ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION

Similar documents
TRAILS WHERE TO FIND TRAILS IN NOVA SCOTIA

Communiqué from Eastern Slopes Today and Tomorrow Workshop December , Calgary, Alberta, Canada

BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL FLOOD REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Rule Governing the Designation and Establishment of All-Terrain Vehicle Use Trails on State Land

APPENDIX. Alberta Land Stewardship Act AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN REGIONAL PLAN

BIGHORN BACKCOUNTRY ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Appendix 1: Best Management Practices For Hang Gliding and Paragliding in Jasper National Parks

Alternative 3 Prohibit Road Construction, Reconstruction, and Timber Harvest Except for Stewardship Purposes B Within Inventoried Roadless Areas

WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION POLICY/PROCEDURE

ROAD AND TRAIL PROJECT APPROVAL

KANANASKIS COUNTRY PROVINCIAL RECREATION AREAS MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE - November 20, 2007

Procedure for the Use of Power-Driven Mobility Devices on Mass Audubon Sanctuaries 1 September 17, 2012

Proposed Action. Payette National Forest Over-Snow Grooming in Valley, Adams and Idaho Counties. United States Department of Agriculture

Appendix A BC Provincial Parks System Goals

Bear Creek Habitat Improvement Project

TRAIL PLAN for Hubert Lake Wildland Provincial Park, Northeast Region

SOCIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

Mountain Goats and Winter Recreation November 17, 2011

5.0 OUTDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND MANAGEMENT

A GUIDE TO MANITOBA PROTECTED AREAS & LANDS PROTECTION

The Roots of Carrying Capacity

Finn Creek Park. Management Direction Statement Amendment

FINAL TESTIMONY 1 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. July 13, 2005 CONCERNING. Motorized Recreational Use of Federal Lands

Proposal to Redevelop Lower Kananaskis River-Barrier Lake. Bow Valley Provincial Park

National Forests and Grasslands in Texas

Numaykoos Lake Provincial Park. Management Plan

Chuckanut Ridge Fairhaven Highlands EIS Scoping Concerns

Restore and implement protected status that is equivalent, or better than what was lost during the mid-1990 s

Appendix A Appendix A (Project Specifications) Auk Auk / Black Diamond (Trail 44) Reroute

Sand Lakes Provincial Park. Draft Management Plan

ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION

Theme: Predominately natural/natural appearing; rustic improvements to protect resources. Size*: 2,500 + acres Infrastructure**:

Coronado National Forest Santa Catalina Ranger District

LESSON 9 Recognizing Recreational Benefits of Wilderness

Proposal to Redevelop Lower Kananaskis River-Barrier Lake. Bow Valley Provincial Park. Frequently Asked Questions

Applying Carrying Capacity Concepts in Wilderness

Decision Memo for Desolation Trail: Mill D to Desolation Lake Trail Relocation

DECISION MEMO. Rawhide Trail #7073 Maintenance and Reconstruction

FILE: /PERM EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 2014 AMENDMENT:

Mt. Hood National Forest

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION STATEMENT

WORKSHEET 1 Wilderness Qualities or Attributes Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Wilderness Attributes

Disclosure Document for Castle Mountain Resort Future Development

Worksheet: Resolving Trail Use(r) Conflict March 27, 2010

Yard Creek Provincial Park. Management Plan

Michipicoten Island Regional Plan

What is an Marine Protected Area?

October 31, OAK RIDGES MORAINE FOUNDATION 120 BAYVIEW PARKWAY, NEWMARKET, ON L3Y 3W

CHAPTER III: TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS & PERMITS

Tahoe National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation

EAST DON TRAIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Community Liaison Committee Meeting #3 July 15, :30 to 8:30 pm Flemingdon Park Library

Thank you for this second opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Coconino National Forest Management plan.

Ontario s Approach to Wilderness: A Policy May 1997 (Version 1.0)

ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION

PROUDLY BRINGING YOU CANADA AT ITS BEST. Management Planning Program NEWSLETTER #1 OCTOBER, 2000

Daisy Dean Trail 628/619 ATV Trail Construction

Marchand Provincial Park. Management Plan

STONE MOUNTAIN PROVINCIAL PARK Purpose Statement and Zoning Plan

2.0 PARK VISION AND ROLES

PROPOSAL FOR RECLASSIFICATION, BOUNDARY AMENDMENT AND DRAFT CONCEPT PLAN FOR SASKATOON MOUNTAIN NATURAL AREA. Frequently Asked Questions

Sawtooth National Forest Fairfield Ranger District

Eco Explorer. Steps. Purpose

OMINEACA PROVINCIAL PARK

Whitemouth Falls Provincial Park. Draft Management Plan

Fossil Creek Wild & Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Forest Service Proposed Action - details March 28, 2011

RECREATION. Seven issues were identified that pertain to the effects of travel management on outdoor recreation within portions of the project area.

