r -" . ' I I

/

/

·,. GAN.ARASKA FO:&EST. TRAILS PROJECT ·

FiNAL REPORT

FOR THE GANARASKA REGION. CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

BY· JOIINMARSH

JANICE W A.RFIELD

-TRAIL STUDIES UNIT .. TRENT UNIVERSITY · .

PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO

AUGUST 1997 ·

I CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION I

I.I Ganaraska Forest I 1.2 History of Recreation Issues, Decisions and Management 4 1.3 Aims of the Project 10 1.4 Methods of the Project 10

2.0 THE GANARASKA FOREST ENVIRONMENT 13 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 Geology, Geomorphology and Soils 13 2.3 Climate and Hydrology 13 2.4 Vegetation and Wildlife 14 2.5 Natural Heritage Values 15

3.0 RECREATION IN THE GANARASKA FOREST 16 3.1 Who is Using the Forest? 16 3.2 Recreational Activities in the Forest 17 3.3 Events 18 3.4 Commercial Recreation Use 20

4.0 RECREATION IMP ACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 22 4.1 Introduction 22 4.2 Literature Review 22 4.3 Trail Measurements 26

4.3.1 Past Measurements 26 4.3.2 Remeasurement of Monitoring Sites 26 4.3.3 New Measurements 32

4.4 Perceptions of Trail Impacts 35

5.0 RECREATION CONFLICTS 37 5.1 Introduction 37 5.2 Literature Review 37 5.3 Conflicts in the Ganaraska Forest 39 5.4 Perceptions of Conflict in the Ganaraska Forest 41

6.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 44 6.1 Conclusions 44 6.2 Management Recommendations 45

6.2.1 Trail System- 45

I 6.2.2 Trail Standards 46 6.2.3 · Trail Design, Maintenance, Restoration 46 6.2.4 Trail Use - private/ commercial 47 6.2.5 Events 47 6.2.6 Monitoring 48 6.2.7 Administration 48 6.2.8 Education 49 6.2.9 Law Enforcement 49 6.2.10 Volunteers 50

6.3 Management Priorities 50

8.0 APPENDICES 51 8.1 References 51

8.1.1 Ganaraska Forest 52 8.1.2 Trail User Impacts 53 8.1.3 Trail User Conflicts 54 8.1.4 Other 56

8.2 List of Contacts 57 8.3 Field Measurements 62

8.3.1 New Trail Monitoring Sites (1996-1997) 63 8.4 Trail Standards 66 8.5 Survey Instruments 69

8.5.1 In-Depth Interview Questions 70 8.5.2 Focus Group Workshop Agenda 71

8.6 Survey Results 72 8.6.1 GFTP Mail Survey 1997 8.6.2 GFTP Visitor Impact Survey

8.7 Observations of Recreation in the Forest 89 8.8 Photographs 92

8.8.1 Measuring impacts in East Forest 8.8.2 Measuring impacts in the West Forest 8.8.3 Mountain bike impacts in Central Forest 8.8.4 Measuring depth of earth on road in East Forest 8.8.5 Measuring impacts in West Forest 8.8.6 Measuring impacts in Central Forest 8.8.7 Observations of impacts oflogging in West Forest 8.8.8 Observing impacts on Lookout Hill from top 8.8.9 Observing impacts on Lookout Hill from bottom 8.8.10 Permitted recreational uses in Central Forest 8.8.11 Blair Sharpless dirt bike school in West Forest 8.8.12 Ganaraska Ranch trail ride in West Forest 8.8.13 Mountain bike event in Central Forest

' 8.8.14 A.T.V.s in West Forest 8.8.15 Snowmobiles, 4x4s and skiers in Central Forest

8.9 Trail Restoration: Lookout Hill - Al MacPherson 100

I

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I.I Map of the Ganaraska Forest 2

Figure 4.1 Recreational Impact Interrelationships 23

Figure 4.2 GRCA Trail Monitoring Sites (1989) 27

Figure 4.3 New Trail Monitoring Sites (1996-97) 30

LIST OF TABLES

Table I.I Mail Survey Respondents II

Table 3.1 Age of Forest Members 16

Table 3.2 Origin of Forest Members 17

Table 3.3 Participation in Recreation Activities in the Ganaraska Forest 18

Table 3.4 Recreation Events in the Ganaraska Forest 1993-1997 19

Table 4.1 Member Perceptions of Trail Conditions in the Forest 35

Table 4.2 Perceptions of Potential Solutions to Reduce Environmental 36 Impacts

Table 5.1 Top Ten Perceptions of Major Conflict in the Ganaraska Forest 41

Table 5.2 Perceptions of Solutions to Reduce Recreational Conflicts 43

I

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of the following: • The Ganaraska Forest Trails Project Steering Committee comprising: Adrian Coleman, Rob

Cox, Dan Dell, Ann Dreslinski, George Elgear, Tom Hamblin, Gerry Houston, Norm Jung, Linda Laliberte, Hugh Lim, John Lindsay, Bob Ramsay.

• The staff of the GRCA, especially: George Elgear, Linda Lahoerte, Kim Baldini, Warren Coulter

• The Ganaraska Forest Users Committee

• Professor Al MacPherson, Fleming College, Lindsay

• Field Assistance from: Dave Clark, Scott Thomas, Jeralyne Manweiler, Gail Farwell, Paul Ellerman, Connie; Copps

• Research Assistance: Mark Turner, Cybele Sack

• Arranging meetings, guiding us in the Forest, providing documentation: Randy Cunningham, Patrick English, Tina Gaul, Jack Goering, Ron Keeler, Blair Sharpless and Company, Susan Sinnott, Ronald Wright

• Everyone who responded to personal interviews and surveys

• The :financial support of various Forest user groups

/

I GANARASKA FOREST TRAILS PROJECT, 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ganaraska Trails Project was initiated in 1996, in response to many years of concern and debate about the recreational use of trails, and the environmental impacts and conflicts associated with such use in the Ganaraska Forest, so that impacts and conflicts can be reduced.

The Report begins by defining the Forest as the study area, noting that the GRCA and MNR are primarily responsible for it, and stating that the goal for the Forest is "to protect the water resources of the Ganarask.a Watershed while providing, on an integrated basis, a sustained yield of forest products, selected leisure time activities, suitable wildlife habitat, and opportunities for outdoor education." Next, there is a brief history ofrecreational issues and management responses to them, which indicates the need for this study, and new management initiatives.

The aims of the Project were to analyse the environment of the Forest, determine the characteristics, behavior and attitudes of recreationists, analyse the impacts of their activities on the environment, analyse the conflicts between different users, formulate a set of standards to guide future management, and suggest management guidelines and actions to ensure standards are maintained and impacts and conflicts reduced.

The research methods used included: a literature survey, the remeasurement of existing trail monitoring sites, measurements of trail conditions at 35 new sites throughout the Forest, observation and photography of the trails and events throughout the year, a mail survey of 425 Forest members, an interview survey of72 recreationists in the Forest, in-depth interviews with 34 representatives of users groups, local residents, and others, a workshop with the Forest Users Committee, participation in various public meetings about the Forest, and regular discussions of the project with the Steering Committee.

Chapter 2 descn"bes the characteristics of the Forest environment relevant to recreation, and concludes that it is not a natural area, but a landscape attnbutable to restoration and resource use, fragile in some respects, resilient in others, therefore important for conservation but suitable for a variety of recreational activities, providing the environment and recreation are managed more intensively.

Chapter 3 analyses the recreational use of the Forest, the characteristics of users and their attitudes. It concludes that the trails in the Forest are used for hiking, orienteering, horseback riding, mountain biking, dirt biking, 4x4 driving, 4WD driving, car driving, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, hunting and mushroom picking. The most frequently observed activities were dirt

/ biking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and snowmobiling, and they have been increasing. Commercial use is made of the Forest for dirt biking, horseback riding, and hunting. Most use occurs when major events are held, and on weekends, and in the fall. Use is heaviest in the West Forest, especially near Boundary Road, and attractions like Lookout Hill and Spruce Valley, with hiking _and cross-country skiing being concentrated in the Central Forest. The majority of users come by vehicle from adjacent communities, and the Toronto region.

I Chapter 4 analyses the literature, field measurements and user attitudes concerning the impacts of recreational trail use on the environment and their reduction. All activities have impacts on the environment, especially soil, vegetation and scenery depending on numerous factors, notably ground slope, materials and wetness, levels and persistence of use, weight and speed of users, and remedial measures. Dirt biking and horseback riding are having the most impacts on trails. The repeated measurement of trail monitoring sites, while problematic, suggests some sites have deteriorated while others have improved. The new measurements of35 sites indicated an average bare earth width of 2.26m and depth of 4.6cm. The most degraded sites in the Forest are Lookout Hill, the Cold Springs Camp Road sand dunes, sections of fire roads, parking areas and logging areas. Run-off is a major contnbutor to the erosion of trails up hills. Noise, especially from dirt bikes, is the most pervasive impact, and a matter of concern to some users, and local residents. However, a very small proportion of the Forest is being degraded by recreational use of trails, and this is having no significant impact on water resources, forest production, and probably wildlife. Eighty-six percent of mail survey respondents found the trails either totally or somewhat acceptable. Nevertheless, new management initiatives are needed immediately to restore the most degraded sites, and reduce erosion.

Chapter 5 reviews the literature, observations, and user attitudes concerning conflicts between recreation activities in the Forest, and their solution. Recreation conflict has been defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior." Common sources of conflict, evident in the Forest, are: noise, exhaust smell, litter, horse manure, trail damage, wild behavior, surprise, lack of courtesy, and different, sometimes unrealistic, expectations. The main source of conflict is between motorized and non-motorized uses, eg. dirt biking and horseback riding. However, there would appear to be no deaths and few :injuries on record result:ing from people involved in different activities conflicting on the trails in the Forest. Nevertheless, management initiatives should be taken to reduce conflicts in the Forest so as to increase the safety and quality ofrecreation experiences.

Chapter 6 offers some conclusions and management recommendations. It is concluded in particular that: (1) while the recreational use of trails is having impacts in the Forest, these are still limited in extent, given the siz.e of the Forest, are ofless significance than the impacts oflogging and roads, and

._ are not having a significant impact on water resources or the production of forest products; (2) a majority of trail users consider the trails acceptable and are enjoying their recreation in the Forest; (3) all existing recreational activities should be permitted in the Forest, provided a non-motorized use zone is retained and.there are new management initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts and conflicts that are associated with them. In particular, it is recommended that: (1) a Forest Manager be appointed to work full-time, year round, in the Forest to manage recreation and other activities, as well as to assist in implementing the other recommendations; (2) an expanded educational and law enforcement programme be initiated to encourage environmentally and socially responsible recreational use of the Forest; (3) restoration of the most degraded sites and trails, notably Lookout Hill, the Cold Springs Camp Road sand dunes, and fire roads be undertaken as soon

1 as possible. Other recommendations are offered concerning: the trail system, trail standards, trail - design and maintenance, trail use, events, monitoring, administration, education, information, law

enforcement and volunteers.

Appendices include: references, contacts, field measurements, trail standards, survey instruments, survey results, observations ofrecreation photographs and a restoration plan for Lookout Hill.

I 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter defines the GanaraskaForest study area, summarises the aims of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) in the Forest, provides a brief history of recreation management issues, and indicates the aims and methods of this study.

1.1 Ganaraska Forest The Ganaraska Forest comprises 4,452 hectares of land, in several units, stretching generally east to west from Highway 28, at Bewdley, to Highway 115, in southern Ontario (Figure 1.1 ). This area is part of the Oak Ridges Moraine, which extends from the-Trent River near Trenton, west to the Niagara Escarpment at Orangeville (Storm Coalition, 1994).

The Forest has been primarily the responsibility of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry ofNatural Resources (MNR). The Authority was created in 1946 by the Province at the request oflocal municipalities and communities. It purchased an initial 4,100 hectares ofland degraded by clearing, funning, and subsequent erosion, that in subsequent years has been reforested to create the Ganaraska Forest. Accordingly, the Forest has long been found useful for many purposes, including: conservation, wood production, recreation and education.

The overall objective of the management of the Forest, as set out in the Ontario Forestry Act, is to achieve "forestry purposes". The overall goal for the forest is "to protect the water resources of the Ganaraska Watershed while providing, on an integrated basis, a sustained yield of forest products, selected leisure time activities, suitable wildlife habitat and opportunities for outdoor education." (GRCA, 1987, np). Recreation, according to the MNR Management Plan for the Forest, "is jointly administered by the Authority and MNR to ensure that recreational uses are compatible with the resource function of the Forest." However, according to the Ganaraska Forest Study Report (GRCA, 1987), "in general, MNR manages the forest for forestry and wildlife management, while the recreation program is the responsibility of the Authority." ·Since April 1, 1997 responsibility for forestry has been transferred from the MNR to the GRCA.

In 1980, the GRCA prepared a Management Plan for the Ganaraska Forest outlining management goals and objectives and recommendations to ensure the effective use of the Forest (Tedford, 1980). In 1'987, the GRCA appointed a Forest Study Review Committee "to re-evaluate the 1980 recommendations and the responsibilities of the Authority in the management of the Forest" (GRCA, 1987). One of the goals of the review was "to recommend to the Full Authority management of the recreational use of the GRCA Agreement Forest in a manner which:

1. protects the resource function of the Forest; 2. provides a basic duty of care, on the Authority's part, for the safety of all recreational

users of the Forest; 3. responds to local demand for recreational activities and facilities."

One of the Committee's specific recommendations was to create a "committee composed of user group representatives." The resulting Forest Users Committee has persisted to this day in providing advice to the GRCA on recreation issues and management in the Forest. A chronology of some of

1

Figure 1.1

The Ganaraska Forest Area· ""' _,.) I Base Map for The Ganaraska Forest Study and Business Plan - Final

legend

h·'.::'::< j·:,:\:i:\j [il

Ganaraska Forest

Private Lands·

Parking ,. B Access Points

-------- .. --- ... -·-··

-------

Ganaraska Trail No hunting area

Snowmobile Trails OJ MNR Fire Sign

Forest Roads ~ ,

Protection Zones

Forest Trails ::---~ -~\J'"

Approximate locatioros oni), - c.1980 Study

Contours - 25 feet

2

-I Figure 1.1 (continued)

f.

