Vermont Trails Collaborative Landscape Management Work Group North Zone Public Information Meetings Summary

Transcription

1 Vermont Trails Collaborative Landscape Management Work Group North Zone Public Information Meetings Summary Introduction The Vermont Trails Collaborative Landscape Management Work Group has achieved a milestone in their work plan by completing all the public information meetings on the north zone of the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF). This report is intended to summarize the process and information gained from the north zone public information meetings, as well as provides public opportunity statements based on input received thus far. This report can be used to help guide future public information meetings scheduled for fall 2010 on the south zone of the GMNF. Background The Landscape Management Work Group (LMWG) is one of three working groups established in the Vermont Trails Collaborative initiative. It was developed by the Vermont Trails Collaborative Group in October The LMWG is comprised of many different stakeholder groups consisting of trail management organizations, government agencies and special interest groups. The goal of the LMWG is to work to develop recommendations that will lead to a more ecologically and socially sustainable trail system. Appendix A displays the Issues and Objectives that the LMWG have identified and agreed to address to the extent possible in this process. Methods The general planning framework for the LMWG is provided in Appendix B. Three public information meetings were held in the towns of Pittsfield, Warren and Brandon. The public information meetings were co-sponsored by local organizations interested in the work of the LMWG. A note of gratitude for the Vermont Mountain Bike Association, Mad River Valley Planning District and the Moosalamoo Association in assisting with the meetings. The meetings were formatted to provide ample opportunity for public discussion around the Issues and Objectives of the LMWG. They were generally a facilitated focus group style of discussion with participants for two hours. Participants were introduced to the discussion topics by the facilitator and posters for about 30 minutes. Then the participants were encouraged to freely discuss the topics as they pertain to their local area. Notes were kept by the facilitator and other members of the LMWG. They were consolidated and sent out to all the participants for a two week comment period before posted on the LMWG website. Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 1

2 Findings and Opportunities The notes from the Public Information Meetings are formatted to capture the publics input into the LMWG Issue categories that include: 1) Trail Connectivity 2) Ecological Impacts 3) Social Impacts 4) Supply & Demand 5) Trail Conflicts & Safety 6) Funding & Volunteers 7) Unauthorized/Illegal Uses Information from the notes from each meeting have been summarized into Public Opportunity Statements (POS) and categorized by LMWG Issue. The POS can be traced back to the original public information meeting notes in Appendix C using the identifying number in brackets following each POS. For ease of tracking this information the numbering convention is provided here: NZB= North Zone Brandon NZP= North Zone Pittsfield NZW= North Zone Warren TC= Trail Connectivity EI= Ecological Impacts SD= Supply & Demand CS= Trail Conflicts & Safety FV= Funding & Volunteers UI= Unauthorized & Illegal Uses #= Comment number Public Opportunity Statements (POS) Categorized by LMWG Issue Trail Connectivity TC-POS-1: There is an opportunity to assign organizations or agencies in VT to serve as de facto leaders in connecting smaller trail user groups and individuals in developing trail relationships that address multiple use and/or landownership connections. [NZB- TC-1, NZB-TC-2, NZB-TC-3, NZW-TC-1, NZW-TC-5, NZP-TC-1, NZP-TC-3] TC-POS-2: There is an opportunity for unconventional partners to work together to create additional capacities for sustaining trails. These multiple use trails have the opportunity of being renamed cooperative use trails. [NZB-TC-4, NZB-TC-5] Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 2