Policy PL Date Issued February 10, 2014

Connie Rudd Superintendent, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park

Land Management Summary

Aspen Skiing Company Policy for Use of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices And Service Animals

Pembina Valley Provincial Park. Draft Management Plan

Global Sustainable Tourism Destinations Criteria

Final Recreation Report. Sunflower Allotment Grazing Analysis. July 2015

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

School Group Permits for Kananaskis Country Parks and Protected Areas-Memo

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION STATEMENT June, 1999

General Rules for Use of Lands Managed by the. Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority

ANAGEMENT P LAN. February, for Elk Lakes and Height of the Rockies Provincial Parks. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks BC Parks Division

Table of Contents. page 3 Long term Goals Project Scope Project History. 4 User Groups Defined Trail Representative Committee. 5 Trail Users Breakdown

Draft Concept Plan. for the. Proposed Saskatoon Mountain Provincial Recreation Area

Biosphere Reserves of India : Complete Study Notes

Snowmobiling's Endless Winter:

Outdoor Recreation Opportunities Management

Role of the Protected Area

TERRESTRIAL S Night Skies & Natural Sounds

MANAGEMENT FACTORS TO CONSIDER REGARDING CONCURRENT TRACKED OHV USE ON GROOMED SNOWMOBILE TRAILS

Sasagiu Rapids Provincial Park. Draft Management Plan

Preferred Recreation Recommendations Stemilt-Squilchuck Recreation Plan March 2018

Labrador - Island Transmission Link Target Rare Plant Survey Locations

Creating a User-Driven Long-Distance OHV Trail Through Partnering

33. Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama) N 1138 rev)

ANALYSIS OF VISITOR PREFERENCES OF THE HATFIELD-MCCOY TRAILS

Ecological Integrity and the Law

Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project

MAIN LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK

INFORMATION NOTICE 15-2 Limited & Excluded Lands

White Mountain National Forest Saco Ranger District

Map 1.1 Wenatchee Watershed Land Ownership

SANTA-BOCA PROVINCIAL PARK

Ecological impacts in mountain protected areas

Transcription:

MOTORIZED RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS (AWA) only supports the safe and responsible use of motorized recreational vehicles on designated trails in appropriate areas where there is no impact on other recreational users, vegetation, water or wildlife. The environmental damage that is caused by motorized recreation is well documented. Well-designated trails and strict adherence to regulations limiting the use of motorized vehicles are required to minimize damage. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use needs to be considered a privilege, not a right. AWA supports a closed unless open approach to motorized recreation management on public lands, as opposed to open unless closed. In the absence of a designated trail network, public lands should default to being off limits to OHVs. Authorized use may be given only when the best available science shows that watershed, wildlife, and ecosystem integrity is not compromised by such use. Additionally, OHV use should be considered and regulated as a formal land use in Alberta. Treating OHVs as a land-use requires their trails to be considered in linear density footprints and future land use planning. To comply with A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes (1984), a moratorium must be imposed on the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) on existing trails within Prime Protection and Critical Wildlife Zones, as well as a moratorium on further OHV trail development in these Zones. Permanent closure and decommissioning of all trails and roads must be implemented where critical habitat of threatened or endangered wildlife exists. OHV use must not be permitted in protected areas. Points of Emphasis: Motorized Recreation Only six percent of outdoor recreationists in Alberta engage in motorized recreation. A 2015 provincial survey of outdoor recreationists show that 86 percent prefer non-motorized recreation in wilderness areas (The Praxis Group 2015). Additionally, a 2012 survey of Southern Alberta residents on wilderness land use preferences showed that they ranked more opportunities for motorized recreation last out of 11 provided options (The Praxis Group 2012). Because the vast majority of Albertans using public lands seeking a wilderness experience require solitude, vast landscapes and freedom from noise, most areas should prohibit motorized use. Motorized recreation is incompatible with the maintenance of ecological integrity and must be prohibited in sensitive wilderness areas (including, but not limited to, areas protected through legislation or policy for the maintenance of environmental values, areas managed for the protection of environmental values, areas identified by the province as Environmentally Significant, and other undisturbed wilderness areas). Motorized recreation must be permitted only on roads, trails, and routes expressly designated and/or constructed for their use with off-route travel prohibited. Because OHV use has an extremely high impact on riparian zones and wetlands, it is important for well-designed trails to avoid these sensitive areas. Page 1 of 5