sl<,

3

~

kmO 1 2 3km

IS:-~~'°'S::~&%:J h~~~~~~l

scale Produced by Chrismar Mapping S<irvicas Inc. with pem,ission

~~~~~}~~eAst~~ ~~~~-~¥,f:~P fsiiri1e8t~fur reporting purposes only. Content reflects that on base

materials used. 95101 o

I these issues, and the decisions and actions concerning them is provided below.

1.2 History of Recreation Issues, Decisions and Management

April 27, 1988 - First Users Committee Meeting Duties as assigned by the Full Authority: '

A) General: 1. Development of standards and guidelines for each recreational use represented on the Committee -suitable for inclusion in information brochures on the Forest, developed and distributed by the Full Authority;

2. An Environmental Monitoring Program developed in co-operation with the Resource Management Advisory Board of the G.RC.A. to monitor and assess the impacts of all users of the Forest on the resource function of the Forest;

3. A mechanism to hear specific verified incidents of: • recreational user conflict within the Forest; • recreational user conflict with landowners abutting the Forest; • and further recommend to the Full Authority, actions to deal with the specific incidents and

reduce or eliminate similar future occurrences;

4. A mechanism to schedule organized group use of the Forest with the intent of minimizing user conflict and user/landowner conflict, and recommend to the Full Authority means of administering such group use in a manner which places greater responsibility on the organizing group for such things as: • public notification of the event and public relations relating to the event; • facility layout and cleanup • safety and liability

B) Specific: 1. Motorized Vehicle Use - establish operating noise level guidelines for all motorized vehicles and recoillID.end means (voluntary or otherwise) to encourage adherence to the guidelines;

2. Recreation User relationship with landowners abutting the Ganaraska Forest - recommend to the Full Authority, a strategy for maximizing abutting property owners' understanding of, and acceptance of Authority approved recreational use of the Ganaraska Forest.

3. Documentation of Recreational Use - recommend to the Full Authority, a means of obtaining more 1 documentation of recreational use in terms of frequency, location, duration, type, etc. with major

participation by the Committee's organizations in implementing any suggested program. (Terms of Reference: Users Committee Ganaraska Forest, pp.3-4).

4

I

I

• Users Committee considered the impact of recreation on the threat of fire to the Forest, in particular occurrences in the vicinity of the Dell Picnic Area.

• Bordering landowners of the Ganaraska Forest had several concerns regarding: • Parking on road, litter, speeding, noise, races, safety, dogs, fire, environmental damage, and

parties

May 1988 • Picnic facilities at the Dell were removed and moved to the Forest Centre. This allowed a

concise recreational fire policy for the Forest to state: 'no open recreational fires permitted within the Ganaraska Forest, except for emergency-situations.'

• A proposal was introduced from the Canadian Motorcycle Association for the use of a portion of the Forest for the Great Enduro that was held in October 1988.

• A draft copy of an Environmental Monitoring Program was introduced to the Users Committee.

July 1988 • Letters from concerned citizens regarding dirt bikes being allowed in the Forest were received

by the Users Committee. • First Environmental Monitoring Program field day was held on July 18, 1988. • A Cleanup Day was scheduled for Friday, August 12, 1988. • Oshawa Competition Motorcycle Club were permitted to use the Forest for Great Pine Ridge

Enduro.

August 1988 • Large Forest information signs were put up at access points in the Forest.

September 1988 • The Users Committee received letters condenming allowing the Great Pine Enduro to be held

in the Ganaraska Forest. · • The Users Committee started researching Police enforcement in the Forest.

October 1988 /

• The Great Pine Enduro took place and sound measurements were recorded at the event. • 4 trail monitoring plots were set up prior to the Enduro. Results indicated no lasting damage

was caused by the event.

November 1988 •

•

Police met at a Users Committee meeting to discuss enforcing regulations in the Forest. End result was the Police did not routinely patrol the Ganaraska Forest, but they would respond to calls with response time depending upon the nature of the request and available officers at the time of the request. The creation of a seasonal parking area for snowmobilers .

5

I

I

January 1989 • Continuing protest by local landowners and a group called "Save the Ganaraska Forest",

about dirt bikes being allowed in the Forest. • A resolution was put forward by a local M.P.P.to prohibit all dirt bikes and A.T.Vs on

Authority Lands.

March 1989 • The Users Committee members decided to identify trails that each group uses. The

segregation of trails was not adopted at this time. • Letters were being received from dirt bikers protesting the proposed removal of their

recreation from the Forest. • The liability of any motorized recreation in the Forest became an issue. • Many letters were received by the Users Committee urging the banning of dirt bikes.

May 1989 • A decision was made by the Users Committee to reroute trails away from local residences and

to mark trails so people will not become lost and will remain at a distance from local residents.

• User fees were discussed but turned.down.

June 1989 • The Full Authority defeated the Users Committee's recommendation to implement a

registration system for motorized use of the Forest.

July 1989 • Noise testing was done in the Forest to determine where to implement A.T.V. and dirt bike

trails. • The Users Committee continued to receive letters to ·ban dirt bikes .

. _August 1989 • The organizers of the Great Pine Enduro were advised to provide more adequate public

notice of the event if another took place in the Ganaraska Forest. • , / Approval was then given again to the Oshawa Competition Motorcycle Club to hold another

Great Pine Enduro in Forest on October 15, 1989. • There was a consensus among members of the Users Committee to keep motorcycle trails

250 metres away from any landowner adjacent to the Ganaraska Forest. • A field trip was taken by members of the Users Committee to look at degraded sites in Forest.

October 1989 •

• •

John Marsh was hired to write a report on the effects of motorized activity on degraded sites in the Forest. Continued support for a ban on dirt bikes . A survey of taxpayers was done by Save the Ganaraska Forest and their results suggested

6

I dirt bikes should be banned.

November 1989 • The Users Committee continued to support motorized use ofForest. • The Marsh report was completed recommending that a ban on motorized use is not necessary

if proper management is put into place.

February 1990 • Implementation of guidelines from Marsh Report was discussed but nothing was decided. • Paid duty trail patrol dates were set for May - October 1990. • Letters of protest to ban and not to ban dirt, bikes continued.

August 1990 • Approval was given to the Oshawa Competition Motorcycle Club to hold their Great Pine

Enduro in the Forest on October 14, 1990. • A motion was put forward that the motorcycle trail in the far east block of the Forest be

restricted to a corridor composed of existing roads and trails to let users pass through area. • The proposed motorcycle trail through entire Forest raised concerns relating to the length,

slope and orientation of the trail. • A motion was put forward and passed at a Users Committee meeting that the Oshawa

Competition Motorcycle Club be requested to start trail development in the West Forest and that development be used to gauge public reaction.

• A motion was put forward and passed by the Users Committee that the Oshawa Competition Motorcycle Club be authorized to develop a proposed trail in the East Forest subject to reasonable criteria

April 1991 • Unknown persons were involved in a dirt bike accident.

__ September 1991 • The Marsh report was again discussed and work continued on signage and Forest boundary

clarification. • ,- / The Oshawa Competition Motorcycle club was given permission to hold their annual Great

Pine Enduro in the Forest. • Concerns were raised regarding the implementation of the motorcycle trail. Some users

worried the trail crossed too many hiking trails and steep slopes. • Complaints were received by the Users Committee that equestrians were using the Central

Forest to park their trailers and that equestrians were using the ski trails and ruining them.

October 1991 • User fees were again discussed at the Users Committee for the Ganaraska Forest. • Concerns were raised over having two events clash on same day in the Forest. It was

recommended that all notices of events be submitted to the Authority to avoid possible

7

I conflicts.

• An equestrian parldng lot was located next to Forest Centre.

November 26, 1992 • Hunting became an issue with.the Users Committee but was referred to the MNR. • Paid patrols were changed to include all users (multi-use), not just dirt bikers. • Trails identified as having significant impacts were to be re-routed.

April 1993 • The user pay system continued to be discussed. • Recommendation put forward to charge all groups using the Forest $100.00 for any group

activity. • The Great Pine Enduro was authorized to be held on October 17, 1993.

June 1993 • Information was requested from the Users Committee regarding conducting missing person

investigations. • There was a request to erect signage at seasonal road entrance points. • The Fire Tower became a safety issue. • Many garbage dumps were occurring in the Forest. • Four forest fires were reported in the Forest over the Spring months.

September 1993 • Membership fees were introduced in the Ganaraska Forest. • Paid duty police patrols continued in the Forest.

September 1994 • Some users wanted to remove restrictions concerning other use on snowmobile trails. • User Group activities in the Forest were required to be approved by the GRCA and a fee was

required. • Equestrians and mountain bikers were banned from ski trails in the Central Forest.

June 1995 • Concerns were expressed by members of the Users Committee regarding safety on multi-use

trails.

April 27, 1995 • A Garbage Day clean-up was held. • Continued opposition to banning of equestrians and mountain bikes on ski trails.

February 29, 1996 • equestrians and mountain bikers were allowed access to ski trails.

8

I • A motion was put forward by several concerned users of the Forest at the Users Committee

Meeting to ban dirt bikes from the Forest. The motion was carried and was presented at the next meeting of the Full Authority. The Full Authority carried the motion over for a month, during which time there was another Users Committee meeting.

March 1996 • The Users Committee again voted on the motion to ban dirt bikes, and the motion was

defeated. The Full Authority subsequently accepted the minutes of the Users Committee meeting of

March 1996 not to ban dirt bikes.

April 26, 1996 • A sub-committee was formed within the Users Committee regarding signage in the Forest.

°This brief history outlines some of the recreation management issues that have arise~ and often persisted, over the last ten years. In particular, it reveals concerns about the impacts of recreation on the environment, and conflicts between different activities. It also reveals that there has long been considerable disagreement on the seriousness of these impacts and conflicts, and the means needed to address them. It was to provide further information on the impacts and conflicts associated with the recreational use of trails, and means to address them in the Forest, that in 1996 the Ganaraska Forest Trails Project (GFTP)was initiated.

The Project was also undertaken in recognition of: • the increasing recreational use of the Forest • the need to respond to the :financial and staffing challenges facing the GRCA • the need for the GRCA to prepare a management plan for the Forest by 1998 • the increasing interest of recreational groups using the Forest in contributing to its

management • the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship between the GRCA, Trent University and

Fleming College

The'Project began upon funding for it being obtained in August 1996 and continued until August 1997. The authors of the Project were guided by the Project Steering Committee which met 8 times during the course of the Project. An Interim Report on the Project was presented to the Full Authority on May 15, 1997.

This Final Report will indicate the aims and methods of the Project (sections 1.3, 1.4), the environmental characteristics of the Forest (chapter 2), the characteristics of recreation (chapter 3),

~ the impacts of recreation (chapter 4), recreation conflicts (chapter 5), and finally offer conclusions and recommendations for the management of trail recreation in the Forest ( chapter 6).

9

I

I

1.3 Aims of the Project. The aims of the Ganaraska Forest Trails Project were to: • analyse the environmental components and processes of the Forest, and their relevance,

attraction, and vulnerability to recreation • determine the characteristics, behaviour and attitudes of recreational users of the Forest • analyse the impacts of recreation on the environment of the Forest, especially where

degradation has occurred • formulate a set of standards to guide future recreation trail use and management of the Forest • suggest management guidelines and actions required to ensure standards are maintained and

impacts and conflicts reduced.

The Project was intended to address recreational trail issues through: • independent and objective research • the consensual formulation of trail standards • the development of recreation management guidelines • related management actions • public input and sustained support

1.4 Methods of Project The following methods were used to complete the Ganaraska Forest Trails Project:

• Literature Review- A literature review was completed identifying the components and processes of the Ganaraska Forest; the impacts of outdoor recreation on environments such as that in the Forest and; on multi-use trail conflicts and their resolution in a recreational environment. Previous and existing information published by the GRCA on their management objectives, prior research and recreational guidelines was also obtained.

• Field Measurements - Field measurements were made· in the Ganaraska.Forest to determine the recreational impacts, especially on soil and vegetation, at very degraded and representative sites throughout the Forest. In conjunction with the 5 sites previously monitored by Marsh, 3 5 additional sites were measured in the Forest. (See Appendix 8 .3 .1 for details on measurements taken).

/

• In -Depth Interviews - Interviews lasting 1-2 hours with 34 representatives of the main user groups in the Forest and individuals requesting a chance to speak were completed in order to determine recreation users' attitudes toward environmental impacts in the Forest, other users, appropriate recreational and environmental standards, and suggestions for Authority management actions and options. Each interviewee was first given the opportunity to speak openly about recreation issues and management in· the Forest before any questions were asked. This ensured that the person being interviewed was not biased initially by the interviewer's queries (Appendix 8.5.1).

• Observations in the Forest - On-site observations of the characteristics and behaviour of

10

I I !

•

recreational users of the Forest were completed. · The on-site observations took place in winter, spring and summer as seasonal use changed in the Forest.

Interviews in the Forest - Interviews in the Forest were completed throughout the year with 72 users of the Forest. The interviews provided a means to inform the users of the Ganaraska

. Forest Trails Project and to gain information on their characteristics, activities, and attitudes to impacts and conflicts (Appendix 8.6.2).

• Mail Survey - A mail survey was sent to 425 Forest members out of the current total membership in 1997 of 1,124. This involved two separate mailings. Initially, two hundred and twenty-five surveys were sent, one going to every fifth person in each membership category ensuring 20% of the total population and equal proportions of member types received a survey. Upon consultation with the Steering Committee, 200 more surveys were sent to Forest members due to a low response rate from the first mailing. The 129 surveys returned by August 15, 1997, by each membership category as indicated below (Table 1. I).

. Table 1.1 - Mail Survey Respondents

Membership # Mailed % Mailed # Replied % Replied Type

All Inclusive 80 19 17 21

Family 150 35 50 23

Single 169 39.6 57 38

Cross-Country 24 6 9 38 Skiing

Corporate 1 .2 3 300

School Operator 1 .2 1 100

Other 4 /

Total 425 100 141**

**Some members indicated more than one membership

The mail survey was used to determine use of the Forest; Members attitudes toward impacts and their solution, attitudes towards conflict and their solution, appropriate recreational and environmental standards; and, management actions and options (Appendix 8.6.1).

• Focus Group Workshop - The purpose of the focus group workshop was to discuss and reach agreement on potential trail standards for the Forest and various options for managing trail recreation in the Forest so as to reduce impacts and conflicts (Appendix 8.3.2). The

11

I

/

/

workshop was held on May 24, 1997 at the GRCA office, Port Hope. All members of the Users' Committee were invited. The workshop was attended by 7 members of the Committee, and George Elgear.

There was a consensus that trail standards should be adopted, that they should be derived frotn government agencies or recreation organisations, modified, if necessary, to suit the Gananiska Forest and its users, and activity-specific standards should be merged for multi-use trails. Participants were urged to submit standards for trails for their activity.

12

I

/

2.0 THE GANARASKA FOREST ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Introduction This chapter provides a brief description of the Ganaraska Forest environment including its geology, geomorphology, soils, climate, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife. Attention is drawn especially to those environmental components and processes of particular relevance to trails, their use, and impact. In conclusion, an assessment of the natural heritage values of the Forest is gj.ven.

2.2 Geology, Geomorphology and Soils The Ganaraska Forest is underlain by Lindsay Formation limestone deposited in the Middle Ordovician period; 400 million years ago. However, there are no outcrops in the Forest as this rock was covered subsequently by a glacial moraine.

The Forest is located on part of the Oak Ridges Interlobate Kame Moraine which extends over 160 kilometres from east to west, varies in width up to 13 kilometres from north to south, and_ has a total area of approximately 1,290 square kilometres. The Moraine is characterised by rolling hills, 230-400 metres above sea level, and rising in the Ganaraska Forest, to view points at Lookout Hill and Fire Tower Hill.

Being a moraine, it is largely composed of sand and gravel, with poor soils. The Pontypool Series of soils are the most extensive in the Forest, being found at such locations as the Forest Centre, Lookout Hill and Spruce Valley. They are composed of calcareous medium and fine sands intermixed and overlying the till of the Bandhead Soils. It has been noted that these soils are "susceptible to wind erosion and often show small stones on the ground's surface from severe soil loss" (Tedford, 1980, 8). This is evident on the eroded trails on Lookout Hill. The Bridgman Sand soil is found in- a few _areas in the Forest, such as the sand dune area on Cold Springs Camp Road, and three pockets near the southe~ edge of the West -Forest~ -for example, west of tlie Forest ·cenfre. This soil has· been -classified separately as it has been found "the most intolerant to use of all the soils. These soils contain loose, incoherent, coarse sand with gravel stones and some boulders, and are very droughty

--and contain little or no organic matter. Blowout or sand exposures are common in Bridgman Sand as wind action aggravates and perpetuates the condition" (Tedford, 1980, 8). This is evident in the sand dyne area of Cold Springs Camp Road, where the construction of the road and use of informal trails' has exposed the sand.

2.3. Climate and Hydrology

The climate of the Forest is classed as a modified continental one, with moderately cold winters and warm summers. It is modified by the presence ofLake Ontario to the south. Temperatures range from a mean daily maxnnum of26 degrees in July to -12 degrees in January, the mean annual temperature