3 TC-POS-3: There is an opportunity to improve state tax and liability incentives and consistency for private, public and commercial landowners to allow the development and maintenance of public trails. [ NZW-TC-2, NZW-TC-3, NZW-TC-4, NZP-TC-2] Ecological Impacts EC-POS-1: There is an opportunity to better define what types of ecological impacts are acceptable or not acceptable along trail systems. [NZB-EC-2, NZP-EC-1, NZP-ED-4, NZW- EC-4] EC-POS-2: There is an opportunity to improve user education to address ecological concerns along trails. [NZB-EC-3, NZW-EC-1, NZW-EC-2, NZW-EC-3] EC-POS-3: There is an opportunity for organizations to better collaborate in addressing ecological impacts along trails. [NZP-ED-2, NZP-EC-3] EC-POS-4: There is an opportunity for additional research to be completed so that managers can better understand the relationships between trail use and ecological impacts. [NZB-EC-1, NZB-EC-4] Supply & Demand SD-POS-1: There is an opportunity to better publicize recreation trail opportunities. [NZW-SD-1, NZW-SD-3, NZW-SD-4] SD-POS-2: There is an opportunity for additional research to better understand supply and demand trends for trail use in VT. [NZW-SD-2, NZB-SD-3, NZB-SD-4, NZB-SD-5, NZB- SD-6, NZP-SD-3]] SD-POS-3: There is an opportunity to better recognize, address and capitalize on nontraditional trail users. [NZB-SD-1, NZB-SD-2] SD-POS-4: There is an opportunity to address supply and demand issues through management of multiple-use trail systems. [NZP-SD-2, NZP-SD-5] Trail Conflicts & Safety SD-POS-1: There is an opportunity to centralize up to date trail information for users in Vermont. [NZB-CS-1, NZB-CS-2, NZB-CS-3] SD-POS-2: There is an opportunity to increase education and enforcement to address trail conflict and safety issues. [NZP-CS-1, NZB-CS-5, NZB-CS-12, NZP-CS-1, NZP-CS-2, NZP-CS-3, NZP-CS-5, NZP-CS-7, NZP-CS-8] SD-POS-3: There is an opportunity to enjoy the fact the trail conflict and safety is not a widespread major concerns on the north zone. [NZP-CS-5, NZB-CS-4] SD-POS-4: There is an opportunity to better design and construct trails to address user conflict and safety issues. [NZP-CS-2, NZP-CS-3, NZB-CS-8, NZB-CS-9, NZB-CS-10, NZB- CS-11, NZP-CS-4, NZP-CS-6] Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 3

4 Funding & Volunteers FV-POS-1: There is an opportunity to better recruit and reward volunteers to dedicate service to trail maintenance activities. [NZW-FV-1] Unauthorized & Illegal Uses UI-POS-1: There is an opportunity to address illegal uses by providing more legal opportunities. [NZP-UI-2, NZB-UI-1, NZB-UI-2] UI-POS-2: There is an opportunity to address illegal uses by better educating trail users. [NZB-UI-3, NZB-UI-4] Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 4

5 Appendix A LMWG Issues & Objectives Issue Trends show an increase in trails that cross multiple land ownerships and have to be relocated due to changing landowners and unprotected trail corridors. Rerouting trails and constructing infrastructure to reestablish broken corridors are costly, time consuming and may adversely impact resources. There has been a concern that trails and/or their users cause adverse impacts to physical and ecological resources such as wildlife, soils, water resources (streams & wetlands), air, cultural resources and plants (NNIS). The increasing number of trail users and types of trail uses may be leading to conflicts and reduced satisfaction of recreation experiences. There has been a concern that the supply of existing trail based recreation opportunities does not meet the current demand for the different types of desired experiences. Examples include not enough supply of bicycling, equestrian and non-motorized winter recreation to meet the public demand for those opportunities. Funding for establishing and maintaining a system of public trail based recreation opportunities continues to be a challenge. Trails that are not regularly maintained due to the lack of funding accrue deferred maintenance, which in turn may diminish the quality of the recreation experience and the resources in which they are located. Vermont has many citizen based (NGO) and government based trail management organizations that compete for limited funding. Opportunities may exist for trail management organizations to better work together to leverage scarce funds. There are concerns that unauthorized uses of trails is increasing in Vermont. Unauthorized uses have the potential of negatively impacting authorized recreation use experiences, safety and the resources. LMWG Objective(s) 1. Identify high priority state-wide or regionally important trails within the analysis area that transition across various landowners. 2. Determine priority trails for protection and management in perpetuity through identifying land interest acquisition (easements, fee, etc.) and/or management agreement priorities to protect against potential gaps or resolve existing gaps in the trail network. 1. Identify a set of physical/ecological indicators of concern. 2. Utilizing existing information, identify potential sources of physical and ecological impacts resulting from trail related activities. 3. Provide recommendations to address identified areas of concern where trails may be adversely impacting physical and ecological indicators. 1. Identify social factors (such as noise, conflicting uses, safety, etc.) that cause trail based user conflicts. 2. Identify locations and sources of existing and potential trail user conflicts within the analysis area. 3. Provide recommendations to address existing and potential trail user conflicts. 1. Utilize existing data to identify/quantify supply of existing trail based recreation opportunities in the analysis area and the trends of demand for different public recreation activities. 2. Identify compatible uses that can be shared on multiple use/experience managed trails. 3. Provide recommendations to address areas where the existing supply of trail based recreation opportunities does not meet the public demand for experiences. 1. Identify major sources of trail based funding that benefit trails within Vermont. 2. Develop standard baseline cost estimates by use type for establishing and maintaining trails, including deferred maintenance. 3. Provide recommendations on how trail management organizations can work together to leverage scarce funding. 1. Identify existing unauthorized uses within the analysis area. 2. Provide recommendations on how to address unauthorized uses to land managers. Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 5