The rules for use by motorized vehicles in an area where there are designated trails must be clearly signposted. This signage should be designed with the goal of educating users about the potential for environmental damage caused by OHVs. Regular patrolling, monitoring and enforcement of regulations must be in place wherever motorized recreation is allowed. Enforcement will motivate responsible use of our public lands and is an effective means of educating the public. Seasonal route closures must be implemented to accommodate concerns such as stressful times for wildlife, e.g. mating and calving seasons, and periods of high terrain sensitivity. OHVs need to have noise mufflers, spark arrestors, and pollution control devices to minimize fire and safety risks, as well as other impacts. Licensing and inspection for enforcement of all OHVs intended for use in on public lands will be required. Regulations and education establishing minimum snow conditions required for winter riding must be put in place. Permit systems should be implemented as a means of ensuring land carrying capacity is not exceeded. Violations of regulations should lead to a revocation of that user s permit. Background: Environmental Impacts of Motorized Recreation Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) are "any motorized mode of transportation built for cross-country travel on land, water, snow, ice or marsh or swamp land or on other natural terrain and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes, when specifically designed for such travel" (Government of Alberta 2014). These vehicles can be used for travel on land, water, snow, and ice, and include all terrain vehicles such as quads and side-by-side vehicles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, trikes, and highway vehicles being driven off-road. Impacts on Land OHV use increases and facilitates access to backcountry wilderness areas. Wilderness values of these areas are compromised by this excess use. OHV use can directly and indirectly affect soils, streams, and vegetation. OHV use can cause intense soil and disruption through erosion, compaction and sedimentation. Soil compaction diminishes water infiltration and promotes water and wind erosion, which in turn reduces soil moisture available to plants and increasing runoff from precipitation (Ouren et al. 2007). Because the damage associated with soil compaction is asymptotic, initial trampling of previously undisturbed areas is critical and should be prevented if possible. Soil and water disruption affects the soil's ability to support vegetation after disturbance, encouraging the elimination of natural vegetation and potential invasion by exotic species to an area (Ouren et al. 2007). This speaks to the necessity for users to keep to well-designed, designated trails. The ability of plants to regenerate in many areas of the Page 2 of 5

Rocky Mountains and their foothills is limited. It can take decades to centuries for certain plant ecosystems to recover their intact state after damage from OHVs. OHVs widen traditional backcountry trails and cause the breakdown of the trail edge. A backcountry horse or foot trail is often 12-24 inches wide, whereas OHV routes are five to eight feet wide and often more. Wider trails have greater negative ecological effects than narrower trails. The ecological effects of roads and trails are well-documented and include the disruption of natural vegetation patterns, ground and surface water flow, and natural disturbance regimes. They also cause well-documented disturbances to wildlife through factors such as habitat fragmentation and increased mortality. Impacts on Water and Water Courses Wider trails and their use by motorized vehicles cause siltation and sedimentation into water courses. During spring run-off and times of heavy rain, trails erode. This needs to be minimized through proper design. OHVs can deposit oil, transmission fluid and other liquids on trails and in water courses. Through erosion, these pollutants can flow from the trail along with disturbed soils downhill into streams and rivers. Soil compaction from OHV use makes the soils impermeable and exacerbates rut formation and runoff (Ouren et al. 2007). OHV use has an extremely high impact on riparian zones and wetlands because of soft soils and the fragile nature of stream beds. The disruption of soil integrity causes erosion and siltation in riparian zones. Suspended sediment, if present in sufficient quantity and for a sufficient duration, will kill trout eggs and larvae and will chronically stress adults and juveniles (Mayhood 2013). Where trails directly cross water courses, OHVs driven through stream beds or other waterways disturb trout redds and other aquatic habitat, destroying the ability for fish to reproduce. This underlines the need for well-designed bridges on designated trails. OHV use imposes significant wear and tear on these bridges, so they need to be maintained properly to prevent the erosion at the foundations and along the sides that will contribute to water contamination. Impacts on Wildlife Roads and trails can cause direct and indirect wildlife mortality, and may lead to the fragmentation, reduction and extirpation of local wildlife populations. This leads to the genetic isolation of small groups of individuals. Habitat fragmentation has serious impacts on species that require large block of continuous habitats, impacts predator-prey relationships, and has strong effects on animal movement (Ouren et al. 2007). Habitat fragmentation may also encourage the elimination of natural vegetation and potential invasion by exotic species to an area. As vegetation species composition is changed, fewer food sources and nesting areas may be available for certain wildlife species. Stress caused by OHV disturbance can lead to a weakened physical condition or death, the abandonment of territories, and lower reproduction rates. OHV emissions contain pollutants and carcinogens including benzene and carbon monoxide. These pollutants can be harmful to wildlife. There can also be direct wildlife mortality from vehicle impact. Page 3 of 5