_ being 6 degrees. The area averages 140-150 frost free days. Precipitation averages 81cm, with 63cm being rain and 18cm being snow. The snow normally accumulates from December 1 to March 21, though in recent years has been less reliable. In view of the above temperature and moisture conditions, the ground in many areas of the Forest is particularly susceptible to erosion in the Spring,

13

I usually in April, so constraints on the recreational use of trails at this time are needed.

The Oak Ridges Moraine is very significant hydrologically within the south-central Ontario region as it divides the drainage south into Lake Ontario and north into Lake Simcoe and the Kawartha Lakes. The Moraine is the most important recharge and discharge area of this region due to its highly porous soils and slow seepage of groundwater into the many rivers which extend from its base (Singer, 1981). Within the Moraine are many small watersheds, such as the Ganaraska, whose waters originate in the headland area and flow south to Lake Ontario. The Ganaraska River originates in springs, notably along Cold Springs Camp Road near the Ganaraska Forest Centre. The creeks in the Forest have a strong, year around flow of high quality water. As they originate in springs and often flow under forest cover they are cold, with some having trout. Trail development and recreation activities should not be allowed to degrade these water resources. There are also some small ponds in the Forest created by beaver dams or by concrete weirs. They are attractive to recreationists and afford drinking water for horses, however, they may need to be protected from the impacts of recreation. While most of the Forest ground is porous and dry, there are also some enclosed basins and small valleys with more highly developed soils that retain moisture, and can be degraded by the use of trails through them

2.4. Vegetation and Wildlife

About 4,000ha, or 94% of the Forest is actually forested. The remnants of natural forest in the Forest are representative ofMNR's Forest Site Region 6E. They include trees from the Deciduous Forest Region and the Great Lakes St.Lawrence Region, such as hemlock, beech, maple, and red oak. There are six forest cover types, the two most extensive being conifer plantations, about 65% of the Forest, and mixed hardwoods, about 35% of the Forest (GRCA, 1987). The conifer plantations comprise about 84% red pine, 12% white pine, and 4% other trees. The hardwood forest comprises about 78% red oak, 20% maple, and 2% other trees (Tedford, 1980, 10-11). Some sugar maple and red oaks are over 65 years old, and some plantations nearly 50 years old. Logging of the plantations has occurred annually, and was evident in 1997, for example, near Boundary Road in the West Forest

,, and in sections of the East Forest near"Bewdley. The logging itself, and the infrastructure, such as roads and yards, associated with it have a considerable impact on the environment and scenery. Poison Ivy is common in the Forest and likely discourages some recreation use.

/ .

As much of the Forest has been planted with few species, it is not as rich as a natural area, or as the edge environment surrounding the Forest. Therefore, the variety of wildlife species in the Forest is less than in such areas. There are 21 species of mammals, notably white-tailed deer, coyote, red fox, and black bear. As mammals prefer edge situations there are "low densities within the large tracts of pine and hardwood forests" (Tedford, 1980, 15). The Forest, especially outside the plantations, has a variety ofbirds, sufficient to attract birdwatchers. Of special note are the flocks of wild turkeys. Hunting must be having, and other recreation activities may be having some impact on wildlife, but it was beyond the scope of this project to investigate that, and few negative impacts have been noted.

14

I

/

2.5. Natural Heritage Values

The natural heritage attributes of the Oak Ridges Moraine, east of the Greater Toronto Area, including the Ganaraska Forest, have been mapped, described and evaluated by Geomatics International (Geomatics, 1992). Their study identified core natural heritage areas covering 54.32 square kilometres, or 30.29% of their study area of 179.36 square kilometres. Their study also identified 13.4 square kilometres· or 7.47% of their study area, as natural corridors, including streams, woodlands and slopes over 15%. Some of the natural heritage core and corridor areas, especially slopes, identified in the Geomatics study are in the Ganaraska Forest. Protection zones were also identified in a 1980 study of the Forest, and are shown in Figure 1 (Tedford, 1980). They largely coincide with the core and corridor natural heritage areas identified by Geornatics International

There are natural heritage values that should be conserved in the Forest, for ecological reasons, and public appreciation (Berry, 1987, 71). However, there are few remnant natural forest, or old growth forest areas, in the Forest. Furthermore, no areas in the Forest have been designated by the Province as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or recognised as Environmentally Sensitive Areas or wetlands.

It can be concluded that while the Forest has some areas with natural heritage values, and ecologically sensitive conditions, most of the landscape is attributable to restoration and resource use, fragile in some respects, resilient in others. The Forest, therefore, is important for conservation but suitable for a variety of recreational activities, providing the environment and recreation are managed more intensively. ·

/

15

I

/

3.0 RECREATION IN THE GANARASKA FOREST

This chapter will provide information on the characteristics of Forest users, activities in the Forest, trail recreation events and commercial use of the trails. ·

3.1 Who is Using the Forest? Of the Ganaraska Forest members who responded to the survey, the largest population (30%) were in the 30-39 age group, with the 40-49 age cohort following a close second with 28%. Only 1 % were under 20 years old and only 6% between 20-29. Nineteen percent were between 50-59, 10% between 60-69 and 6% over 70 years of age (Table 3.1).

T bl 3 1 A fF a e - ,ge o orest M ber em s

Age Number Percentage

under20 1 .7

20-29 8 6

30-39 38 30

40-49 36 28

50-59 25 19.3

60-69 13 10

70 and over 8 6

Total 129 100

Source: Ganaraska Forest Trails Project Mail Survey 1997 / , .

The greatest number of people using the Forest were from Port Hope (10.5%). Smaller numbers came from Oshawa (9%), Whitby (8%), and Scarborough, Bowmanville, and Toronto (7%) (Table 3.2).

The greatest number ofrespondents (45.7%) to the GFTP mail survey have been using the Forest for less than 6 years, with 29% using the Forest for 6-10 years, 8% for 11-15 years, 8% for 16-20 years and 19.4% for more than twenty years.

Most of the respondents to the GFTP mail survey visited the Ganaraska Forest during the Fall (87%), with smaller numbers visiting in summer (70%), spring (68%), or winter (54%). The same pattern was found in the 1996 membership survey.

16

I

Table 3.2 - Origin of Forest Members Origin Number Percentage Origin Number Percentage Unknown 13 11 Kendal 3 2.3 Ajax 2 1.5 Little Britain 1 .7 Belleville 2 1.5 Millbrook 4 4 Bewdley 1 .7 Newcastle 2 1.5 Bowmanville 7 5 Newtonville 1 .7 Brampton 1 .7 Oakville 2 1.5 Brooklin 2 1.5 Omemee 1 .7 Burlington 1 1.7 Orono. 6 4.7 Campbellcroft 2 1.5 Oshawa 11 9 Cambridge 1 1.7 Parry Sound 1 .7 Cameron 1 .7 Peterborough 3 2.3 Courtice 3 2.3 Pickering 3 2.3 Crosshill 1 .7 Pontypool 1 .7 Edmonton, Alberta 1 .7 Port Hope 12 10.5 Elizabethville 3 2.3 Richmond Hill 1 .7 Enniskillen 1 .7 Scarborough 7 5.5 Etobicoke 1 .7 Stirling 1 .7 Gardenhill 3 2.3 Toronto 7 5.5 Hamilton 1 .7 Tyrone 1 .7 Hampton 1 .7 Whitby 8 6.5

Windsor 1 .7

Total 129 100 Source: Ganaraska Forest Trails Project Mail Survey 1997

From observations in the Forest during the study period and from in-depth interviews it can be concluded that there is more use of the Forest on weekends than weekdays (Appendix 8.7).

3.2 Recreational Activities in the Forest

The-GFTP survey indicated that the activity reported by the largest proportion of respondents was hiking (41%) (Table 3.3). The next most reported activities were: dirt biking (29%), cross-country skiing (29%), hunting (22%), mountain biking (22%). Others (13%) drove A.T.V.s, rode horses (13%), or enjoyed some other recreational activity (10%). Relatively few reported picking mushrooms (8%), went 4x4 driving (8%), snowshoeing (7%), or orienteering (3%). Twelve percent of respondents indicated they use the Forest for snowmobiling. However, as snowmobilers may obtain a permit to use the Ganaraska Forest through their club, and do not require a Forest membership, the proportion of Forest users who snowmobile is certainly higher.

The levels of participation in various activities seems to have changed somewhat since the membership application surveys done in 1996 and 1995. In 1996 patterns of recreational use were very similar to those in 1997, however, hiking has declined from 51.5%, and hunting from 35.1 %

17

/

I while cross-country skiing bas increased from 12.3%. In 1995 however, dirt biking was reported by

_fewer respondents (23.7%) than in 1997, hiking by many more respondents (56.0%), and horseback riding by 6% more, while cross-country skiing remained relatively the same (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 - Participation in Recreation Activities in the Ganaraska Forest Total number of people surveyed in 1997 = 129 Total number of people surveyed in 1996 = 171 Total number of people surveyed in 1995 = 152

Activities # of people %Use %Use %Use participating (1997) (1997) (1996) (1995)

Hiking 53 41% 51.5% 56.0% Dirt Biking 38 29% 36.3% 23.7% Cross-Country 37 29% 12.3% 30.9% Skiing Hunting 29 22% 35.1% 34.9% Mountain Biking 28 22% 27.5% 23.7% A. T. V. Driving 17 13% 18.7% 18.4% Horseback Riding 17 13% 14.0% 7.2% Picking Mushrooms 10 8% 4x 4 driving 10 8% Snowshoeing 9 7% Orienteering 4 3%

(Note: Multiple responses permitted) . Sources: GFTP mail survey 1997, GRCAmembership surveys 1995, 1996.

Recreational use of the Forest is heavier in some areas than others. The 1996 GRCA membership survey indicated that almost half ofrespondents (49.2%) used the West Forest, fewer (30.1 %) used the Central Forest and even fewer (20.7%) the East Forest. From site observations this appears to be the pattern of recreational use today. Most observations of recreational use were made in the West Forest, with very few in the East Forest and only sporadic observations of mountain biking and hiking in the Central Forest.

3.3 Events Group events account for some of the recreational use in the Ganaraska Forest. From 1993-1997,

- there were 39 events recorded at the GRCA Office in Port Hope (Table 3.4). Of those 39 events, 15 were hikmg with one event having more than 50 people, 10 were trail rides with one event having over 50 people, 3 were competitive trail rides with two rides having over 50 people, 5 were mountain biking events with one event having more than 50 people, 3 were orienteering events with one event

18

I

\

-

' - ./

r I , 1.

having more than 50 people, and there were two motorbike enduros both of them having more than 50 participants. The largest event registered with over 100 participants was the Great Pine Enduro organised by the Oshawa Competition Motorcycle Club on May 14, 1995. On several occasions there have been several events at the same time and some events have been held that were not registered.

Table 3.4 -Recreation Events in Ganaraska Forest, 1993-1997

Date Organiser Event # of Participants

1. December 12, 1993 St. Francis of Assissi Hike Under 50 Church Group

2. April 11, 1994 Bethany Hills Hunt Club Trail Ride Under 50

3. May 21, 1994 O.C.T.RA. Competitive Trail Ride 80

4. June 25, 1994 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50 ·

5. July 10, 1994 Toronto Bruce Trail Club Hike 23

6. July 16-17, 1994 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50

7. September 19, 1994 Access Community Hike 12 Services

8. October 23, 1994 Adult Education Centre Mountain Bike Ride 10-20

9. November 19, 1994 1st Hastings Scouts Orienteering 15

10. March 26, 1995 Joanne Doucette Hike Under 50

11. May 14, 1995 Oshawa Competitive EnduroRide 100+ Motorcycle Club

12. May 14, 1995 High Park Hiking Club Hike Under 50

13. June 17-18, 1995 O.T.RA. Trail Ride 20

14. June 25, 1995 ·Toronto Hiking Club Hike Under 50

15. July 9, 1995 Toronto Orienteering Orienteer Under 50 Club

16. July 15-16, 1995 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50

17. August 23- O.T.RA. Trail Ride 60-70 September 1, 1995

18. September 23, 1995 Toronto Orienteering Orienteer 100 Club

19. September 30, 1995 32nd Oshawa Cubs Hike 25

19

I

', I

I ,

r- /

!

20. November 11, 1995 29th Oshawa Girl Guides Hike Under 50

21. January 25, 1996 Toronto Hiking Club Hike Under 50

22. May 14, 1996 1st Orono Path Finders Hike 10

23. May 18-19, 1996 O.C.T.RA. Competitive Trail Ride Under 50

24. June 29, 1996 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50

25. July 13-14, 1996 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50

26. September 15&22, Metropolitan Preparatory Mountain Bike Ride Under 50 1996 Academy

27. September 22, 1996 Ganaraska Hiking Club Hike 25

28. October 12, 1996 Oshawa Competitive Enduro Ride Over 50 Motorcycle Club

29. October 20, 1996 Crestwood High School Mountain Bike Ride 45 ·

30. October 27, 1996 Ganaraska OffRoad Mountain Bike Ride Under 50

31. November 1, 1996 Backwoods Hike 100

32. November 3, 1996 Ganaraska Trail Hike Under 50 Association

33. January 26, 1997 Toronto Hiking Club Hike Under 50

34. March 7, 1997 O.C.T.RA. Comptetitive Trail Ride 82

35. April 6, 1997 Alpha Racing Competitive Mountain 95 Bike Ride

36. May 11, 1997 Toronto Bruce Trail Club Hike Under 50

37. June 1, 1997 Bethany Hills Hunt Club Trail Ride Uner 50

38. July 5, 1997 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50

39.,Jµly 12-13, 1997 O.T.RA. Trail Ride Under 50

Source: GRCA Office, Port Hope

3.4 Commercial Recreation Use

There are three corporate members of the Forest who use the trails for commercial purposes:

• • •

Blair Sharpless and Company, Trail Tours and Dirt Bike School Toe Ganaraska Ranch Tufts Game Farm

Blair Sharpless and Company are located on Sandaraska Road adjacent to Highway 115 and the

20

I

/

western edge of the Forest. They offer trail tours and instruction in dirt bike riding. In 1997 their program is being run from April 26th to October 26th, primarily on weekends and Thursday nights. They allow up to, and have usually taken, thirty riders each day. Their tours are mainly in the West Forest. It was estimated that in 1995 "dirt bike trail riders paid 500 visits through a commercial member" to the Forest (The Tourism Co.et. al. 1995, 5-10) ..

The Ganaraska Ranch is also located on Sandaraska Road adjacent to Highway 115 and the western edge of the Forest. The Ranch offers everything from a one hour trail ride to holiday packages for 7, 10 and 14 days. Their rides are mainly in the West Forest. The Ranch operates primarily through the summer but does offer some winter activities such as sleigh rides. Overnight accommodations and meals are provided at the Ranch. It was estimated in 1995 that there were 1,600 visitor days of commercial horseback riding in the Forest (The Tourism Co. et. al., 1995, 5-10).

Tufts Game Farm, on the southern edge of the West Forest, holds two field trials yearly, primarily on the Parker property section of the West Forest. They allow 20 members per season and operate from mid-September until inclement weather in November or December. Each member is allowed to hunt a specific number of Quail and Partridge that are released close to the Fann. Hunting takes place through the week and weekends. In 1997 there were 16 members (Tuft, May 14, 1997).

The Sandaraska Ranch located on Sandaraska Road adjacent to Highway 115 and the West Forest offers camping facilities for users of the Forest and has served as the base for various events in the Forest, such as the O.C.T.RA. trail ride in May 1997.

/

21

/

'

4.0 RECREATION IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a conceptual framework for examining the impacts of the recreational use of trails on the environment, a review of the literature on such impacts, a summary of the measurements of impacts made in the Forest in the past and for this study, a review of the perceptions of Forest users regarding impacts and some conclusions that info~ the management recommendations provided later.

The impact of outdoor recreation on the environment has been conceptualized by Prof. Geoff Wall of the University of Waterloo (1989 ), and depicted in Figure 4.1.

This indicates that outdoor recreation, such as trail based recreation, may have an impact on any major component of the environment, such as soil, vegetation and wildlife, and that this impact may be relayed in space and time through the many processes and systems, such as the hydrological system, that constitute an ecosystem, like the Ganaraska Forest. The diagram also indicates the complexity of the interaction between recreationists and the environment and, therefore, the challenges faced in assessing impacts, their cumulative effect, and future characteristics.

It is important to emphasize the need to distinguish between environmental "impacts" and "pro bl ems". All recreation has environmental impacts and these can be scientifically analysed but whether an impact is a problem or not is decided subjectively and often differently according to the information or frame of reference used by an individual or group. Thus, there is often agreement on what impacts are occurring but disagreement on whether such impacts are problematic and, therefore, whether any actions need to be taken respecting the impacts. Accordingly, to understand an impact situation and, if it is considered by some to be problematic, to resolve it, it is necessary not only to measure the impacts scientifically but also to determine user perceptions of the impacts and, if they

· are deemed problematic, solutions to them.

4.2 , ,, Literature Review Research indicates that the following factors influence the amount of resource damage caused by trail use: •

• • • • •

soil characteristics: type, texture, organic content, consistency, depth, moisture ( eg. muddy vs. dry), temperature levels (esp. frozen vs. thawed), etc. topography and slope of surface type of vegetation in trail type of vegetation beside trail (influencing wide~g) quality of trail design and cons:truction (esp. regarding drainage) level of maintenance

22

I

/

Figure 4.1 - Recreational Impact Interrelationships

± ~-------+< Nutrients i.----------------~

Air Capacity "'4----

Aquatic Fauna

Possible Impact:

+ Positiv~

Negative

Nutrients

Other Pollutants

Pathogens

---- Questionable Impact

/

----+f Temperature X

± ±

Disturbance

Population Change

±

Species Composition

Source: Wall, 1989, 221

23

Killing

Percentage Cover

±

Growth Rates

Erosion

Runoff and Drainage

± Species

Compo$ition

Age Structure

I • type (activity) ofuse • amount of use • concentration or dispersal of use • season of use • up or down hill traffic direction • style of use or technique (e.g., skidding tires vs. controlled riding).

The authors reviewed the extensive literature on the impacts of recreation on trails. Moore (1994), however, synthesised the :findings of230 studies undertaken in the U.S. He concluded that: • all trail use regardless of travel mode, impacts natural resources • wet trails are more susceptible to damage than dry trails especially during spring thaw. In the

spring the ground is soft, seeds are germinating, and many animals are breeding, hence the ecosystem is generally more vulnerable

• the initial users of lightly used areas cause the most damage to soils and vegetation. The rate of degradation generally decreases after a certain amount of damage has been done

• backpacking causes more damage than hiking without a pack • horses and packstock cause greater damage than hiking • dirt biking causes more damage than hiking. (Moore, 1994, 9-10).

Another synthesis of the :findings of studies of impacts on recreation trails in alpine environments by Price (1987) led to the following additional conclusions: • use of a cross-country ski trail will result in snow compaction. This tends to delay snowmelt,

and thus may shorten the growing season for affected vegetation • horses tend to cut corners on switchbacks, resulting in trail widening • the impacts of hiking are only very locally significant when compared the total area of an

environment.

The authors' analysis of the literature including Canadian studies has largely confirmed the above -, conclusions and suggested in addition that:

