4x4's aren't within reason or realistic then have the mod's remove my posts...I know I have done a few myself.
Your point about never seeing a sign around the Race Horse and various other locations is my point exactly. They are not designated trails so will most likely be banned from use. Read Andy's post above ours. He points that out as well.
I think plenty of new users are being blinded by the slap on the back atta boy they receive from ASRD. Be cautious, quite often that slap turns to a stab in the back for your efforts.
-
But where does the doom and gloom attitude get us? I am one of the newer guys to this scene, I have heard a lot of the stories about GAMP and how it failed and I get it...it sucked. But by being bitter and bringing that to the table with this new proposal, it isn't going to give us any chance of having this as a positive outcome for us.
Like Tom said, I think the biggest issue that 4x4 has going for it is that the community as a whole isn't going after what we want. You might have a club here or there speak up, and make the odd effort at being involved, but that isn't going to be good enough. We need CJA, FWS, LCK, Packrats, Jeep junkies, ABJK, etc to all be involved and to speak up about what is important to us.
Gun, guys like you are important to have in this picture. I don't have the history, I don't know exactly what I am missing out on (after GAMP) and I don't know all the trail systems that I might miss out on in the future. Being able to bring info to the table like that, where we can say This can't happen again.
I just hope we have good representation at these next meetings. I have already booked November 13th off work so I can go to the stakeholders meeting in Calgary. If we aren't willing to show up and fight for what we want, then maybe we don't deserve it.
-
That's certainly a much better idea then asking some of us to simply shut up about it as Tom put it.
Tom you only go back as far as GAMP in the Alberta area. What most seem to not even be aware of is all the other areas effected over 30 years not just the past 10. We loose no matter how many butt's are kissed along the way. Other user groups gain because a good number of ASRD and Alberta officials are quad users. Yes the South Sask Plan is far larger than just motorized users but it comes down to 4x4's loosing the majority.
-
Dan i can make the November 28th stakeholder meeting in Okotoks.................. I'm more than willing to rattle some cages. I've got a big mouth; not afraid to use it.
-
Gun, you are right, i could have worded it nicer. My bad. It just gets tiring to listen to the stabbing that took place 8 years ago. i am guilty of dooming and glooming but have decided that it is not productive to continually bring up old wounds. i guess i decided to shut up and thought a few more of the old guard could do the same.
Now to clarify some things. When we (i was 4x4 hardcore at the time) were asked to provide SRD all our trails in Waiporous so was the bike community. Both 4x4 and bike groups did that. The 2500kms the bike group provided included ZERO quad/truck trails. Of the 2500kms provided they got 14 (i think, maybe 12) kms of those 2500 provided.
Yes, we can use quad trails but we do not. It is akin to saying 4x4's are still allowed on the Trans Alta Rd and 940 as part of the 4x4 system.
Now this i do know. The bike community went into Maclean and signed the entire area. The 4x4 and Quad community has not signed anything. There are quad trails that should be 4x4 trails out there and might have been if the 4x4 community spent as much time making those trails sustainable as the bike group did. THOUSANDS of man hours have been done by the bike community. The payoff? 50 (or so) kms at Fallen Timber on the map and an upcoming 400kms!! more.
Now, what if the 4x4 community had done the same (i am guilty of wanting NOTHING to do with it back then)?
When i did get vocal again, i stated time and time again that we need to be in Maclean making it sustainable, but the 4x4 movement at the time decided to put all their efforts in Waiporous. Good on them, but to this day i cross a bridge that was put in by 4x4 guys in Waiporous and is not open to 4x4's.
We can not undo what we did or did not do back then, but if we take a page from the bike community, we can start showing up and working towards an amicable relationship with the NEW SRD bigwigs and maybe, just maybe, we can salvage something.
i apologize for saying shut up, but the feedback from the meeting last Thursday was the 4x4 'speakers' were not respectful and did not help any 4x4 user in what the future may bring.