OHV use causes extreme noise. Wildlife is adversely affected by noise (Ouren et al. 2007): 1. Hearing loss - resulting from noise levels of 85 decibels or greater. Noise from OHVs can be as high as 110 decibels, which is near the threshold of human pain; 2. Masking - the inability to hear important environmental cues and animal signals; 3. Non-auditory physiological effects - including anxiety, increased heart rate and respiration, decrease in reproductive output and general stress reaction; and 4. Behavioural effects these vary greatly between species and noise characteristics and can result in the abandonment of territory and lost reproduction. Impacts on Other Recreational Users According to a comprehensive 2015 survey commissioned by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, approximately 6 percent of outdoor recreationists in Alberta engage in motorized recreational activities (The Praxis Group 2015). The majority of outdoor users in Alberta, on the other hand, participate in non-motorized activities such as hiking, cycling, walking, fishing, swimming, snow-shoeing, and skiing. This echoes the results of a 1999 Government report which found that only 6.5 percent of Albertans participate in motorized recreational activities including OHV and snowmobile use. Most crown land in Alberta is open to all kinds of outdoor recreation, including motorized access. Only about 9 percent of provincial crown land is closed to motorized recreation (see below table). These areas have been designated as protected areas, Forest Land Use Zones, or Prime Protection Zone to preserve wilderness, aesthetic and non-motorized recreation values. The use of OHVs in these wilderness regions is incompatible with environmental protection and non-motorized recreational enjoyment. OHV use must not be permitted in Provincial Parks or other protected areas. Motorized recreation is a conflicting use in protected areas, based on public values, science, and inherent wilderness values. A public opinion study completed for Alberta Tourism Parks and Recreation provides further evidence to support this assertion: Albertans feel the top priority for Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation should be to set aside more land and leaving it in an undisturbed state (page 5). The area of lowest priority is infrastructure and land to support off-highway vehicle use (page 6) (The Praxis Group 2008). Conflicts frequently arise when motorized and non-motorized recreational users access the same areas. Because OHVs are faster and more mobile, they have the ability to use a larger area than non-motorized users. As a result, non-motorized recreational users are often pushed out of these areas. OHVs are noisy and therefore incompatible with non-motorized activities and recreationists who cherish the peace and tranquility of public lands. Land Ownership in Alberta: Alberta total land mass: 661,190 km² Provincial Crown Land: 56.4% (372,911 km²) Federal Land: 10.6% Private Land: 28.4% Other provincial: 4.6% Page 4 of 5

Provincial Crown Land where motorized recreation is prohibited: PLUZ: 4,078 km² Wilderness Areas: 1,010 km² Willmore Wilderness Park: 4,597 km² Provincial Parks: 3,600 km² Ecological Reserves: 269 km² Wildland Parks: 17,280 km² * E. Slopes Prime Protection Zone: 4,304 km² ** Total: 35,138 km² or 9.4% of Provincial Crown Land Conclusion: Less than 9% of provincial Crown Land is off-limits to motorized recreation or 91% of provincial Crown Land is open to motorized recreation. * ** Maximum figure - includes area of all Wildland Parks even though some Wildland Parks allow motorized recreation. Area of Prime Protection Zone not accounted for in other protected areas. Literature Referenced Government of Alberta. 2014. Traffic Safety Act. Alberta Queen's Printer. Accessed on April 8 2016: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/t06.pdf Mayhood, D.W. 2013. Suspended Sediment in Silvester Creek and its Potential Effects on the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Population. FWR Freshwater Research Limited. Ouren, D.S., Haas, C., Melcher, C.P., Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R., Burris, L., Fancher, T., and Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 p. The Praxis Group. 2008. Survey of Albertan's Priorities for Provincial Parks. Final Report submitted to Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. The Praxis Group. 2012. Community Values Assessment for the M.D. of Pincher Creek No. 9. For the Southwest Alberta Sustainable Community Initiative and The Municipal District of Pincher Creek No. 9. The Praxis Group. 2015. Albertans' Values and Attitudes toward Recreation and Wilderness: Final Report. Commissioned by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Northern and Southern Alberta Chapters. Page 5 of 5