• the physical impacts of recreational trails extend beyond the actual limits of the trail. There is a tendency for the impact to cease around 10 - 12.5 metres off the trail

• ,, off-road vehicles are causing erosion in forested environments, however, the area so affected is often a small proportion of such environments. Impacts are usually confined to some trails, a few steep slopes and hilltops (Marsh, 1989)

It is important when evaluating the level of recreational impact to understand impacts must be measured on a site-specific or area-specific basis due to the many interrelated factors causing them. Therefore, it is important to relate the above :findings, by means of the research and observations

_ undertaken by the authors, to the Ganaraska Forest environment.

In summarising Moore's (1994) statements, several conclusions can be made with reference to the Ganaraska Forest. For example, as Moore (1994) stated, all trail use regardless of mode, impacts

24

I natural resources which is true in the Ganaraska Forest. Every type of recreation activity from mountain biking, dirt biking and horsebacking riding to biking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing affects the natural resources of the trails in the Ganaraska Forest.

Evidence that wet trails are more susceptible to damage than dry trails especially during spring thaw is apparent in the Ganaraska Forest. A mountain bilce enduro with 82 participants was held on April 6, 1997 during spring thaw. Photographs (Appendix 8.8.3) record the impacts on the trail ground materials as a resuh of the enduro being held so early in the Spring. However, subsequent inspection of the trail did not indicate any lasting effects of the event the ground having regenerated considerably.

Backpackers compared with hikers do not appear to cause more environmental damage in the Ganaraska Forest as there is little backpack activity occurring.

Evidence that horses cause more damage than hikers in the Ganaraska Forest is apparent on many trails in the West and Central Forest and was indicated by measurements made by Marsh et. al. in 1989. Evidence that dirt bilcing causes more damage than hiking is also apparent on many trails in the West Forest.

In summarising Price's (1987) statements regarding recreational activities causing environmental impacts, several conclusions can be made with reference to the Ganaraska Forest. For example, Price's conclusion that use of cross-country ski trails results in snow compaction and delays snowmelt is con:finned by observations in the Forest. Snow does last longer on ski and snowmobile trails in the Ganaraska Forest than surrounding areas.

Horses cutting comers on switchbacks resulting in trail widening is not a problem in the Ganaraska Forest, as there are few trail switchbacks in the Forest, though some may be needed.

The fuct that hiking impacts are usually restricted to a small proportion ofa protected area is true in ,_ the Ganaraska Forest. Most hiking occurs on trails in the Central Forest and this occupies a very

small proportion of the total Forest.

The'analysis of the literature, including Canadian studies led the authors to additional conclusions regarding recreational nnpacts. First, it is often the case that the physical impacts of recreational use of trails extend beyond the actual limits of the trail. This is true in some areas of the Ganaraska Forest, e.g. Lookout Hill, but other trails generally have suffered little impact beyond the bare earth portion of.the trail.

The conclusion that off-road vehicles cause erosion in forested environments but that only a small area of the total environment is affected is also true in the Ganaraska Forest. There are a few major sites with major damage, e.g. Lookout ~ sand dunes on Cold Springs Camp Road and Site 2 in the non-motorised area, but no other areas are as greatly affected.

25

I

4.3 Trail Measurements

4.3.1 Past Measurements The first GRCA trail monitoring sites were established in May of 1988, by the GRCA Users Committee. Measurements were made at fourteen sites in the West, Central and East parts of the Forest (Figure 4.2). In 1989, Pro£ John Marsh was hired to re-measure the sites and compare his data with those obtained by the Users Committee. Marsh et. al. remeasured five of the most damaged sites but observed all fourteen (Marsh et. al., 1989).

The results of the re-measurements made by Marsh were: 1. Around Site 1, GRCA plot w9, the area of bare sand on the hilltop had attained a width of

25 metres. 2. At Site 2, GRCA plot cl, four-wheel drive vehicles had established several eroded routes· up

the slope. This is in the Centre section of the Forest which is supposed to be non-motorized. 3. Around Site 5, four-wheel drive vehicles had established several eroded routes up the slope. 4. At Site 8, near GRCA plot W4, the area of bare earth on the hilltop had attained a diameter

of20.2 meters. 5. At site 9, in Spruce Valley the flat, sandy area near the dam had been eroded by vehicles

going in tight circles. The area of bare earth exceeded a diameter of20 meters (Marsh et. al., 1989, 13).

In addition to remeasuring the GRCA plots, Marsh et. al. also measured and compared erosion on a sample of hiking, horse and ORV trails. These measurements were taken before all trails in the Forest became multiple-use, hence any impacts on the trails were caused by the respective recreation activity. Results indicated: 1. the average width of hiking/skiing trails was 3.3 meters, of horse trails 2.6 meters and ORV

trails 3.0 meters. 2. the average depth ofhiking/skiing trails was 0.13 meters, of horse trails 0.75 m and ORV

trails 0.76 metres. 3. the ground cover on hiking/skiing trails was pine needles, leaves on horse trails and bare

,, earth on ORV trails (Marsh et. al., 1989, 15).

The general conclusion of the Marsh et. al. study was that the impact ofORV's on the environment is greater than that of bikers. However, he emphasised that only a small proportion of the total Forest was being affected directly by ORVs. The impacts were erosional in nature and were occurring mainly along trails and on a few steep slopes and hilltops, such as Lookout Hill.

4.3.2 Remeasurement ofMonitoring Sites· / In November, 1996, Jan Warfield remeasured four of the five plots measured by the Users Committee

and Marsh. Plot 9 (Spruce Valley) was not remeasured then due to time and ground

26

I Figure 4.2 - GRCA Trail Monitoring Sites (1989)

,_

\ /

-~ Site Number

•·••···• Route

Kuby Source: Marsh et. al, 1989, 21

27

I

r·.,r-

)

~ I Ehl · \ abelhv,lle

/

/

/

••,• .... Site Number

Route

28

•

Forest 0 ® @

IIIIIINIIHI

Seate

LEGEND

Forest E3 . ountlary

No Hunting Zone

Ganaraska Forest Centre

Fire Towe,

Forest Roads

Murnc,l)ill A cads

County Roads

Highways

Snowmobile T C roils ross Co11nlry Ski Trails

so· Contours

Watercourses

Use Zones Forest West

Forest Central

Forest East

Use Zone Bo · urda Munie,oal B ry

I 25.000 oundanes .

T

I

/

condition constraints, but was remeasured on July 26, 1997 (Figure 4.3). The remaining nine GRCA monitoring plots were observed. Only at one plot were all the pegs identifying the transects measured in 1989 still in place enabling precise replication of the measurements. The results ofremeasuring this plot are given below.

At Site 2, G.RC.A plot Cl, the trail ascends a steep slope up to a plateau. The new measurements at the top of the slope indicate the trail has a bare earth width of 4m and a depth of Im. The broad shallow gully on the main hill climb appeared to have decreased in width, however, an adjacent hill climb appeared to be the new path for recreation use. Fresh vehicle tracks were observed at the time the measurements were taken but not on subsequent visits to this site which is in the non-motorized Central Forest ..

At the remaining four plots the pegs identifying the transects measured in 1988 and 1989 were missing probably due to frost heave displacing them and people removing them. Accordingly, at each of these plots 3 new transects were established and identified with new pegs. The results of measuring the new transects are given below:

At Site 1, G.RC.A. plot W9, the trail has a bare earth width of27 metres, 2 metres more than the maximum width measured in 1989. Exposure of tree roots is evident in this area

Around Site 5, is a steep slope in a wooded area, where motorized vehicles have established several routes up the slope which are now eroded. The widest section of bare earth on the trail measured 3.2 metres across and the deepest part of the trail measured 0.8 meters down. A tree has fallen across one of these routes, therefore, preventing vehicle use and allowing noticeable regrowth.

At Site 8, near plot W4, Lookout Hill, a very visible slope and hilltop have been markedly eroded. The area ofbare earth on the hilltop has attained a diameter of 18.6 metres and a depth of 1.1 metres. In 1989, the area of bare earth on the hilltop measured 20.2 metres across and 1.2 metres deep. Recent vehicle ruts from 4 x 4 and 4 wheel drive u~e were observed.

At Site 9, in Spruce Valley, a large, flat sandy area near the dam is being used as a parking lot but showed no evidence of vehicles using it to do tight circles or cause rutting, as was noted in the Marsh Rep<>rt in 1989. The trees in the area were recently thinned, hence logging trucks may have used the area as a turn around but no further evidence of erosion from this is apparent. The bare earth of the area still exceeds a diameter of20 meters as recorded in 1989. Upstream from the dam, there is a fire pit and a homemade bench.

As Marsh noted in 1989, the vegetation has been eliminated totally from the above sites, the top-soil has gone, and the underlymg sandy parent material is being eroded. The hilltop sites with fine sandy soils in the Central Forest are vulnerable to, and have probably been degraded further by wind erosion. The hilltop sites with gravelly sand deposits in the West Forest are more stable, since after some erosion, such deposits form lag surfaces which limit transport (Marsh et. al, 1989, 13-14).

29

I

'·

\ /

Krrby

Figure 4.3 - New Trail Monitoring Sites (1996-97)

1···.

[BJ Site Number

·•••···· Route

Source: Warfield; 1997

30

·;. .-:·

-I I I I

I

I

'. ,.,...

?~lhv,lle

, /

. •.• .... Site Number

Route

31

---~L::E:1.:GE;-;:N;;:D:----__.:··

•

Forest 0 ® @

lfUIINIJIII

Fores! Ooun·•-N .,,,ry o Hunl•ng Zone

Gnnaraska F 0<es1 Centre

Fo<esl Roads

. Mun,coual Roads

Counly Roads

H,ghw.iys

1 e Trails Snowmobl

Cross C , ounlry Sk,

50' Contours

Walercourse Use Zones .s

F0<esl Wesl

Fores! Cenlral

Fores! Easl

Use zone Bo

Tra,ls

Mun,crpal urdary I 25.000 Boundanes .

0 _.:.:.::::-·-

T !

•I

! i

/

I

\

While something bas been learned from sequential measurements at the monitoring sites established in the Forest a more reliable and comprehensive method of measuring recreation impacts on trails that is not susceptible to the loss of pegs and which records changes throughout a site rather than along only three transects is required, such as photographic monitoring (See Recommendations on monitoring).

4.3 .3 New Measurements

Warfield measured an additional 35 trail transects throughout the West, Central and Eastern parts of the Forest. .These transects were measured in order to gain a more comprehensive and representative understanding of impacts throughout the Forest. Thirty-three transects were measured at 100 metres from 33 trail heads (Figure 4.3 ), as follows: • Twenty-one transects were measured on trails starting from Boundary Road. Each transect

was chosen by stopping at each trail visible from the road. This is an area determined to have intense dirt bike and equestrian use, in addition to two commercial outfits operating in this section of the Forest.

• Five transects were measured in the Central Forest at the beginning and end of the ski trails, at the start of the Orange Loop and off Cold Springs Road.

• Seven transects were measured in East Forest along the main road running east-west through the Forest.

In addition to these 33 transects, at the suggestion of George Elgear, an additional two trail transects were measured in the Central Forest to help determine the impacts of the increased amount of mountain bike and horse use.

The measurements and observations made at each transect were recorded on a trail monitoring sheet (Appendix 8.5.1) as follows: 1. 2.

3. ,·

4.

5.

,/

Measurements - the width of bare earth, depth of bare earth, slope and soil compaction. Environmental impacts - in the immediate area of the transect: drainage and root exposure were measured on a scale from 0-3 with O=no impact and 3=major. Ground materials and erosion from runoff were also described. Human impacts - vandalism and human litter were evaluated on a scale with O=no impact and 3=major. Evidence of fire was also noted. Evidence of recreational uses was descnkd and the vegetation surrounding the transect was noted. , Management Implications were then noted, and a photo taken of every transect (These photos are being given to the GRCA for reference).

The trail monitoring sheet contains a legend on the back, so that any researcher may be able to measure the same transects and get comparable results. E.g., Root Exposure: O=no roots exposed; I =roots showing through; 2=whole root exposed; 3=roots broken or severed.

32

I

/

Results from the 33 transects measured at 100m from trail heads are presented in Appendix 8.4. They may be summarised as follows: Measurements: • the average width of bare earth is 2.26 m • the average depth of the trails is 4.6 cm • the average slope is 2.56 degrees or 2.5 percent • the average soil compaction is .26 kg/cm2 Environmental Impacts: • the average rating of drainage conditions was 1.4. • the average rating ofroot exposure was .92 • ground materials observed on the transects were sand, soil, stones or grass • minor water erosion was noted on 15 sites or 48% of transects Human Impacts: • there was no noted vandalism on any of the transects • human litter was found on 9, or 26% transects • no evidence of fire was found at the transects

On the 2 additional transects, results indicated: Measurements: • the average width ofbare earth was 1.82 m • the average depth was 1.75 cm • the average slope was 4.5 degrees or 6 percent • the average soil compaction was 0.5 kg/cm2 Environmental Impacts: · ·

·, • there was no evidence of water on any of the transects • the average rating ofroot exposure was 0.25 • ground materials observed on the transects were sand, soil, grass • minor water erosion was observed on 1 transect ,Human Impacts: • there was no vandalism noted o·n any of the transects • there was no human litter noted on any of the transects • there was no evidence of fire observed on any of the transects

/

Other Observations: Most dirt bike and snowmobile trails in the Forest were wide (avg. 2.26 m), but this is partly attnbutable to the design guidelines issued by the GRCA Users Committee for safety purposes and the multiple-use of trails in the Forest. Although trails may be designated dirt bike, they must be wide enough to allow A.T.V.s and equestrian use. In addition, snowmobile trails have to be wide to allow graders access for trail grooming.

Of the 35 trails that Warfield measured, the most degraded were those along the fire access roads. For example, the trail access at Fire Post 14 is badly degraded with major gullying and major root damage. This section of trail, which is part of the W2 dirt bike trail system and is evidently also used

33

I

/

by horses should -be relocated in order to decrease future erosion . One additional trail head that should be relocated or closed is the dirt bike and snowmobile trail (with evidence of horse use) across from Post 5 on Cold Springs Camp Road. This area of the road is very sandy and itself contains areas of gullying and erosion from vehicle use. The trail head originating from this road is becoming very eroded and gullied and will only become worse with continued recreational use.

Trails in the Central Forest, which is supposed to be non-motorised, are also eroding in some places but appear to be eroding in areas with a slight incline and from many years of use. The first sections of the ski trails are covered with grassy vegetation and do not appear to be suffering additional damage from the increase in equestrian and mountain bike use. These sites should be monitored however, as horse use tends to tear up the ground especially if wet, and mountain bikes may cause erosion if skidding or from improper use.

Intense logging has taken place in the East Forest and has caused some trail damage from skidding logs and vehicle use. · Other trails in the East Forest are vegetated (light grass) and show no major signs of erosion. Some roads in the East Forest used as snowmobile and dirt bike trails are severely eroded (Appendix 8.8.4), but this appears to have been caused mostly by vehicle use (cars and trucks).

Most garbage indicated on the trail monitoring sheets (Appendix 8.3 .1) consisted pop cans, chip bags and cigarette packages. No dumping of household garbage was observed, or large amounts of garbage in any one location.

Equestrians and dirt bikers are using a lot of the same trails in the West Forest. At 11 of the 21 transects measured near Boundary Road there was obvious evidence of horse use on designated dirt bike trails.

Along dirt bike trails that are too narrow to allow any vehicle· ( cars or trucks) use there is very little trail side vegetation damage. It appears most recreational users are remaining on the trails and any

-- soil damage is confined to the trails themselves. However, this should be continuously monitored as the dirt bike trail system is only 6 years old and may receive further damage in future years. Proper trail etiquette and continual education on proper trail use should help reduce any future trail erosion in tne'se areas.

Therefore, it appears from the measurements and observations made by Warfield that most of the damage caused by recreation in the Forest results from dirt bike and equestrian use and is greatly increased by vehicles (A.T.V. and 4x4s) being driven on the trails. In addition, logging is causing erosion and has allowed increased trail access to areas that were not so accessible before logging took place. Rainfall, especially on slopes, has often accelerated the erosion initiated by recreational uses.

34

I 4.4 Perceptions of Trail Impacts

From the results of the GFTP Mail Survey 1997, the GFTP Visitor Interview Survey and in-depth interviews conclusions have been drawn regarding how users feel about the impacts on trails in the Forest.

In the GFTP Mail Survey 1997, members were asked whether they thought the trail conditions in the Forest were acceptable or unacceptable. The answers they provided are indicated in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 - Member Perceptions of Trail Conditions in the Forest

Trail Conditions Number

Totally Acceptable 68

Somewhat Acceptable 37

Neutral 6

Somewhat Unacceptable 9

Totally Unacceptable 1

No Response 8

Total 129

U=Unacceptable, A= Acceptable, DK=Don't Know, NR=No Response

Source: GFTP Mail Survey 1997

Percentage

52.2

29

5

7

.8

6

100

It is noteworthy that 81.2% found the trails either totally or somewhat acceptable.

When asked what specific sites in the Forest were unacceptably environmentally degraded, 50% of respondents in the GFTP Mail Survey 1997 responded that they did not think any sites were unacceptably degraded and 9% responded that they were unsure if there were any sites. Eleven percent of respondents thought that Lookout Hill was unacceptably degraded, 8% felt any logged area; '5% thought the ski trails, 4% Tower Hill, 5% any dirt bike trails, 3% Cold Springs Camp Road, 2% felt any access roads were unacceptably degraded and .8% felt snowmobile trails and 2% felt Spruce Valley were unacceptably environmentally degraded.

It was found from in-depth interviews and the GFTP Mail Survey 1997 that when asked what causes environmental degradation in the Forest most respondents mentioned dirt biking, 4 x 4 use, logging, car driving, A.T.V. driving and some mountain biking and horseback riding. Hiking, orienteering, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing were not generally regarded as responsible for trail damage.

Interestingly, when users were asked if their type of recreation bad any impacts on the Forest or trails many respondents in the GFTP Visitor Impact Survey answered "no" (See Appendix 8.6.2). For example, of the 34 cross-country skiers surveyed, only one person felt that they bad any impacts on

35

I

/

the trails or the Forest as a whole. Most assumed, once the trails had been built, and as long as they stayed on those trails no damage would occur from recreation. Of the dirt bikers, hikers, and equestrians surveyed, 54% responded that they did not have impacts, 36% said they had impacts and 10% re_sponded that they d.id not know .. Most people were not aware that their type of_rec_reation would leave any physical evidence of damage to the trails or Forest.