A word of advice to anyone that is going to stakeholder meetings, be respectful, ask other stake holders what their concerns are and address them professionally and most importantly without emotion, just facts.
i do not know if anyone i any club is a land use guru but we need one that cam put together positive facts that dispel some ridiculous views that other stakeholders have regarding motorized users. i know the bike community was well prepared and they are optimistic about this new PLAN.
We can be the rednecks they think we all are at the meetings or we can completely surprise them with nothing less than a 'white collar' approach.
Hey Gun, at least you still 4x4, i and many others sold out for 2 wheels or a quad but i know one day i will be back in a jeep and wheeling as much as i now ride.
Cheers. :)
-
Thank you for the heads up Tom. I could have been me being aggressive asking questions on the whole process.
On the area north of the highway down south there are some intersections that are numbered that are the same numbers on all the different maps from the different snowmobile and quad clubs that use the area so maybe they are designated?
One thing that was clear was the sensitivity to riparean vegitation from some of the other attendees.
This ssrp also has the ability to dictate what the new access manegement plan for the livingstone area. With gamp what was on the plan was different to the people implementing it on the ground. And this plan could dictate where the new access plan will go in direction.
So what we really need is for everyone to read the plan and fill out the online questionare and of possable to attend these work sessions.
-
Jeepers
I'm the president of RMDRA; the organization that set up this consultation. We have had a decent relationship with ESRD and with the people writing this plan. There is one reason that these relationships exist. We are formal and consistent.
The last round of the consultations happened around Calgary. We were aware of these consultations, and developed talking points related to the document. After this we made sure there were representatives of our club with our talking points at every meeting within the Calgary area. After a few consultations, the SSRP people asked us to come to a daytime consultation, where we had a greater opportunity to influence other stakeholders. After the consultations, we were invited by the SSRP developers to provide a position paper regarding our concerns and wants with the plan.
We have been talking with Bev Yee (the Assistant Deputy Minister of ESRD) and have been able to have her see our perspective. She wrote the document. Our position paper supported random camping, a useable (hikers, 4x4, equestrian, quadders, singletrack, etc) trail network, and various other things that we desire as bikers. She understands that recreation will not work without a formalized trail system. This has been declared in the document and WILL COME TO PASS. But, we (OHV) users need to work together to get a system that works for everyone.
My suggestion to your community is this:
1. Formulate a list of wants
2. Distribute this to your members
3. Attend as many public sessions (and stakeholders during the day) as possible
4. Encourage your speakers to be logical and without emotion
5. Keep in contact with Dave Bartesko, ESRD, Bev Yee
-
As for GAMP/GSMG we deem this an absolute failure and are gunshy of any more legislation just like you are. We however, have been working closely with the GSMG and have been tirelessly pushing for a return of our trails. Many historical trails will be lost. They need to be sustainable which many weren't. We have finally got approval to build 400km of singletrack in the Fallen Timber area and will be doing so in the next year or two. We have been working with Peter Straub who is a 4x4 guy and sits on the GSMG. With him we have helped to develop a "Master Plan" that has been approved in theory. Hopefully the actual trails will be approved as well.
We discovered that one trail at a time will not work, and found that the master plan path is optimal to get approvals. I can't even predict how many hours some of our volunteers have put into this it's well over the thousands, and our approvals haven't happened without heartbreak and major setbacks. Once we get final approvals for the trails we would be willing to share the framework with any OHV community that wants to build their own trails as well.
Personal note: I have no desire to ride on a quad trail and am massively disappointed when singletrack becomes so wide that I'm no longer afraid of banging my bars into trees. While we may use truck trails and quad trails for transport sections, that is not what we want to ride in general. That being said, I fully support having 4x4, and quad trails as well.
-
Giantjoe, I'm sure your work and effort is greatly appreciated as is Peter Straub's for the countless hours of various meetings and the many groups and committees that have been formed to start the process all over again.