6 Appendix B LMWG Planning Framework The Group will work from north to south focusing on analysis areas in and surrounding the north and south zones of the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) to engage citizens regarding LMWG Issues and Objectives (Appendix A). The LMWG will ultimately provide recommendations to the Trails Collaborative Group, landowners and managers about future trail management activities. Step 1: Issue Identification Identify and agree upon a common set of trail based issues that the LMWG will address. Step 2: Objectives Identify and agree upon a common set of objectives that address the issues. Step 3: Existing Conditions Identify activities or initiatives that (individuals or) organizations are already engaged in to address issues and achieve objectives. Step 4: Gap Analysis Identify the difference between Existing Conditions and Issues and Objectives. Step 5: Recommendations Identify and agree upon recommendations that address the gaps identified in Step 4. The recommendations will primarily consist of broad landscape actions, but may include a limited number of site specific actions. Examples may include land management policy, ground disturbing activities, criteria for future decision making, interpretation/education, monitoring, research and regulations/restrictions. Step 6: Final Report A final report will be completed for each analysis area until the GMNF and surrounding areas have been completed. Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 6

7 Appendix C Public Information Meeting Notes Numbering Convention NZB= North Zone Brandon NZP= North Zone Pittsfield NZW= North Zone Warren TC= Trail Connectivity EI= Ecological Impacts SD= Supply & Demand CS= Trail Conflicts & Safety FV= Funding & Volunteers UI= Unauthorized & Illegal Uses #= Comment number Trail Connectivity NZB-TC-1 NZB-TC-2 NZB-TC-3 NZB-TC-4 NZB-TC-5 NZW-TC-1 NZW-TC-2 NZW-TC-3 NZW-TC-4 NZW-TC-5 NZP-TC-1 NZP-TC-2 NZP-TC-3 Different agencies are more cooperative for trail development than others. The railroads are pretty much non-cooperative. Different user groups face different issues associated with trail connectivity. For instance, bikers prefer loops that come back to the same point. VMBA seeks out areas where trails can be developed on land owned by a single property owner. But, the CTA is more linear, where it is impossible to avoid multiple land owners and jurisdictions. Historically, the FS has been used as a clearing house for connecting different user groups on multiple use trails. It would be difficult for a trail user desiring access to go around to every other user group on their own for trail development and access. VAST and CTA are trying to separate their trails where they can. But, is it appropriate or fair for every user to have its own independent trail system? VAST and CTA are an example of successful multi-use trails (cooperative use trails). If adding equestrian use or any other new use to existing trails, there is a need to ensure adding a new user won t adversely affect current users. Several trails in the local area, including Catamount Trail, Mad River Path, VAST Trails, local town trails (ie, Eaton trail near Warren School), and the Long Trail, all rely on public and private land. All are important to the community but there are missing connections. As an example, the Mad River Path would like to connect from Warren to Moretown but is currently missing links. Several trails have been lost in Waitsfield and surrounding areas due to changing landowners and/or lack of use. Ongoing problem what do organizations have to offer as incentive to landowners to give easements/rows for trail continuity? A lot of landowners are looking for some sort of compensation for use of their lands. Some towns provide tax abatement; some organizations provide gifts or monetarily compensate the landowner. It was suggested that the State could address this issue with tax policy changes. Landowners worry about safety (or their property and person), privacy, tax impacts, property values, and encumbering the property for their heirs. Other trails to consider for connectivity may be payer use/restrictive use trails such as Sugarbush Resort (mountain bikes and hiking), Mad River Glen, and Ohly s x-country ski trails. The North Country National Scenic Trail is trying to connect Crown Point, NY to the Appalachian Trail. The route may go through the Champlain Valley to Middlebury and into the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area. State legislature should include municipalities in landowner liability law. Some municipalities are hesitant to develop trails on their property due to liability concerns. There is a desire to connect mountain bike trails from Pittsfield to Chittenden on existing snowmobile trails Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 7