When respondents to the GFTP Mail Survey 1997 were asked to indicate whether they considered various potential solutions -to reduce environmental impacts -to be acceptable or unacceptable, -they respond as follows (Table 4.2):

Table 4.2 - Perception of Potential Solutions to Reduce Environmental Impacts

SOLUTION #U #A #DK

l. Locate trails away from environmentally 4 102 16 sensitive areas.

2. Locate trails away from steep slopes. 13 94 16

3. Close trails in sensitive areas. 20 81 21

4. Close trails when wound conditions make them 16 92 15 vulnerable to impacts.

5. Harden trails to withstand use. 40 45 36

6. Educate users to behave more responsibly in 9 111 3 order to reduce impacts.

7. Limit the number of people who can use the 71 21 31 Forest.

,, U=Unacceptaole, A=Acceptaole, DK=Don't Know, NR=No Response Source: GFTP Mail Survey 1997

NR TOTAL

4 129

6 129

7 129

6 129

8 129

5 129

6 129

·Most,.,respondents found most solutions acceptable. In particular l 11 respondents favoured educating users to behave more responsibly in order to reduce impacts. However, 71 respondents did not favour limiting the number of people who can use the Forest. Furthermore, there was most disagreement as well as uncertainty regarding the hardening of trails to withstand use.

36

5.0 RECREATION CONFLICTS IN THE FOREST

This chapter will provide a review of the literature on the conflicts that may occur between a variety of users in a recreational setting, observations made by the authors in the Forest, a summary of Forest Member perceptions of conflicts, and conclusions that will inform the management recommendations provided later.

5.2 Literature Review

Resolving conflicts and promoting trail sharing among users is only one of many challenges faced by managers ofmultipk-use trails, such as those in the Ganaraska Forest. Increasingly, multiple-use trails are becoming the norm (Moore, 1994, 4). In fact, the vast majority of trail users are satisfied, have few complaints and return often. However, conflicts l:l!Ilong tr~ ~rs do occµr i:!Ild Ci:!Il ruwc serious consequences if not addressed. The conflicts that can result from unpleasant encounters may spoil individual experiences and threaten to polar:iz.e trail users who could be working together rather than at odds with one another. Hence, as the number of trail users grows and diversity of trail activities increases, the potential for conflict grows as well (Moore, 4, 94). Therefore, it is the responsibility of managers, researchers and trail users to understand the process involved in recreational conflicts and do everything possible to avoid and minimize them on muhiple-use trails.

Today, trails are shared by a wide variety of recreationists travelling by many different modes of transportation. In studying the relations among the different users of the Forest, there is an apparent and reoccurring irritation among some users causing conflict to arise. According to recreation researchers Jacob and Schreyer (1980), recreational conflict is a special type of dissatisfaction. It is

-- generally defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior" (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980,369). When a trail user fails to achieve the experiences desired from the trip and determines that it is due to someone else's behavior, conflict results and satisfaction suffers. For example, if people attributed not getting a parking place at a trailhead to their own lack of planning, there was no conflict. If they blamed the lack of parking places on horseback riders who they feh bad parked their trucks and trailers inconsiderately (whether or not this was truly the case), conflict would likely have resulted. In both cases, users did not achieve their goals, and dissatisfaction resulted, but only one was due to conflict as defined above (Moore; 11, 94). ·

Recreation conflict is not an objective state but depends on individual interpretations of past, present, and future contacts with others. Jacob and Schreyer (1980) theorize there are four classes of factors that produce conllict in outdoor recreation:

1. Activity Style - The various personal meanings attached to an activity. Intensity of participation, status, range of experience, and definitions of quality ( eg., experts and

37

I

/

I

novices may not mix well). 2. Resource Specificity - The significance ·attached to using a specific recreation

resource for a given recreation experience ( eg., someone walking their favorite trail in the Forest near where they live will not appreciate seeing another user unfamiliar with the Forest demonstrate a lack of respect for their "special place" by littering).

3. Mode of Experience -The varymg expectations of how the natural environment will be perceived ( eg., bird watchers who are "focused" on the natural environment will not mix well with mechanized users who are less "focused" on the natural environment).

4. Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity - The tendency to accept or reject lifestyle s different from one's own ( eg., some trail users "just don't like" people who do not share their values, priorities, trail activities, etc.). (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980, 370).

Hence, in reviewing the various methods to study recreational conflicts, several themes and patterns have been found to relate to conflicts. These themes tend to support the four theoretical propositions of Jacob and Schreyer (1980) that were discussed above. These themes are:

• Level of Technology - Participants in activities that use different levels of technology often experience conflict with one another. This may be simply explained by those that use mechanized forms of recreation and those that use non-mechanized forms.

• Conflict as Asymmetrical - Many times, feelings of conflict are one-way. Mechanized recreationists are more often tolerant, enjoy, or are indifferent to meeting those participating in non-mechanized forms of recreation, whereas the latter commonly consider mechanized forms ofrecreation incompatible with their activity (Jackson and Wong, 1982, 48).

• Attitudes Towards and Perceptions of the Environment - Users in conflict have been found to have different attitudes towards the environment and perceive the environment differently (Moore, 13, 1994). People who view the environment as an integral part of the experience

,, are more susceptible to conflict than those who see the environment as just a setting for their activity.

• Others as Different - Users experiencing conflict perceive others to be different from themselves in terms ofbackground, lifestyle, feelings about wilderness, activities etc. (Moore, 199, 13). One negative contact can lead some sensitive users to conclude that "all of them are rude" when this may not be true. In fact, trail-user groups are sometimes more similar than they believe.

• Level of Tolerance - Level of tolerance for others is related to level of conflict (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Ivy, Stewart and Lue 1992). Levels of tolerance vary widely among individuals depending upon personal norms and situational factors such as group size, where

38

the contact occurs, when the user first visited the area, motivations and :frequency of use.

• Environmental Dominance - Users who differ in terms of the importance they give to "conquering" the environment are likely to conflict. This is related to the importance of autonomy, control, challenge, and risk-taking goals (Moore, 14, 1994). According to recreation researchers Jackson and Wong(1982), non-mechanized recreationists enjoy physical exercise, tranquillity, solitude and the absence of man-made features. Motivations for mechanized forms of_recreation include: being with family and friends; adventure and challenge; domg some very different things; meetmg other people; getting away from the T. V. and radio; interest in getting to a destination and prestige (Jackson and Wong, 1982, 57).

• Last Settler Syndrome - Last settler syndrome is the resentment toward newcomers that is often expressed by traditional trail users (Moore, 1994, 14). Visitors to an area want a particular place to remain the way it was when they first arrived. The first or traditional users want to be the last ones allowed access. The last settler syndrome is particularly acute in areas where one user group has built and/or maintained trails which are later "invaded" by other types of users (Moore, 1994, 14).

In addition to the general causes of conflict summarized above, it is important to examine specific factors that lead to feelings of conflict on trails. Sources of conflict can be either willful or innocent. Some users are irresponsible and unfriendly. Many, however, are simply not aware of how they should behave on trails. Examples of common sources of conflict include noise, speed, smell of exhaust, surprise, lack of courtesy, trail damage ( eg., erosion, tracks, skid marks, etc.), different ( and sometimes unrealistic) expectations, horse manure, littering, wild behaviour and lack of respect for others.

5.3 Conflicts in the Ganaraska Forest

, -. The information on conflicts presented above can be related to the situation in the Ganaraska Forest as follows. In the Ganaraska Forest, some non-mechanized users feel they are not able to enjoy the beauty and tranquillity of the Forest because of the noise, pollution and speed of mechanized users. In addition, some of the non-mechanized users, especially those on horseback believe that there is also a safety risk with both types of recreation on one trail.

In the Forest some hikers dislike encountering 4x4 users, but some 4x4 users are less concerned about encountering hikers. In general, trail users enjoy meeting their own kind, but dislike uses that are faster and more mechanized than their own.

The idea that people experience conflict when their perceptions of the environment are different is ' very apparent in the Ganaraska Forest. Through interviews and the mail survey many people indicated that the main purpose of the Ganaraska Forest today stems from its original :function as a I plantation for flood control and timber harvest. These users do not want to see the Forest destroyed

39

I

I

by improper recreation use, but they do not see the Forest as a pristine "natural" environment. This' perception conflicts with the perception of another group of people who believe that the Forest should be managed or restored as a more "natural" area, so the use of motorized activities should be discouraged or eliminated.

In the Forest the latest recreational activity is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers complain that hikers want to exclude them from trails just because mountain bike use is new and non-traditional. Some hikers however, feel that with the added use of mountain bikes on the Forest trails comes the danger they may be run over because they are unable to hear mountain bikers who may be going too fast to slow down upon meeting them.

At present there would appear to be no deaths or injuries on record resulting from people involved in different activities interacting on trails in the Forest. Some people however, have reported several incidents that have caused shock if not actual injury. Below are examples of actual incidents causing conflict cited in response to Question #13 in the GFTP Mail Survey 1997 (Appendix 8.6.1), which asked: Can you provide an example of a conflict between two recreational activities that you have witnessed or experienced on a trail in the Forest?

• "I have witnessed people on foot needing to quickly remove themselves from the trails, (especially where thick brush and tight curves) exist due to a 4x4 vehicle moving toward them".

• "Snowmobiles waving hand gestures to get off trails. One snowmobiler actually hit a 4-wheeler in front ofme last winter".

• "A. T. Vs scaring people and horses on the trails".

• "High powered snowmobiles passing from behind at·very high speeds leaving only inches".

• "When cyclists and/or motorcyclists cross paths with equestrians. On occasion, the equestrians have difficulty riding by the stopped cyclists/motorcyclists, apparently the horses are made uneasy by the bright colours of the cycling clothing".

/

• "While walking into an area I bow hunt in, on a trail that is not made for vehicles, I had a dirt bike come flying up behind me. I heard him coming so I was in no danger, but he had no idea I was there. He flew past me with little or no concern for myself or the forest".

• "Dirt bikers refusing to cut there engines in the presence of horseback riders. Snowmobilers surrounding a 4x4 truck on a road and threatening to break the windshield".

• "Riding my mountain bike and being mistaken for wildlife".

40

I

5.4 Perceptions of Conflict in the Ganaraska Forest

In the GFTP Mail Survey 1997, Questions 11, 12, 13 and 14 dealt with user perceptions of conflict in the Ganaraska Forest (8.6.1). The answers to these questions are summarised below:

Question 11 asked respondents: In any recreational setting, such as the Ganaraska Forest, conflicts may emerge between users. On the matrix provided please rate the amount of conflict, if any, that you perceive is occurring between, and within different recreational groups in the Forest. Answers could range from O=No Conflict, to I =Some Conflict, to 2=Major Conflict; and DK=Don't Know.

Respondents may have found this question confusing, however, of the 86 % who answered most identified few "Major'' or even "Minor" conflicts between activities. The top ten conflicts that were rated as "Major" are identified below (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 - Top Ten Perceptions of Major Conflict in the Ganaraska Forest

% RESPONDENTS ACTIVITY ACTIVITY

36 Horseback Riding A.T.V. Driving

33 Horseback Riding 4x4 Driving

32 Horseback Riding Hunting

32 Horseback Riding Dirt Biking

28 - Hiking 4x4 Driving

26 Hiking Hunting

23 Hiking A.T.V. Driving

22 Mountain Biking Hunting

21 Orienteering Hunting

18 Hunting Cross-Country Skiing

Source: GFTP Mail Survey 1997

According to this information, the number one conflict between users is the conflict between horseback riders and A.T.V. drivers. Hunting conflicted with more activities than any other, as is indicated 5 times in the table, and cross;..country skiing and orienteering caused the least amount of conflict between users of the Forest.

~' In question 12 of the GFTP Mail Survey 1997, members were asked: For each major conflict identified above (in the matrix of Question, 11 ), please explain below why you consider the two activities conflict? Responses were:

41

I

I

• Horseback Riding vs. Dirt Biking and AT.Vs: besides the portrayal of conflict between these groups in the local papers, I see conflict arising when horses become spooked (and consequently endangering their rider) upon sudden presence ofloud motorized vehicles.

• Dirt Biking vs. Hiking: since a lot of the drivers of these machines go too fast, this causes an unsafe environment for people walking on trails, especially winding trails.

• Hunting vs. Snowshoeing, Cross-Country Skiing, Horseback Riding, and Hiking: potential danger of hunters not identifying targets prior to shooting.

• Dirt Biking vs. Hunting: their accessibility interferes with the wildlife (in many ways- not just hunting, photo, sight seeing, etc .. )

• Hunting vs. Others remaining: bullets don't always go where you want them to. Bullets kill.

• Cross-Country Skiing vs. Snowmobiling: motorized vehicles using same trail as skiers.

• Dirt Biking vs. Dirt Biking: trails should be designated as one-way trails in order to prevent bikers smashing into one another on trails.

• A.T.V. Driving vs. Snowmobiling: the snowmobilers don't like the AT.Vs on their trails- if we have a membership for AT.Vs, then we should be allowed.

• Horseback Riding vs. Mountain Biking, Cross-Country Skiing: horse hoofs make a considerable "dent" in sand, soft earth, and snow.

Question #13 has been analysed in section 5.3 Conflicts in the Ganaraska Forest.

In question #14 _of the GFTP Mail Survey 1997, members were asked: Below are some solutions to reduce any recreational conflicts on trails in the Forest. Please indicate whether you find each solution: U=Unacceptable, A=Acceptable and DK=Don't Know. The responses to Question #14 are indicated below (Table 5.2).

/

42

Table 5.2 - Perceptions of Solutions to Reduce Recreational Conflicts

SOLUTION #U #A #DK NR TOTAL

1. Separate trails for each activity. 59 45 17 8 129

2. Separate trails for some activities. 13 98 11 7 129

3. Designate one part of the Forest for motorized use 33 72 16 9 129 and one part for non-motorized use.

4.

5.

6.

Establish a policing system 24 64 32 9 129

Educate users to behave more responsibly. 4 111 6 8 129

Limit the number of people who can use the Forest. 69 24 28 8 129

Source: GFTP Mail Survey 1997

The most positive response to potential solutions to reduce recreational conflicts in the Forest was given to "educate users to behave more responsibly''. The -only solution that a majority of respondents did not find acceptable was to limit the number of people who can use the Forest. The solution most people were undecided about or unsure of was whether or not to establish a policing system.

/

43

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions The issues of trail user impacts and conflicts have been examined with particular reference to: • the environmental and human history of the Forest • the present stated objectives of the Forest and the 1995 Business Plan • the measurements of trail user impacts in the Forest • the perceptions of trail users • past decision making and management

The analysis of the Forest environment and its history leads us to conclude that it is not a natural area, but a landscape that has been substantially modified by degradation, restoration, resource use and management. As the recent history of the landscape reveals, this rolling, sandy terrain is unusually vulnerable to erosion, but capable of recovery and amenable to restoration. The Forest has some natural heritage values that should be conserved but is suitable for a variety of recreational activities, providing the environment and recreation are managed more intensively.

The recreational use of the Forest is very varied, the trails being used for non-motorised and motorised activities including: hiking, orienteering, horseback riding, mountain biking, dirt biking, A.T.V. driving, 4x4 driving, car driving, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, hunting and mushroom picking. The most :frequently observed activities were dirt biking, horseback riding, mountain biking and snowmobiling, and they have been increasing. Most use occurs when major events are held, and on weekends, and in the fall. _ Use is heaviest in the West Forest, especially near Boundary Road, and attractions like Lookout Hill, and Spruce Valley, with hiking and cross-country skiing being concentrated in the Central Forest. The majority of users come by car from adjacent communities and the Toronto region.

All recreation activities have impacts on the environment, especially soil, vegetation and scenery, ,_ depending on numerous factors, notably: ground slope, materials and moisture; levels and persistence

of use; weight, speed and technology of users; and remedial management actions. Dirt biking and horseback riding are having the most impact on trails. The repeated measurement and observation of trail monitoring sites, while problematic, suggests some sites have deteriorated while others have remained stable or improved. The most degrad~d sites in the Forest are Lookout Hill, the Cold Springs Camp Road sand dunes, sections of fire roads and logging areas. Noise, especially from dirt bikes, is the most pervasive impact, and a matter of concern to some users, and local residents. However, a very small proportion of the Forest is being degraded by recreational use of trails, andc this is having no significant impact on water resources, forest production, and probably wildlife. Eighty-six percent of mail survey respondents found the trails either totally or somewhat acceptable. Nevertheless, new management initiatives are needed immediately to restore the most degraded sites, and reduce erosion.

I _Recreation conflict has been defined as "goal interference attnbuted to another's behavior." Common

44

/

I

sources of conflict, evident in the Forest, are: noise, exhaust smell, litter, horse manure, trail damage, wild behavior, surprise, Jack of courtesy, and different, sometimes unrealistic, expectations. The main source of conflict is between motoriz.ed and non-motoriz.ed uses, eg. dirt biking and horseback riding. However, there would appear to be no deaths and few injuries on record resulting from people involved in different activities conflicting on the trails in the Forest. Nevertheless, management initiatives should be taken to reduce conflicts in the Forest so as to increase the safety and quality of recreation experiences.