One thing, especially the last few years. Can you have someone define a "Sustainable Trail system". It seems to be their favorite phrase for every plan. Lately I really wonder what they are striving for. Is sustainable similar to highway 1 through Canmore and around Vermillion Lakes, is it like Kananaskis Highway 40, Hunter Valley Road, Harald Creek road, Crowsnest highway, and many sections of the 940 trunk road. These are all major roads and highways washed out and not just in the flood of 2013 but many times in the last 20 or more years. They want a bridge over streams to bring it to sustainable rating? Really??? I'll bet more of the trails put in for oil and gas over the last 60 years are in far better shape without the bridges there to wash out all the time and create vast erosion spread some where else to take more road out. I'll bet most of the trails they have taken away from us are by far more sustainable than any of the highways they have ever put in. Sustainable to me would be a trail that has been usable over 60 years no matter what type of weather is thrown down it. It might not be usable the day after a flood but it would be again shortly after without putting millions of Alberta dollars back into it. What would cause more siltation in the streams? A few vehicles going thru a decent crossing a few times a week or a bridge or culvert that clogs up and has its banks breached and torn out then reconstruction over the next few years like the Alberta road system?
giantjoe
"We discovered that one trail at a time will not work, and found that the master plan path is optimal to get approvals. I can't even predict how many hours some of our volunteers have put into this it's well over the thousands, and our approvals haven't happened without heartbreak and major setbacks. Once we get final approvals for the trails we would be willing to share the framework with any OHV community that wants to build their own trails as well"
I'm afraid to say there is absolutely nothing to have an optimistic look on the future of our trails. Your middle paragraph I quoted above says so much to me.
All the hours and work you folks have done I applaud, because I had that enthusiasm as well for many years. Your next sentence says it all too.
"once we have final approval" You will find that final approval may be many years down the road IF EVER. They have used the same tactics for many years of closures.
-
We subscribe to the NOHVCC philosophy. There are specific guidelines outlined through them.
As I see it we have two options, fight for what we want or don't. If we don't fight we have a 100% chance of not getting trails approved.
-
We subscribe to the NOHVCC philosophy. There are specific guidelines outlined through them.
As I see it we have two options, fight for what we want or don't. If we don't fight we have a 100% chance of not getting trails approved.
Thanks for the points giantjoe. If you would be willing to share the structure of your plan it would be appreciated. Possibly something we can build a plan with down the road. Also glad to hear that there is potential to open up some new trails for you guys. Hopefully that will help blaze the trail for the other user groups to do the same.
-
Thanks giantjoe for sharing the experiences of the other OHV group.
-
I and a couple others went to one of the stakeholders meetings.
At this point I think we need to get a couple messages across:
1) Trails can be sustainable, non-destructive to the land, and add value to the province through motorized recreation...and it'll be very helpful to show examples of this (Ontario, BC have pretty good trail management from what I understand...and there are more examples)
2) We want to be at the table when the trail planning happens to make sure they are enjoyable and sustainable, moving or adjusting existing trails rather than closing them. (this will be a consultation, so we need to keep an eye out for it - Parks and Recreation is responsible for this deliverable 'as soon as practicable')
3) The draft SSRP talks a bit about existing 'designated' trails - we need to get a definition of (or perhaps help define) what 'designated' trails means...right now, it means something different each person.
4) We will help to build the governance around the trail systems, and help to maintain them where we can.
The format of the stakeholder meeting was like this:
a) Break into groups/tables (each table had stakeholders and a facilitator/note taker)
b) Discuss pages XX to XX ((plan portion) and XX to XX (corresponding implementation portion) based on these questions:
1) What do you like about this section?
2) What don't you like about this section?
3) What is missing?