8 Ecological Impacts NZP-EC-1 NZP-EC-2 NZP-EC-3 NZP-EC-4 NZB-EC-1 NZB-EC-2 NZB-EC-3 NZB-EC-4 NZW-EC-1 NZW-EC-2 NZW-EC-3 NZW-EC-4 Wild chervil is commonly found in the area along roads/trails State of VT has much more GIS information that could be included to make maps more robust. The State and Feds ought to collaborate more on mapping. There is an effort underway to regionally protect and connect ecosystems from northern New York east to New Hampshire and Maine. There may be complementing objectives to connect trails in the same locations. The North Country National Scenic Trail is currently analyzing potential routes to connect Crown Point, NY to the Appalachian Trail in VT. In a nutshell, I d like to highlight our Department s (VT Fish & Wildlife) potential concerns for unintended conflicts with either existing or future trail proposals that may have deleterious impacts on important critical habitats for sensitive wildlife species. In general, some examples of these would be snowmobile trails in or near critical deer wintering areas, hiking or biking trails thru critical mast or wetland feeding areas for bears/others, etc. Some of the potential impacts could be negated or mitigated by adequate buffers or perhaps seasonal use restrictions, but I did want to get these specific concerns into the record as a basis for future discussion and planning (Doug Blodgett, VT F&W, 4/6/2010). There are unanswered questions about the ecological impacts of glade skiing creating even aged stands. Glade skiing impacts young tree regeneration. Personal observations show that non-native invasive species (NNIS) are more prevalent at trailheads today than 15 years ago. Education for reducing the spread of NNIS has been very effective for watercraft (Eurasian Milfoil). Trail managers should do something similar. Invasive species is a big concern along trails. A study found that one way to reduce the risk of invasive species is to keep a closed canopy intact. To address ecological concerns, need to hold workshops to educate public on how to build and maintain sustainable trails. If there is an underlying code of ethics such as Leave It As You Found It for all trails, how do you spread that message? As an example, the Don t Hike In Mud Season message is well known can this be attributed to Mark Breen?! This message was consistently spread over many years on tv, public radio, newspapers, etc. Another example is staying on the trail at Camel s Hump to protect fragile alpine plant habitat. Why does the USFS not have a trail closure in effect for mud season so they could ticket people who walk on and damage wet trails? There needs to be something between doing nothing (status quo) and issuing a closure order. Education may be the best middle ground approach. Ecological impacts may include: o Hiking during mud season o Dog impacts (poop, not staying on trail and impacting vegetation and wildlife) o Viewshed impacts (example, does the USFS comment on projects that are not on their land such as wind towers but impact the scenery that visitors look out on when hiking Green Mountain NF trails?) o Agricultural neighbor impacts (example, hikers throw Frisbee into field and it damages farm equipment) o Maple sugar taps across the trail o Invasive species (didymo, chervil, knotweed) o Wildlife o Erosion Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 8

9 Supply & Demand NZW-SD-1 NZW-SD-2 NZW-SD-3 NZW-SD-4 NZB-SD-1 NZB-SD-2 NZB-SD-3 NZB-SD-4 NZB-SD-5 NZB-SD-6 NZP-SD-1 NZP-SD-2 NZP-SD-3 NZP-SD-4 NZP-SD-5 Trail Conflicts & Safety NZP-CS-1 NZP-CS-2 NZP-CS-3 NZP-CS-4 NZP-CS-5 NZB-CS-1 NZB-CS-2 NZB-CS-3 NZB-CS-4 NZB-CS-5 NZB-CS-6 NZB-CS-7 NZB-CS-8 Lots of combination of trail systems in Mad River Valley (public and private with a mix of uses) Lack of supply is more of a motorized trail issue with snowmobiles as the exception Horse opportunities are increasing but mostly on private lands Mountain bike trails exist but many are on private land, unofficial and not publicized (allowed by landowner but not widely known) need recognizable connections Demand for backcountry skiing has exploded in recent years. Other uses (emerging and traditional) that aren t necessarily trail based, but rely on trails for access to wild areas. o Bird watching o Geocaching o Accessing water for recreation o Fishing & hunting o Dark skies areas with no light pollution o Disc golf Equestrian users are looking for luxurious types of accommodations for overnight facilities. VT does not currently have facilities. Many Vermonters and others in the Northeast travel to NY for equestrian trails and facilities. High demand/use in some places in NY. There are questions whether demand is really there for equestrian use in VT. Existing trails aren t very suitable for equestrian riders due to steep and wet terrain. LMWG should take a closer look at addressing future demand for equestrian use. The supply of mountain biking opportunities was considered good in the Pittsford area. There is a desire to connect mountain bike trails from Pittsfield to Chittenden on existing snowmobile trails There is a lack of snowmobile trailhead parking in the area, especially in the Granville and Hancock areas. There is a desire to connect snowmobile trails from Chittenden to Shrewsbury. This was implemented this year, but there is a need for a more sustainable route. There is a desire to see no net loss of trails when proposing adjustments Dog mushing seems to be experiencing an expansion of use on existing trails. There may be potential future conflicts if the trend continues. There is currently a section of snowmobile trail located on a plowed road in Chittenden. There is a three-mile section where there is overlapping of VAST and Catamount trails Trails constructed for one use may be suitable for other uses No report of conflicts between snowmobiles, skiers and mushers in the area There is a need for a one-stop source for getting information and providing feedback for trail conditions in the state. There is a need to collect better data on user conflicts (how often, what types of recreation, what locations have higher incidences of conflict). It would be helpful to have a website with contact info for recreation groups so conflicts can easily be reported. The vast majority of trail users are getting along. We should not over-state conflict issues in the report. All at the meeting agreed. There are conflicts between backcountry skiers and sugarmakers in Warren, VT. Skiers have cut sugar lines. This conflict could worsen in the future with the State of VT encouraging/promoting sugar making on public lands. Conflicts occur between skiers with and without dogs. Conflicts occur between skiers with dogs and dog sleds, where dog sleds veer off the trail to follow other dogs. Multiple use trails need to be designed together by the different user groups on the front end of trail development. Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 9