In summary, it is concluded that: (1) while the recreational use of trails is having impacts in the Forest, these are still limited in extent, given the size ofthe·Forest, are ofless signillcance than the impacts of logging and roads, and are not having a signillcant impact on water resources or the production of forest products; (2) a: majority of trail users consider the trails acceptable, are enjoying their recreation in the Forest and coming in increasing numbers; (3) all existing recreational activities should be permitted in the Forest, provided a non-motorized use zone is retained and there are new management initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts and conflicts that are associated with them.

It should be emphasised that all the issues of trail user impacts and conflicts have been faced and resolved to a large degree in other protected areas, such as provincial and national parks in Ontario, so it is reasonable to expect to resolve them in the Ganaraska Forest

Accordingly, the following management recommendations are offered.

6.2 Management Recommendations . The management recommendations are presented below in groups followed by an indication of the priorities for action.

6.2.1 Trail System The trail system in the Forest should be retained and improved, as follows:

·,_ - retain a system of trails throughout the Forest; - retain or add trails linking trails in the Forest to those around the Forest, e.g. to Bewdley, Millbrook;

- clos~ trails close to houses, eg. along Boundary Road, and road, near Bewdley; -designate a hierarchy of routes in the Forest, including:

- roads for public use by automobile ( e.g., Boundary Road and Cold Springs Camp Road); - roads for fire protection and logging but not for public use by automobile; - the numbered/named trails ( e.g., snowmobile route, dirt bike route and Ganaraska Trail); - other multi-use trails; - trails for non-motorized recreation ( e.g., in Central Forest);

- clearly identify, with maps and signs, which routes in the Forest are roads open for public access, and which trails are for which uses;

- restrict use of trails in Central Forest to non-motorized activities, namely: hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting;

45

I

- no recreation group, even if it contn'butes to the development and maintenance of trails should be given exclusive use of these trails;

- in the East and West Forest all trails should be multiple-use trails though some should be designated primarily intended for a particular use ( e.g.s. snowmobiling and dirt biking); - consideration should be given to designating a trail from the east end to the west end of the Forest as a non-motorized trail that would constitute a part of the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Trail;

- consideration should be given to providing some trails accessible to people with disabilities; Professional advice on modifying existing trails or designing new ones for such people is readily available, for example: Patricia Longmuir, PEL Consulting, 159 Broadlands Blvd., Don Mills, Ontario, M3A lKl.

6.2.2 Trail Standards This study has revealed user group support for trail standards that can be used in designing new trails, relocating or restoring old trails, assessing where degradation is occurring, the need for management action, and increasing.the quality and safety of recreation. Therefore it is recommended that: - a multiple use standards for the physical characteristics of trails in the Forest, standards for activity­specific trails, be agreed upon by user groups and the GRCA (See Appendix 8.4); -these standards should specify: width of trail, width of adjacent cleared area, maximum slope, maximum depth, maximum curvature, and height cleared above trail; -trails should be monitored, maintained, and the level and type of use regulated to ensure adherence to the standards.

6.2.3 Trail Design. Maintenance, Restoration To minimise the environmental impact of the recreational use of trails: - trails directly up slopes greater than 15% should be closed, unless sufficient trail hardening, drainage, or zig-zagging to reduc·e grade is undertaken to prevent erosion; - trails through wet areas should be closed unless bridges, boardwalks or embankments with culverts are built to prevent erosion in these environments; · - fire roads used as trails should be maintained and ditched properly to prevent run-off increasing

·,,erosion; - experiments should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of various trail hardening tecbnigues, such as spreading woodchips, gravei limestone screenings, or laying plastic grids or permeable mats, in reducing erosion due to various activities. Public reaction to such techniques should also be determined; - experiments should'be conducted to determine the effectiveness of temporary trail closures, and rotation of trails, in restoring the soil and vegetation on trails; - barriers, such as boulders, fences, gates should be erected to prevent access to vulnerable areas, and for unauthorised activities. In particular, this should be done immediately around Lookout Hill and the sand dunes along Cold Springs Canip Road, so erosion can be reduced and restoration

~undertaken.This should also be done to prevent motorised access to the Central Forest, especially from Cold Springs Camp Road; - roads, skidding routes and yards developed for logging purposes should be closed by fences and gates to inappropriate activities immediately after logging has ceased;

46

- signs and brochures should be used to explain to Forest users why access to certain areas and trails has had to be restricted temporarily or permanently; - a new, consistent and comprehensive signage program should be developed in cooperation with user groups. It should begin with the preparation of a sign manual. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs and Parks Canada can provide examples of sign manuals. Then there should be an inventory of site and activity specific sign needs. Signs are needed to identify: locations, directions, distances, land in Forest, Forest zones, permitted uses, prohibited uses, other regulations, natural and cultural heritage features, arid sources of :further information, and emergency help. Finally, the new signs should be erected, old ones removed, and regular maintenance of signs undertaken. Some user groups have already demonstrated their ability to assist with a signage program (see photo), and corporate sponsors of signs are available, if desired.

It is important to emphasise that good trails, that minimise erosion and provide high quality recreational experiences, have to be built, not just cleared, and that they have to be maintained, not just used.

6.2.4. Trail Use All existing recreational uses of trails in the Forest should be allowed to continue, and the number of individual users should not be limited, provided that a non-motorised zone is retained and there are management initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts and conflicts associated with recreation. These should include: - retaining the Central Forest as a non-motorised area; - limiting the number of major events (over 50 people) in any part of the Forest to one per day; - monitoring the impact of major events, and limiting the number of participants if impacts prevent

the maintenance of trail standards; - encouraging better distribution of trail use in space and time;

6.2.5 Events Recreational events should continue to be allowed in the Forest provided they are conducted in

.,_ conformity with a revised GRCA policy for such events. The policy and its implementation by the GRCA should ensure that: - only trail events for activities permitted on trails in the Forest are ~ctioned; - the organisers of all events apply in writing in advance to hold an event in the Forest; - only one event is held in any area of the Forest at any one time; - the organisers pay a fee to the Authority to hold an event, reflecting its size, eg. number of participants. The fees for events should be reviewed, and higher fees for major events considered; - the organisers relieve the GRCA from responsibility for accidents and liability as a result of the event; - residents adjacent to the Forest and location of the event are given more and earlier notice of the

/ · event than has been the case in the past. Even organisers should assume some responsibility for such ~ notification;

- events be located so' as to minimise impacts on residents adjacent to the Forest; I -the organisers, in consultation with the GRC~ restore any damages to trails and facilities as a

47

I

result of the event. This requirement should be specified on a revised version of the existing event application form. The feasibility and impact of requiring event organisers to post a bond, returnable

provided any damages have been repaired, should be investigated; - the records of events should be retained by the GRCA in a computer data base to facilitate the planning of the event schedule, informing the public about events, and monitoring the use of the Forest; - no events should be allowed on the trails when the Forest environment is most vulnerable to impacts, e.g. April. Most event organisers seem willing to comply with this.

6.2.6 Monitoring - Environment/ Use Monitoring of the environmental impacts of recreation on trails should be continued, but new methods, that should be more reliable, simpler and less expensive ought to be introduced. Accordingly, it is recommended that: - photo monitoring of site plots from :fixed reference points be introduced. A comparison of photos in Marsh's 1989 report, with recent conditions, revealed where there had been increased erosion or natural recovery at a site. More systematic and reliable approaches to photo monitoring are described in several studies noted in the list of references; -if sites are remeasured, then measurements should be taken bi-annually and recorded in a methodological fashion for accuracy and comparison purposes. Falling or missing pegs should be replaced; - more than three transects, or a grid of transects, should be measured at plots with extensive impacts. Three transects across an extensively eroded trail do not indicate changes adequately; - a more effective monitoring of recreational use of the Forest should also be introduced. For example, electronic means of measuring trail use, as employed by Parks Canada, should be tried. A traffic counter could be installed across the road at the entrance to the Ganaraska Centre. Information on participation in events could be obtained from their organisers and retained by the GRCA in a computerised data base; - the monitoring of impacts on trails be correlated with the monitoring of the amount of use and activities on those trails; to provide more information on cause-effect relationships

6.2.7 Administration The reduction of trail user impacts and conflicts, will depend heavily on administrative leadership, capa:city and coordination, hence the following recommendations: -a full-time Forest Manager should be appointed who would spend most of his/her time in the Forest, managing recreation and other aspects of the Forest, and mobilizing and supervising others to assist in management. Most other management recommendations cannot be implemented properly without such a manager being appointed. Few if any protected areas of this size and complexity do not have a manger in them for part if not all of the year. The possible redevelopment of the Ganaraska Centre, and the implementation of proposals in the Business Plan for eco-touris~ may require and facilitate having a manager in the Forest. The manager should also be able to enhance revenue generation from recreation in the Forest, for example by ensuring more users are Members, applying for grants, and developing a merchandising program, to help offset the cost of the position.

48

I

It is also recommended that: - the Forest Users Committee be retained to continue to advise the Full Authority, help resolve recreation issues, and mobilise user groups in the interests of the Forest; - any ''Friends of the ~kaForest"type groups, willing to contribute to the management of the Forest, should be encouraged.

6.2.8 Education and Information Most people interviewed and surveyed stressed the importance and priority of education to resolve any problems with the recreational use of the Forest. Accordingly, it is recommended that there be more education of trail users about the regulations applicable fa the Forest, means to reduce impacts, appropriate behaviour on trails to reduce conflicts between users, and how they can contribute to the management of the Forest. In this connection, please note: - many park agencies and trail recreation organisations have prepared brochures that can serve as models. The brochure on "Mountain Biking - Off Road Rules of the Road", prepared by the Ontario Cycling Association and distnbuted at the Forest Centre, is a good example. Also, the initiatives and brochures of Tread Lightly Canada are especially worthy of attention. Samples of such brochures will be submitted to the GRCA with this rep'ort; - signs at the main trailheads could also be used for educational purposes; - an exlnbit on trail user impacts and conflicts and their reduction could be provided at the Forest Centre; - recreation groups should be encouraged to educate their members who use the Forest, through their newsletters, meetings, and guided trips. GRCA staff, and paid or voluntary patrollers when on trails in the Forest can play an educational role; - training in appropriate trail use should be encouraged. The Trail Tours and Dirt Bike School offered by the Blair Sharpless Company, and the guided horseback trips offered by the. Ganaraska Ranch are examples of such training; - there is an urgent need for a new map covering the entire Forest, indicating all officially designated trails, and the uses permissible on each. This would encourage appropriate use of trails and should reduce the number of people now getting lost. It should be made widely available to the

·-, public, perhaps for a fee, or as a benefit of membership in the Forest. It would also be useful for educational, planning and research purposes. Advantage should be taken of G.I.S. technology to prepc!fe and update it. The map now available for orienteering in the Central Forest is a good example of the sort of detailed, accurate, attractive map required.

6.2.9 Law Enforcement Some environmental impacts and conflicts between users could be reduced by more effective law enforcement in the Forest. Numerous people interviewed felt law enforcement has peen inadequate, and that many management initiatives to reduce impacts and conflicts will continue to fail if law

~ enforcement is not improved. Accordingly, it is recommended that: - full use should be made of the Ontario Provincial Police who should be encouraged repeatedly to enforce existing laws relating to the recreational use of the Forest regarding, for example: age and licensing of people using dirt bikes and 4x4s, speed of vehicles, and noise levels, especially in the

49

I Boundary Road area; - the use of paid ofi:.duty police for patrolling trails be continued, and if possible increased, with more user groups and others contnbuting to the cost and guiding of police. There has been a very positive reaction to the operation and funding of such patrols in the Forest by the dirt bikers; - negotiations be initiated with instructors in the Natural Resources Law Enforcement Program at Fleming College, Lindsay regarding the provision of student interns to patrol trails and enforce laws in the Forest. Mark Robbins, an instructor in this program, has expressed great interest in pursuing this possibility; - the feasibility of delegating law enforcement authority, under the Trespass to Properties Act, to volunteer trail patrollers. Mark Robbins can provide advice regarding this, and the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs can provide information on the successful Snowmobile Trail Officer Patrol Project.

6.2.10 Volunteers Given the reductions ·in GRCA staff, the volume of work to be done, and the interest expressed by many Forest users and groups in volunteering to assist in managing the Forest, it is recommended that: - more volunteers should be recruited to contribute to management; - recreation groups should be encouraged to organize, as several do no.w, volunteer work by their members in the Forest; - the Users Committee and the GRCA should co-ordinate the volunteer program; - an annual work plan for volunteers should be prepared; - opportunities should be afforded international volunteers to live and work in the Forest. This may be arranged through the Ontario Conservation Volunteers program organised by Hike Ontario and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, in Toronto; · - the GRCA support a Friends of the Ganaraska type group that could provide volunteers; - volunteers be used for trail maintenance, education, interpretation, trail patrols and staffing the Ganaraska Centre. The Bruce Trail Association, and the Ganaraska Trail Association have demonstrated effective use of volunteers on trail projects over many years.

6.3. Management Priorities

In p~rticular, it is recommended that: (1) a Forest Manager be appointed to work full-time, year round, in the Forest to manage recreation and other activities, as well as to assist in implementing the other recommendations; (2) an expanded educational and law enforcement programme be initiated to encourage environmentally and socially responsible recreational use of the Forest; (3) restoration of the most degraded sites and trails, notably Lookout Hill, the Cold Springs Camp Road sand dunes, and fire roads be undertaken as soon as possible.

The other recommendations should be prioritised, and scheduled for implementation over a five year period. There should be an annual written evaluation of progress in implementing the recommendations, and a review of the issues and management strategy after five years.

50

I

APPENDIX 8.1 : REFERENCES

• 8. I. I Ganaraska Forest • 8.1.2 Trail User Impacts • 8.1.3 Trail User Conflicts • 8.1.4 Other

/

/

51

I

8.0 REFERENCES

8.1.1 Ganaraska Forest Bengert, B. Interest Group Perceptions of Trail Conditions in the Ganaraska Forest, Ontario: A Method for Determining Limits of Change. Hons. Thesis. Geography Department, Trent University, Peterborough, 1993.

Berry, G. "The Wildlife Habitat Trail" in: Storm Coalition, Oak Ridges Moraine, Boston Mills Press, Erin, 1997.

Burtle, J.M Channel Changes Following Headwater Reforestation: The Ganaraska River, Ontario, Canada Geografiska Annaler. Vol. 77A(3), pp. 107-118, 1995.

Burtle, J.M. Hydrological Response to Reforestation in the Ganaraska River Basin., Southern Ontario. The Canadian Geographer. Vol. 38(3), pp. 240-53, 1994.

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. A Conservation Strategy for the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. GRCA, Port Hope, 1992.

Ganaraska Region Conservation.Authority. Environmental Monitoring Program for Recreational Use of the Ganaraska Forest: Terms ofReference. Adopted by the Ganaraska Region Recreational Users Committee, July 1988.

Ganaraska Forest Conservation Authority. Ganaraska Forest Study Report. Port Hope, 1985 ..

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. Ganaraska Forest: Summer Recreation Map. Ministry of Natural Resources.

<> Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. Ganaraska Forest: Winter Recreation Map. Ministry of Natural Resources.

/

Grant, Wm. D. Environmental Impacts of Recreational Activities. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Ontario, 1978.

Grant, W:i;n. D. Ganaraska Forest Study: Environmental Capability To Accommodate Outdoor Recreation Activities. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Port Hope, Ontario, 1978.

Grant, Wm. D. Ganaraska Forest Studv: Outdoor Recreation Management Svstem. Ganaraska (/ __ Region Conservation Authority, Port Hope, Ontario, 1978.

Keating, K Path to Protection: Applying the ABC Resource Inventory Method to Locate a Hiking

52

Trail Route on the Oak Ridges Moraine. MA Thesis, Canadian Heritage and Development Studies, Trent University, 1994.

Marsh, J.S. et al Impacts of Off-Road Vehicles on the Ganaraska Forest. Trail Studies Unit, Trent University, Peterborough, 1989.

McDonnell, J., Leopold, D.J., Stnoling, J.B. and L. Robert Neville (eds.). Watershed Restoration Management: Physical Chemical and Biological Considerations. Syracuse, New York, 1996.

Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Working Corrnnittee. The Oak Ridges Moraine Area Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area: An Ecological Approach to the Protection and Management of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Queen's Printer for Ontario, April 19, 1994.

Richardson, AH. A Report on the Ganaraska Watershed. A Study in Land Use with Plans for the Rehabilitation of the Area in the Post War Period. Dominion and Ontario Governments, Toronto, 1944.

Storm Coalition (compilers). Oak Ridges Moraine. Boston Mills Press, Erin, 1997.

Tedford, J. Market Area Analysis. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, 1978.

Tedford, J. Ganaraska Forest Study, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, 1980.

The Tourism Company et. al. The Ganaraska Forest Study and Business Plll1, for GRCA, 1995.

Wlodek, J. Ganaraska - Hillslope Sediment Movement. Hons. Thesis. Geography Department, Trent University, Peterborough, 1993.

,_ 8.1.2 Trail User Conflict

Bengert, B. and J.S. Marsh (eds.). Trail Development and Tourism. The Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Conference of the Ontario Trails Conference. Trail Studies Unit, Trent University, Ontario, pp. 87-109.

Bury, RL., S.M. Holland and D.N. McEwen. Analysing Recreational Conflict: Understanding Why Conflict Occurs is requisite to Managing that Conflict. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Sept.-Oct., pp. 401-403, 1983.

/ Chavez, D. Mountain Biking: Issues and Actions for USDA Forest Service Managers. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, 1996.

Chavez, D., Wmter, P. and J. Baas. Recreational Mountain Biking: A Management Perspective.

53

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Vol. 11(3), pp. 29-36, 1993.

Cole, D., Peterson, M. and R Lucas. Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions. U.S. Government Printing Office, Utah, 1987.

Devall, B. and J. Harry. Who, Hates Whom in the Great Outdoors: The Impact of Recreational Specialization and Technologies of Play. Leisure Sciences. Vol. 44(4), pp. 399-417, 1981.

Hollenhurst, S., Schuett, M. and D. Olson. An Exanrination of the Characteristics, Preferences, and Attitudes of Mountain Bike Users of the National Forests: A Preliminary Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, Ca., 1993.

Ivy, M. I., Stewart, W.P. and C. Lue. Exploring the Role of Tolerance in Recreational Conflict. Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 12, pp. 348-360, 1992.

Jacoby, Till. Mountain Bikes: A New Dilemma for Wildland Recreation Managers? Western Wtldlands. Spring 1990, pp. 25-28.

Jackson, E.L. and R Wong. Perceived Conflict Between Urban Cross-Country Skiers and Snowmobilers in Alberta Journal of Leisure Research. First Quarter, pp. 47-61, 1982.

Moore, Roger L. Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practise. The Federal Highway Administration and The National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee, Washington, 1994.

Watson, A. et. al. Hikers and Recreational Stock Users: Predicting and Managing Recreation Conflicts in Three Wtldernesses. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1993.

Watson, A. et. al. Sources of Conflict Between Hikers and Mountain Bike Riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. JournalofParkandRecreationAdministration. Vol. 9(3),pp. 59-71, 1991.

8.1.3,, Trail User Impact

Ashworth, G. J. and A.G.J. Dietvorst ( eds.). Tourism and Spatial Transformations. CAB International, pp. 303-316, 1995.

B.C. Parks. Park Facility Standards. April 1993.

Bennett, S. A Trail Rider's Guide to the Environment. American Motorcycle Association, Westerville, Ohio, 1973.

54

I

/

Brand, D.G., Bouman, O.T., Boutbillier, L., Kessler, W. and Louis Lapierre. The Model Forest Concept: a Model for Future Forest Management? Environmental Reviews. Vol. 4, pp. 65-90, 1996.

Cole, D. Area of Vegetation Loss: A New Index of Campsite Impact. U.S. Government Printing Office, Utah, 1989.

Cole, D. Low-Impact Recreational Practises for Wilderness and Backcountry. U.S. Government Printing Office, Utah, 1989.

Cole, D., Edward, G.S. and G.S. Schreiner (compilers). Impacts ofBackcountzy Recreation: Site Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Utah, 1981.

Cole, D., Hammond, T. and S. McCool. Information Quantity and Communication Effectiveness: Low-Impact Messages on Wilderness Trailside Bulletin Boards. Leisure Sciences. Vol. 19 pp. 59-72, 1997.

Freddy, J. Bronaugh, W. and M Fowler. Responses ofMule Deer to Disturbance By Persons Afoot and Snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 14, pp. 63-68, 1986.

Hylgaard, T. Recovery of Plant Communities on Coastal Sand Dunes Disturbed By Human Trampling. Biological Conservation. Vol. 19, pp. 15-25, 1981.

Hylgaard, T. and M.J. Liddle. The Effect of Human Trampling on a Sand Dune Ecosystem Dominated by Empetrum Nigurm. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 18, pp. 559-569, 1981.

Jackson, E. L. Outdoor Recreation Participation and Views on Resource Development and Preservation. Leisure Sciences. Vol. 9, pp. 235-250, 1987.

Ketcheson, G. and W. Megahan. Sediment Production and Downslope Sediment Transport from .,_ Forest Roads in Granitic Watersheds. U.S. Government Printing Office, Utah, 1996.

Kuss, F. and C. Hall. Ground Flora Trampling Studies: Five Years After Closure. Environmental Management. Vol. 15(5), pp. 715-727, 1993.

McC004 S. and A. Watson (eds.). Linking Tourism. the Environment, and Sustainability. Intermountain Research Station, Minneapolis, 1995.

McCoy, M. and M. Stoner. Mountain Bike Trails: Techniques for Design. Construction. and Maintenance. Bikecentenni~ Missoula, MT, 1990.

Mortensen, C. Visitor Use Impacts Within The Knobstone Trail Corridor. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation. March/April, Vol. 44(2), pp. 156-159, 1989.

55

I Parks Canada Trail Manual. Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, 1978.

Pigram, J. Outdoor Recreation and Resource Management. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1983.

Pomerantz, G., Decker, D., GeofC G. and K. Purdy. Assessing Impact of Recreation on Wildlife: A Classification Scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 16, pp. 58-62, 1988.

Price, M. Impacts of Recreational Activities on Alpine Vegetation in Western North America. Mountain Research and Development. Vol. 5(3), pp. 263-277, 1985.

Richard, L. (ed.). Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1995.

Summer, R. Geomorphic Impacts of Horse Traffic on Montane Landforms. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation. March/April, Vol. 41(2), pp: 126-128, 1986.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Planning for Trailbike Recreation: Part II. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1978.

Wall, G. (ed.). Outdoor Recreation in Canada. Wiley, Toronto, 1989.

Wernex, J. A Guide to Off-Road Motorcycle Trail Design and Construction. American Motorcycle Association, Westerville, Ohio, 1984.

Wilkinson, P. An Environmental Perspective on Recreation: The "Environment-Recreation Interaction Model". Journal of Applied Recreation Research. Vol. 17(2): 178-210, 1992.

8.1.4 Other

-,, Amy, D.J. The Politics ofEnvironmental Mediation. Columbia University Press, New York, 1987.

Chilmao, K., Foster, D. and A. Everson. Designing Recreation Monitoring Systems: Some Com:rn.ents on the Participation Observer Design. Canadian Parks Service, National Parks Documentation Centre, 1994.

Magill, A and R.H. Twiss. A Guide for Recording Esthetic and Biologic Changes with Photographs. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, California, 1965.

Ury, W. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. Jossey-Bass / Publishers, London, 1988:

Vale, T. Vegetation Change and Park Purposes in the High Elevations of Yosemite National Park, California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol 77(1). pp. 1-18, 1987.

56

I

APPENDIX 8.2: LIST OF CONTACTS

57

/

) :

CONTACT LIST

Recreational Users Committee

Ian Tate Contacted:

Chair of Users Committee April 24th, 1997

Interview: April 30th, 1997 Attended Focus Group Workshop

Randy Cunningha111 Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs Contacted: April 24th, 1997 Interview: May 5th, 1997

Attended Focus Group Workshop

Tom Hamblin Orienteering Ontario Contacted: May 6th, 1997

Telephone Discussion Attended Focus Group Workshop

Ulla Elliot Ontario Federation of Naturalists Contacted: April 25th, 1997 Interview:. May 6th, 1997

Attended Focus Group Workshop

Victor Huttman

Contacted: April 24th, 1997 Telephone Discussion

', Peter Kennedy Contacted: April 24th, 1997

/

Canadian Ski Association Great Pine Ridge X-Country Ski Club

Township of Cavan

Richard Lawrence Canadian Motorcycle Association Contacted: April 24th, 1997 Interview: May 6th, 1997

Attended Focus Group Workshop

Patrick English Ontario Federation of Hiking Trails Contacted: April 24th, 1997

- Interview: May 7th, 1997

Norm Jung Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Contacted: April 24th, 1997

58

I

Peter Burch Township of Hope Contacted: April 24th, 1997

Marianne McBride Municipality of Clarington Contacted: April 24th, 1997 Interview: May 14th, 1997

Attended Focus Group Workshop

Ron Keeler Contacted:

Rob Cox Contacted:

Ontario Trail Riders Association April 24th, 1997 _ Telephone Discussion · Attended Focus Group Workshop

April 24th, 1997 Telephone Discussion

Ontario Cy~ling Association

Individual Contacts

Jack Goering Forest Member Interview: June 1995

Susan Sinnott Jack Foote Contacted:

Equestrian Landowner

Contacted John Marsh Interview: January 24th, 1997

George Elgear GRCA Superintendent Intezyiew: January 24th, 1997

Debbie Tinmouth Equestrian Contact: Letter received January 25th, 1997

Vicki Varcoe Equestrian Contact: Letter received February 12th, 1997

Diane Cleland Equestrian Contact: Letter received March 1997

Eva ByJdiovsky Landowner

59

I

/

Contact: Letter received March 7th, 1997

Susan Sinnott Debbie Tinmouth Marie Toon Vicki Varcoe Edith Steinbeck Interview: March 11th, 1997

Martin and Lezlee McCrae Marie Toon Debbie and Steve Tinmouth Jack Foote Susan Sinnott Sue and Rudy Ramsey Interview: March 17th, 1997

Equestrian Equestrian Equestrian Equestrian Equestrian

Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner Landowner

Audrey and Blenus Wright Forest Members Contact: Letter received March 18th, 1997

Susan Sinnott Equestrian / Landowner Contact: Fax received March 20th, 1997

Ron Martyn Contact:

Ontario Cycling Association E-mail received April 22nd, 1997

Dan Stacheruk Landowner Contacted: April 24th, 1997 Interview: April 30th, 1997

Debbie Tinmouth Equestrian Contact: Letter received May 4th, 1997

Warren Thaxter Canadian Motorcycl~· Association Contacted: April 24th, 1997 Interview: May 6th, 1997

Ronald Wright Landowner Contacted: May 2nd, 1997

- Interview: May 6th, 1997

60

/

Terry Edwards Planner County of Victoria, Lindsay Contact: May 3rd, 1997

Francis Tuft Tufts Game Farm Interview: May 14th, 1997

Bob Penwell MNR Interview: May 16th, 1997

Tina Gaul Ganaraska Ranch Interview: May 17t~ 1997

B. and M. Terbenche Landowners Contact: Discussion on May 22nd, 1997

Prof. Jim Burtle Department of Geography, Trent University Contact: Discussion on August 5t~ 1197

Prof. Mark Robbins Natural Resources Law Enforcement Program, Fleming College, Lindsay

Contact: Telephone Discussion August 5t~ 1997 Fax received August 5t~ 1997

61

APPENDIX 8.3: FIELD MEASUREMENTS

• 8.3.1 New Trail Monitoring Sites (1996-1997)

/

62

New Trail Monitoring Sites (1996-1997)

Site Width (m) Depth (cm Slope (degrees Compaction (kg/cm2 Drainage Root Exp. 1 3.4 0 0 0.5 1 0 2 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 7 0.5 0 0 4 0.84 13.5 0 0.5 2 3 5 1 0.05 8.5 1 1 2 6 3.6 0.07 0 0 1 1 7 2 0 21 0 o- 0 8 1.61 24 12 1 2 2 9 0.28 5 3 0.5 0 0

10 1.64 0.03 0 0.5 2 1 11 . 2.15 12 0 0 2 2 12 2.15 10 0 0 2 1 13 1 16 2 1.5 2 2 14 3.2 2 0 0 1 0 15 1.58 9 0 . 0.5 2 2 16 3.35 6 0 1 2 0 17 2.62 0 0 0 3 0 18 · 2.3 6 0 0 2 0 19 3.39 0 0 0 2 3 20 2.48 0 0 0 2 0 21 2.9 0 0 0 1 0 22 2.55 0 0 1 1 0 23 2.3 6 10 1.5 2 1 24 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 25 3.9 10 0 0 0 0 26 2 3 0 0 0 2 27 2.5 5 5 0 . 0 0 28 1.6 6 0 0.5 0 1 29 1.6 0 0 ', 0 0 0 30 3 6 6.5 0 0 2 31 2.25 .5 4

,, 0.5 0 1

32 2.33 5 7 0.5 0 1 33 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 34 2.4 2 0 0 0 1 35 ·2.3 0 11 1.5 0 0

Averaoe 2.04 3.18 3.53 0.38 0.7 0.59

I

63

_,

I

' ' '

Site

/

CONTINUED

Ground Materials Erosion 1 soil no evidence 2 stony moauls around transect 3 sand, stony no evidence 4 stony no evidence 5 soil, stonv minor on slooes 6 soil, stony no evidence 7 sand no evidence 8 soil, stony oullyina 9 arassv no evidence

10 sand no evidence 11 sand horse tracks -12 sand some oullyino 13 sand aullving- dirt bikes 14 sand some qullyino 15 soil, pine needles aullvina- dirt bikes 16 sand, stony I gullying- dirt bikes, cars 17 soil 1 aullvina- mot. vehicles 18 sand evidence of tires 19 sand a lot due to recreation 20 sand gullying 21 sand no evidence 22 soil no evidence 23 sand oullvino 24 sand, grassv no evidence 25 sand oullvino 26 sand, arassy a lot due to recreation 27 sand no evidence

. 28 soil no evidence 29 orassy, soil no evidence 30 sand no evidence 31 sand no evidence 32 arassv, sand aullvina 33 grassy, sand no evidence 34 sand no evidence 35 grassy, soil no evidence

64

Vandalism Litter Fire O plastic none O cig. pack none O DOD can none O ooD can, chip bag none 0 0 none 0 O none 0 O none 0 O none 0 O none 0 O none 0 0 none 0 motoroil none 0 O none 0 2 none 0 O none 0 O none 0 0 none 0 O none 0 O none 0 0 none 0 0 none 0 0 none 0 O none 0 O none 0 0 none 0 2 none 0 0 none 0 2 none 0 0 none 0 0 none 0 2 none 0 0 none 0 0 none 0 0 none 0 0 none

CONTINUED

Site Rec. Uses Veaetation 1 dirt bikes red Dine Dlantation; minimal underlvina veaetation 2 dirt bikes red pine; ooDlar; oak 3 cars, dirt bikes A.T.V. red Dine; ooolar . 4 dirt bikes red Dine; DODlar

.5 dirt bikes red pine; red oak; ooolar, ash; lots of around cover 6 horses red Dine. 7 horses red pine; ooolar, birch; white spruce 8 dirt bikes d ; oak; maDle; red Dine; ooolar 9 snowmobile red pine; buttercups; wild roses; rasp. bushes; oak; maDle

10 horses, dirt bikes white birch; Dine; lots of understorv 11 horses, dirt bikes mixed; maple; birch; elm; understorv· wild rasDberries 12 horses, dirt bikes, snowmobile red Dine plantation; maDle; DODlar; elm 13 dirt bikes raspberries; fem; red pine; white birch; poplar 14 horses, dirt bikes, snowmobile red pine plantation; maple 15 dirt bikes· red Dine Dlantation (in middle) 16 cars, horses, dirt bikes maple; red Dine; ooolar 17 snowmobile, dirt bike, horses, 4x4 red Dine; maDle; oak 18 horses, dirt bikes maple; vouna understorv; pine 19 dirt bikes maDle; birch; black berries 20 dirt bikes raspberries; red pine· 21 snowmobile red Dine; birch; rasDberrv bushes 22 skiina, mtn. biking, horses, hikina red pine; cedar 23 skiina, mtn. bikina, horses, hikina red Dine; maDle; tremblina asDen; around cover 24 horses, dirt bikes, hiking red pine; verv little understorv 25 dirt bikes, snowmobiles, horses red Dine; oak; ooolar 26 mtn. biking, dirt bikes, hiking, car, horses red pine 27 4x4, dirt bikes, mtn. bikino, hikina red Dine plantation 28 dirt bikes DODlar; Dine; maple; birch 29 dirt bikes red pine; maDle 30 truck, dirt bikes maple; birch; pine 31 dirt bikes maple; poplar; oak; pine 32 skiing, horses, hikina, mtn. biking red Dine; beech; oak 33 horses, mtn. bikina, hikina, skiina maple; rasp. bushes; beech; pine; basswood 34 bike and car tracks red Dine Dlantation; lots of understorv, oak 35 horses, car, dirt bikes red pine plantation; basswood

/

/

65

I

APPENDIX 8.4: TRAIL STANDARDS

/

/

66

I

1 ..

2.

3.

4.

5.

I

6.

I ' I

GANARASKA FOREST TRAILS PROJECT EXAMPLES OF TRAIL STANDARDS

HIKING (PARKS CANADA) Tread Width: 45-50cm Cleared Width: to the degree necessary for

safe and unimpaired movement along the trail

Grade: desirable 1-10%, max. 20-% /

BICYCLE (PARKS CANADA) Tread Width: min 1.2m, 2.5m better Cleared Width: 2.5m Grade: desirable 0-3%, max. 10%

EQUESTRIAN (PARKS CANADA) Tread Width: 45 cm-1 m, or wider to allow passing Cleared Width: 2.5m Grade: desirable 0-1 0%, max. 20%

SNOWMOBILE (B.C. PARKS) Tread Width: 5m Grade: max. sustained 25%, short pitch 35%

CROSS-COUNTRY (PARKS CANADA) , SKIING

Cleared Width: single track 1.5-2.Sm if groomed, min. 2.5 m 2 tracks, min. 4m

Height: 2.5m plus max. snow depth Grade: general use, max. 10%

expert use, max. 40% "·~. ·_

Height:

Height:

Height:

Height:

MOTORCYCLE (AMERICAN MOTORCYCLE ASSOCIATION) Tread Width: min. 18 inches, max. 30 inches Cleared Width: 5 ft. Height:

'Grade: easy: sustained 8%, max. 15% very difficult: sustained 15%, max. 50%

67

2.5m

2.5m

3m

2.5m

9 ft.

I MULTI-USE TRAIL STANDARDS

It is required that the GRCA and.user groups adopt multi-use trail standards, for non-motorised and motorised trails in the Forest. These will: -guide new trail construction; -guide trail restoration; -guide trail closure and relocation; -indicate when any environmental degradation requires management intervention -enhance the recreational experience -increase safety

These trail standards should include the following components: -tread width, minimum, maximum; -cleared width; -cleared height - e.g. 3 metres; -maximum slope - e.g. 15%; -maximum curvature; -maximum width of bare earth; -maximum depth of bare earth; -maximum depth of erosion; -signage re: permitted uses; -signage re: hazards; -location away from residences; -location away from wet areas

Specific measurements should be derived from existing activity-specific trail standards, and from user groups, so as to be appropriate for the multi-use of the Gan,araska Forest.

68

I

APPENDIX 8.5: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

• 8.5.1 In-Depth Interview Questions • 8.5.2 Focus Group Workshop Agenda

/

/

69

I

/

1. IMPACTS

GANARASKA FOREST TRAILS PROJECT INTERVIEW TOPICS (2)

- What impacts, if any, do you think result from the recreational use of trails in the Forest?

- What particular sites, if any, do you think have been impacted to an unacceptable degree by the recreational use of the Forest?

- What recreation activities have you witnessed having an lmpact on trails in the Forest?

- How would you suggest reducing any unacceptable impacts of recreation in the Forest?

2. CONFLICTS - What conflicts, if any, do you think occur between

participants in different recreational activities on trails in the Forest?

- What conflicts have you witnessed between different .,,. recreational activities on trails in the Forest?

- How would you suggest reducing any conflicts between different recreational activities on trails in the Forest?

3. OBJECTIVES FOR FOREST: - What should be the objectives for the Forest?

70

1·

/

8:30

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

- -12:30

GANARASKA FOREST TRAILS PROJECT SATURDAY MAY 24TH, 1997

G.R.C.A. OFFICE, PORT HOPE

WORKSHOP AGENDA

Coffee

Background: iheissues Work to d;:ite Workshop agenda

Trail User Impacts: Sites of major impact Standards Reducing impacts - solutions User groups - maintenance work

~-

- money contributions

Trail User Conflicts: Perceived, real conflicts Range of Solutions Enforcement Voluntary actions - pay patrol

- unpaid patrols

Summary: Consensus? Further work Users Committee would like Project

-· to do'? ·-

Finish

71

APPENDIX 8.6: SURVEY RESULTS

• 8.6.1 GFTP Mail Survey 1997 • 8.6.2 GFTP Visitor hnpact Survey

/

/

/

72

I

GFTP MAIL SURVEY

PART A- BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. What is your age?

Age Number Percentage

l~thanl9 1 .7

20-29 8 6

30-39 38 30

40-49 36 28

50-59 25 19.3

60-69 13 10

greater than 70 8 6

Total 129 100

2. Where do you live?

Origin Number Percentage Origin Number Percentage Unknown 13 11 Kendal 3 2.3

Ajax 2 1.5 Little Britain I .7 Belleville 2 1.5 Millbrook 4 4

, 1Bewdley I .7 Milton 1 .7 Bowmanville 7 5 Newcastle 1 .7 Brampton 1 .7 Newtonville 1 .7 Brooklin 2 1.5 Oakville 2 1.5 Burlington 1 1.7 Omemee 1 .7 Campbell croft 2 1.5 Orono 6 4.7 Cambridge 1 1.7 Oshawa 11 9

Cameron i .7 Parry S0m1d 1 .7 Cobourg 1 .7 Peterborough 3 2.3

Courtice 3 2.3 Pickering 3 2.3

/ 1Crofton 1 .7 Pontypool 1 .7 Cros.shill 1 .7 Port Hope 12 10.5

Edmonton, Alb. 1 .7 Richmond Hill 1 .7

73

Elizabethville 3 2.3 Scarborough 7 5.5 Enniskillen 1 .7 Stouffville 1 .7 Etobicoke I .7 Stirling 1 .7 Garden Hill 3 2.3 Toronto 7 5.5 Hamilton 1 .7 Tyrone I .7 Hampton 1 .7 Whitby 8 6.5

Windsor 1 .7

TOTAL 129 100

3. What type ofForest Membership do you own?

Membership Type NJ11Dber

Single 57

Family 50

All Inclusive 17

Cross-Country Skiing 9

Corporate 3

Other 4

4. How many years have you been using the Forest trails for recreation?

Years Number Percentage

less than 5 59 45.7

I I 6-10 29 22.5

: / 11-15 8 6.2

16-20 8 6.2

greater than 20 25 19.4

Total 129 100

I

74

I