4) Facilitators presented major points for select, tables. ALL recorded points were attached to bulletin boards to be organized/grouped later on.
c) discuss the next section (pages XX to XX and XX to XX)
d)rotate to a different table/facilitator/stakeholders (this was pretty good - got to hear different points of view and spread our word farther)
We sat at three different tables in total, with three different groups discussing a total of six areas of the SSRP draft (remember, it's still a draft).
I highly recommend becoming very familiar with the plan before attending ;-)
My perception is that the plan is not at the level of 'this trail will close, that trail will stay open'...yet. It's still at a high level dealing with big chunks of land. If anyone had a different perception, please speak up :) The approach I took was not to ask for this or that trail to remain open, but rather to let folks know we truck enthusiasts want to preserve the land too . We don't want to rip it up, we want to see it from sustainable trails...and we want our descendants to be able to do the same.
The following is a little more detailed than above, but can be a really good framework of changes/additions to the plan which will provide for a good future for the trails (thank you Peter Straub, I hope you don't mind that I posted this, if you do let me know and I'll have the mods take it down):
We, the members of the 4WD Community in Southern Alberta, would like to see the following changes to the proposed South Saskatchewan Regional Land Use Plan.
And end to the Access Management Plans for managing motorized recreation on Public Land.
o Access Management Plans require the re-use of existing linear disturbances on the land which were not necessarily engineered as sustainable recreational trails and may not provide the desired experiences of the recreational users.
o The only management tool for government in an Access Management Plan is to declare a particular trail as Open or Closed, meaning that the only available response to Trail problems is Closure.
Replace Access Management Plans with “Motorized Recreation Plans” based on the 5E’s
o Experience, Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Evaluation
? Experience – Master Trail Planning which incorporates ecological, social and trail sustainability while providing the Experience Albertan’s desire.
• A Master Plan should be developed for each Public Land Use Zone.
• In developing the Master Plan, Recreation Groups should be consulted for input on desired experiences, destinations and favorite activities within each Public Land Use Zone.
• User groups should have the opportunity to participate in the planning process through providing inventories of desired trails and waypoints of favorite destinations.
• Connections to staging areas, transportation corridors, camping facilities and inter-connection between Public Land Use Zones should be well thought out within each PLUZ.
? Engineering – Budget and Implementation capability to create sustainable trails, not just re-use unsustainable disturbances.
• A budget to implement and maintain a trail network as outlined in the Master Plan.
• Implementation responsibility assigned to appropriate government department with milestones for progress and completion
• Trail built to standards that offer challenges, experiences, and “seat time” such that users do not need to ‘Make their own fun’.
• A variety of Trail standards to offer transportation corridors, as well as challenging alternate routes for varying skill levels of users.
• Source of ongoing funding to provide maintenance and repair of heavily used trails.
• ‘Adopt a Trail’ programs to ensure ownership for clean-up and monitoring of recreational trails.
? Education – to ensure users know what to expect, what to do, and their responsibilities on the trails.
• A consistent set of signage standards, brochures, kiosk information, and rules for all recreation areas.
• Consistent trail descriptions to help users make informed decisions about where to recreate.
• Educate users on trial etiquette and expectations for enjoying the trails.
• A program to partner with recreation clubs to provide training to safely operate your 4WD and its equipment on the trails, and without damaging the trails.
? Enforcement – to ensure compliance with the plan
• Meaningful enforcement regulations for issuing penalties for people misusing the trails.
• Specify minimum staffing levels for enforcement during different seasons to ensure meaningful enforcement presence.
• Program to partner with recreation clubs to provide Trail Volunteers to promote education and proper use of trails.
? Evaluation – to continuously improve the plan.
• Set appropriate Key Performance Indicators for recreational trails in each PLUZ, i.e. # of KM of trails, Destinations, staging areas, User capacity, Compliance, etc.
• Identify appropriate government department with responsibility to provide annual reporting against the Key Performance Indicators.
• Program to partner with recreation clubs ensure user’s needs are being met, issues are identified and corrective action is taken when needed