10 NZB-CS-9 NZB-CS-10 NZB-CS-11 NZB-CS-12 NZP-CS-1 NZP-CS-2 NZP-CS-3 NZP-CS-4 NZP-CS-5 NZP-CS-6 NZP-CS-7 NZP-CS-8 Multiple use trails really come down to user groups that are willing to cooperate. Practical realities of funding necessitates cooperative use trails. CTA/skiers say the more organic matter on a trail, the better it is for freezing and skiing conditions. This conflicts with other trail users (such as mountain biking) where organic matter is removed from the trail for a durable summer surface. Obstacles on trails for skiers could be considered features for mountain bikers. Trails for both uses need to include detours around obstacles/features. Are horses allowed on winter use trails during the winter? The answer is not clear from VAST or other trail managers. Need to better define where and when they are allowed. Trails should be closed during hunting season Dogs (people who have them off leash and not under control) Sugar tap lines Mixed uses (example, VAST and cross country ski uses on one trail) ATVs where they shouldn t be Trails not constructed appropriately for uses that were added at a later date (example, hike trail that had bikes added to it is it built sustainably for bikes?) Ancient Roads Issue how do we prevent it from allowing Towns to open National Forest System lands to motorized uses on roads that were never built for modern equipment? Suggested way to address trail conflicts (such as bikes/hiking, or snowmobiles/skiing) & proper trail use is through state-wide code of ethics Funding & Volunteers NZW-FV-1 NZB-FV-1 NZP-FV-1 NZP-FV-2 Volunteers need rewarded (hats, picnics, etc). GMC does a great job with this. Recreation groups can always use more of both. State manages a grant process for trail funding that is tied to the Federal Transportation Enhancement funds The Green Mountain NF does not hire trail crews like most other National Forests in the country. The GMNF relies heavily on partnerships (through volunteers and cost-share agreements) to provide the labor for trail maintenance activities. Unauthorized & Illegal Uses NZP-UI-1 NZP-UI-2 NZB-UI-1 NZB-UI-2 NZB-UI-3 NZB-UI-4 There were around 10 areas located on the map with known unauthorized uses. o ATVs off Jenny Pond Rd towards/on NFS lands o ATVs on Goshen Dam Rd o ATVs on Minnie Baker Trail (GMNF) o Mountain bikes in Rob Ford Meadows o ATVs off Fassett Hill /Taylor Brook Area o ATVs on Knights Hill/Hayes Brook o ATVs on Ash Hill o ATVs on Caryle Brook o ATVs on Townsend Brook o Snowmobile trail leading out to Chittenden Reservoir (from Round Robin Trail) Recommendations o Provide more legal opportunities to ride ATVs o Educate people on what is not allowed and WHY. Do established trails encourage or discourage additional illegal uses? Anecdotal evidence suggests establishing sanctioned trails will discourage illegal use. Is there research to support this? Mountain bikers may go off trail to gain access to features. Trail design could include features to minimize going off trail. Better communication/signage can educate trail users. Recreation groups can play an important role educating their members (the Communication and Stewardship Work Group is working on this). Vermont Trails Collaborative LSWG North Zone Meetings Summary 10