5. During which seasons do you use the trails in the Forest?

Season Number Percentage

Summer 89 70

Fall 112 87

Winter 70 54

Spring 88 68

Total 129 100

6. What activities do you participate in when using the trails in the Forest?

Total number of people surveyed in 1997 = 129 Total number of people surveyed in 1996 = 171 Total number of people surveyed in 1995 = 152

Activities # of people %Use %Use %Use participating (1997) (1997) (1996) (1995)

Hiking 53 41% 51.5% 56.00/o Dirt Biking 38 29% 36.3% 23.7% Cross-Country 37 29% 12.3% 30.9% · Skiing Hunting 29 22% 35.1% 34.9% Mountain Biking 28 22% 27.5% 23.7% A.T.V. Driving 17 13% 18.7% 18.4% Horseback Riding 17 13% 14:0% 7.2% Picking Mushrooms 10 8% 4x4 driving 10 8% Snowshoeing 9 7%

i ~e_oteering 4 3%

r

75

; '

' '

I

I 1

I I I

PART B - ENVIRONMENTAL ™PACTS

7. In general, do you consider trail conditions in the Ganaraska Forest to be:

Trail Conditions Number Percentage

Totally Acceptable 68 52.2

Somewhat Acceptable 37 29

Neutral 6 5

Somewhat Unacceptable 9 7

Totally Unacceptable 1 .8

No Response 8 6

Total 129 100

8. Please indicate if any of the following activities are having unacceptable impacts on the soil, water, vegetation, wildlife, air, scenery or other characteristics of the Forest trails.

Activity Causing Impact Number Percentage

Hiking 10 - 8

Horseback Riding 25 19

Mountain Biking 23 18

Orienteering 7 5

4x4Driving 59 46

Hunting 27 21

Dir-tBiking 63 49

A.T.V. Driving 48 37

Cross-Country Skiing 9 7

· Snowshoeing 5 4

Snowmobiling 30 23

Logging \ 54 42

Car Driving 40 31

76

I

/

.8. What specific sites in the Forest, if any, are unacceptably environmentally degraded?

Unacceptable Sites Number Percentage

None 64 50

Unknown 12 9

Dirt Bike Trails 7 5

Lookout Hill 14 11

Logged Areas 10 8

Cold Springs Rd. 4 3

East Forest 3 2

Tower Hill 5 4

Ski Trails 7 5

Access Roads 3 2

Snowmobile Trail 1 .8

Sprnce Valley 2 2

9. Below are some potential solutions to reduce any environmental impacts· of recreation use on trails in the Forest.

Solution #U #A #DK NR Total

1. Locate trails away from environmentally sensitive areas. 4 102 16 4 129

2. Locate trails away from steep slopes. 13 94 16 6 129

3. Close trails in sensitive areas. 20 81 21 I

7 129 ,

4. Close trails when grom1d conditions make them :vulnerable 16 92 15 6 129 to impacts.

5. Harden trails to withstand use. 40 45 36 8 129

6. Educate users to behave more responsibly in order to reduce 9 111 3 5 129 impacts.

7. Limit the number of people who can use the Forest. 71 21 31 6 129

77

I

/

Comments: 1. Patrol for member or paying day-use visitors only. Designate specific areas for a specific use rather than multi-use everywhere. Allow specific user groups to have input on the development of new trails so that it meets their needs and consequently reduces the frustrations that lead to going off trail, vandalism, conflict, etc.

2. Impose greater restrictions on what activities are allowed in certain sensitive areas. Ban no one but give those people a place of their own.

3. Close the forest to all users except, passive use. I feel that there should not be any motorized vehicles ip the forest, except for emergency purposes.

4. Ban hooting, it's ridiculous to have goos going off in such a small area. Besides you can buy good in grocery stores now!

5. If they find that too many are using the park for activities that damage the park then those people will have to be limited perhaps.

6. Please install more signs and markers specifying usages of areas. Some "you are here" signs with compass points and map of area would be helpful- easy to lose your way (bearings).

7. Self monitoring system so members can report non member usage eg. laminated logo with velcro strap to be visible while in park. Better opportllllity for users to show their responsible actions.

8. I usually park my vehicle, on or close to main roadways and walk through the trails and forest, so I do not damage the trails or forest in any way.

9. Limit the types of users to specific trails. Some of the steep trails and sandy trails on moderate slopes should not be subject to dirt bikes.

10. Leave off road trails to hikers and skiers.

11. Enforce the membership rules, there are plenty of people who are not members that use the forest.

12. When cross co1mtry trails are icy, they should be quickly groomed to make safe. Generally the trails are excellent.

13. The forest should be able to sustain lllllimited use as a passive family place if monitored properly and the rules are enforced always and there is a consequence to an action. In B.C. dirt bikes and mo1mtain bikes are seiz.ed where they are banned.

78

I

/

PART C -.RECREATIONAL CONFLICTS

11. In any recreational setting, such as the Ganaraska Forest, conflicts may emerge between users. On the matrix below please rate the amount of conflict, if any, that you perceive is occuring between, and within different recreational groups in the Forest.

% Respondents Activity Activity

36 Horseback Riding AT.V. Driving

33 Horseback Riding Hunting

32 Horseback Riding 4x4Driving

32 Horseback Riding Dirt Biking

.28 Hiking Hunting

26 Hiking 4x4Driving

23 Motmtain Biking Hunting

22 Hiking AT.V. Driving

21 Orienteering Hunting

18 Hunting Cross-Country Skiing

12. For each major conflict identified above, please explain below why you consider the two activities conflict?

• ''Horseback Riding VS. Dirt Biking and A. T.Vs: besids the portrayal of conflict between these groups in the local papers, I see conflict arising when horses become spooked (and consequently endangering their rider) upon sudden presence ofloud motoriz.ed vehicles."

• ''Dirt Biking VS. Hiking: since a lot of the drivers of these machines go too fast, this causes an unsafe environment for people walking on trails, especially winding trails."

/

• ''Hunting VS. Snowshoeing, Cross-Country Skiing, Horseback Riding, and Hiking: potential danger of hunters not identifying targets prior to shooting."

• ''Dirt Biking VS. Hunting: their accessibiiity interferes with the wildlife (in many ways- not just hunting, photo, sight seeing, etc .. )"

• ''Hunting VS. Others remaining: bullets don't always go where you want them to. Bullets kill."

' - . ''Cross-Country Skiing VS. Snowmobiling: motoriz.ed vehicles using same trail as skiers."

79

I

/

• ''Dirt Biking VS. Dirt Biking: trails should be designated as one-way trails in order to prevent bikers smashing into on another on trails."

• AT.V. Driving VS. Snowmobiling: the snowmobilers don't like the AT.Vs on their trails- ifwe have a membership for AT.Vs, then we should be allowed.

• '<ttorseback Riding VS. Mmmtain Biking, Cross-Com1try Skiing: horse hoofmards make a considerable "dent'' in sand, soft earth, and snow. "

12. Can you provide an example of a conflict between two recreational activities that you have witnessed or experienced on a trail in the Forest?

• ''I have witnessed people on foot needing to quickly remove themselves from the trails, ( especially where thick brush and'tight curves) exist due to a 4x4 vehicle moving toward them."

• ''Snowmobiles waving hand gestures to get off trails. One snowmobiler actually hit a 4-wheeler in front of me last winter."

• ''Mushroom pickers: most of which do not have memberships, driving cars all over the forest, leave garbage everywhere, not respecting the rights of other forest members rights to use trails."

• "AT.Vs scaring people and horses on the trails."

• '<ttigh powered snowmobiles passing from behind at very high speeds leaving only inches."

• ''People walking and snowmobilers on x-country ski trails."

• ''When cyclists and/or motorcyclists cross paths with equestrians. On occasion, the equestrians have difficulty riding by the stopped cyclists/motorcyclists, apparently the horses are made m1easy by the bright colours of the cycling clothing."

• ''While walking into an area I bow hunt in, on a trail that is not _made for vehicles, I had a dirt bike come flying up behind me. I heard him coming so I was in no danger, but he had no idea I was there. He flew past me with little or no concern for myself or the forest."

• "Dirt bikers refusing to cut there engines in the presence ofhorseback riders. Snowmobilers surrounding a 4x4 truck on a road and threatening to break the windshield."

• ''Riding my mom1tain bike and being mistaken for wildlife."

• '<ttoof prints left on trails used by mountain bikes is sometimes a problem."

80

/

13. Below are some solutions to reduce any recreational conflicts on trails in the Forest.

Solution #U #A #DK NR Total

1. Separate trails for each activity. 59 45 17 8 129

2. Separate trails for some activities. 13 98 11 7 129

3. Designate one part of the Forest for motorized use and 33 72 16 9 129 one part for non-motorized use.

4. Establish a policing system. 24 64 32 9 129

5. Educate users· to behave more responsibly. 4 111 6 8 129

6. Limit the mnnber of people who can use the Forest. 69 24 28 8 129

Comments: • ''Have better signage and maps designating acceptable uses in certain areas. Encourage members to monitor

uses themselves and spread the word to other users."

• 'Having an area for motoriz.ed use only is all right. But, it shouldn't stop pedestrians from using area. Keep the motoriz.ed, but have the trails open to hikers knowing they have to look out for vehicles."

' • ''In all the times I have been in the forest I very rarely see too many people."

• ''Ban dirt bikes and 4x4's"

• ''Close the forest for all users."

• "Keep the motoriz.ed sports in one area."

"1000 acres is huge area- by limiting motorized use to one area it would severely impact that one area­concentration would be too intense and people need vehicles to get to and from areas of interest to them whatever they like to do for recreation."

• "Difficult to separate trails- motorized cover a lot of area and yet some non motoriz.ed use a tremendous area." /

•

•

''Increased fees for groups that cause more conflict and or environmental hazard."

''In this age of environmental enlightenment is it not odd that the rest of the world is trying to limit the use of motorized vehicles while the GRCA condones it"

''If staff was returned to previous levels solution #4 and #5 could be used."

''Encourage horseback riding in Central(Passive) Area. Create an Equestrian Trail Head at south/west corner of Cavan Twp. This has easy access from #115 and Millbrook."

81

I

PART D - COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES AND EVENTS

15. Do you think commercial recreational uses should be allowed in the Forest?

I: 16. Do you think non-competitive recreational events should be allowed in the Forest?

Yes No Don't Know No Response Total

97 10 17 5 129

17. Do you think competitive recreational events sho_uld be allowed in the Forest?

I:: PART E -PARTICIPATION

18. Would you be willing to volunteer for trail maintenance projects in the Forest?

19. Would you be willing to donate money to restore degraded trails in the Forest?

Yes No Don't Know No Response Total

38 42 43 6 129

/

82

I

/

21. Would you be willing to volunteer and help staff an information booth at the GanaraskaForest Centre?

Yes No Don't.Know No Response Total

31 65 28 5 129

PART F - COMMENTS

• '1 appreciate all the good work in the forest in setting up trails; maintaining trails, policing the system etc... It is a wonderful addition to recreation lands."

• '1 think it is very important that the GRCA recognize the importance of vohmteers in the success of many organisations nowadays. A well-organized volunteer corps could effectively manage the recreational site of things in the forest, leaving the GRCA to concentrate on other important issues such as resource management and flood control. The increase in recreational activities in the forest could be beneficial in terms of individuals health and welfu.re, as well as, in promoting an appreciation of the environment. However, it should be remembered that the forest was built to protect the watershed and any activities contrary to that philosophy should not be allowed."

• '1 would like to comment on question 19. I thought our membership fee was suppose to help restore degraded trails."

• "With consideration and respect for others there are no conflicts. Unfortunately some users, from all different activities are selfish. It's unfortunate that perhaps the best solutions may be divisions within the Ganaraska for specific users, but if that's what it takes, so be it

•

_, Some seem to think that the forest is a natural area when in fact it was established by the government and is used for sustainable logging as well. While I firmly believe in natural space conservation, and restricting or even probability access to some ultra­sensitive areas I don't feel the Ganaraska, (or at l~ the majority of it) really qualifies. As a motorcycle rider I am actually aware of public perception towards my chosen activity."

"I personally find dirt bikes to be the moot ofrensive-both to the environment as well as myself. I enjoy the solitude the forest provides. The last thing I east to encounter when I visit the forest is a bunch of screaming dirt bikes and 4x4's with a bimch ofred necks behind the wheel- testing their capabilities and their driving skills. I get all this aggravation in the city and I will not support any venture that would turn our forests into a playground for this type of1mwanted activity."

83

.1

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

aggravation in the city and I will not support any venture that would turn our forests into a playground for this type of unwanted activity."

"Judging by the comments of the hikers, horseback riders and trail riders, I have spoken to courtesy and consideration is the key to harmonious use ofGanaraska None of the people I have spoken to from these sports have objected to use of the forest by another group. Let's keep Ganaraska open to everyone regardless of their sport or recreation activity."

''I would like to help more but my age (72) and health limit the ammmt of help I could give. I worked one season at the forest (1984-85) grooming trails etc ... , and enjoyed every minute of it. I would like to help again in some small way as I am limited in what I can do. I think the forest and its activities for the school children is a wonderful thing and I hope it continues."

''Next time save paper and trees and put the questionnaire on the internet."

''If excessive restrictions are put on hunting I would no longer continue forest membership."

"Be willing to help trail maintenance if I know dates well in advance since I live in Belleville .

''Don't put trails in hunting areas since non hunters will use them. Post signs which specify hunting seasons for non hunters."

"The annual fee is very cheap."

"Trails could be planned so they are not coming straight down a steep slope. In logged area just too many trails developed. A forest centre for planned activities in order to create a hub for outdoor activities."

"Many of the questions asked should be based on scientific evidence or backed by environmental studies. This study is flawed and biased."

''User conflict is a real problem! What else is new! possible solutions: 1. Separate areas for motorized and non­motorized uses. 2. Motorized vehicles on even-numbered dates, non-motorized users on odd-numbered dates. 3. Move motorized vehicles ( except snowmobiles) out of the forest to an area which can stand the pressure and which they have to look after- like Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky (T.KA. land)."

'The forming of the Ganaraska Conservation Authority years ago has created nothing but a monster. Why we need a $1 millio n o f f i c e i s b e y o n d m e . I t s e e m s 1 i k e a f e w turn it back over to the tax payers the way it used to be. Northumberland forest seems to have worked out alright without organizations sticking their nose in it. I also think the GRCA has a lot of nerve charging memberships for the use of the Ganny."

''My biggest fear is 1hat :freedom will be restricted with that restriction part of the enjoyment will be lost. It should be a happy carefree experience to allow the spirit to relax and renew. I think rules and policing may destroy that."

''I believe the controlled use of the forest and enforcement of forest and trail rules will allow all groups to share the forest. All user groups should be willing to donate time/effort/fimds to the upkeep of the forest."

• 'We have ridden horses in the West forest for over 6 years and have not experienced any conflicts. Usually we see very few users of the forest in the 2-4 hours that we are on the trails each day."

84

/

• 'Tve already spent hlllldreds of hours working for the forest. I have retired! I was on the GRCA full authority or on advisory boards for 17 years. My prejudices are that I don't like motorcycles and I don't like horses. But they should co exist. Policing in the forest is a waste of effort. I spent a Sllllday in the forest with the OPP and saw not one horse, motorcycle or hiker. My furest activities are decreasing. I planted trees in the forest before it belonged to the GRCA and camped with Boy Scouts where the forest now stands. We used to pick up empty mortar shells, etc ... from military activity on the sand''

• "The commercial use of the area must be considered carefully to ensure the prospective user is sympathetic to environmental concerns and the proposed usage will not cause further environmental deterioration."

• ''There should be an increase in membership fees. Education and enforcement is the key to a great forest."

• ''Create more trails ... don't limit uses."

• ''The mature trees should be harvested and replaced as needed and no more money should be spent on another "forest study." -:piere have been so many over the years that they just seem to pile up someplace. "

• ''Most of the central area is already closed to motorized vehicles and hllllting. It vehicles are a problem then roads should never have been put in the rest of the forest. I think every user group has a right to forest use and that they had all better learn to live with and respect each other. One thing I have noticed is the amollllt oflitter in the forest. Every user group should work to stop this as it does detract from the natural smTOlllldings."

• ''The trails should never be groomed- they should always be challenging."

• "I feel the money raised through membership, logging, and corporate sources should be used for the maintenance and policing of the forest."

/

85

I VISITOR IMP ACT SURVEY RESULTS

The results of the 72 Visitor Interview Survey's conducted on February 91h, March 23rd, April 6" and

throughout the summer are as follows:

I. Sex Male: 46 Female: 26 2. Age < 19 6%

20-34 28% 35-50 54% 51-69 11% >70 1%

3. (See Comments)

4a. Do you have a Forest Membership Yes 32% No 68%

4b. Ifyes, what type? Family 21% Single 9% X-Cmmtry Skiing 4% All Inclusive 18% Corporate 0% Other 48% (snowmobile clubs)

5. How many years have you been using the Forest trails? Avg. 8.5 years

6. How many times this winter have you used the Forest trails? Avg. 32

7. What activity have you participated in today: Skiing 68% Snowmobiling 32%

Dirt Biking 6% Hiking 4%

. Horseback Riding 4% Mountain Biking 18%

8. Do you th.mg you had any impacts on the trail / Forest? N=50 Skiing Yes 1% No 990/o

Snowmobiling Yes 0% No 100% / N=22 a Yes 36% No 54% DK 10%

b. Yes 18% No 50% DK 32%

8c. (See Comments)

9. Did you experience any conflicts with: N=50 Skiers 3% Snowmobilers 15% Other Users 5%

N=22 Yes 18% No 82%

9b. (See Comments)

10. (See Comments)

86

I

Comments

3. Peterborough: 4% Parry Sound: 1% Toronto: 21% Northumberland: 1% New Castle: 8% Whitby: 5% Oshawa: 15% Scarborough: 9% Port Hope 1% Mississaug;i: 1% Pickering 5% Bethany: 3% Bowmanville: 5% Comtice 3% Cobourg: 3% Brooklin 1% Aurora 1% Bracebridge 1% Brampton 1% Newmarket 1% Meaford 1% Georgetown 3% Ajax 3% Etobicoke 3%

8c. Snowmobilers: • We have positive results on trails: maintain trails, brush it, abide by rules. • Impacts to put trails in, but after that no impacts. • Trails are froz.en - can't have any erosional impacts. • Once the snow is gone you leave - therefore no impacts. • Positive impacts - bring money to the local economy.

·-- • Impacts to put trails in, after that no impacts.

Cross-Country Skiers: • , _, Very little - might scare animals. • Weight is well spread out over the skiis. Always pack-in and pack-out litter. • Anyone who uses trails has· an impact

Spring Survey Comments: • A bit of erosion was caused in the forest. • OK if staying on trails, but there are impacts made off trails. • Trails are more fragile when wet.

/ • Era.ion: or depends on how trails are maintained; if enough people are using it to bike, the forest will be impacted.

9b.

87

I

/

Snowmobilers: • Sometimes too many snowmobilers - you have to be careful you don't hit each other. • Dangerous when they ( cross-country skiers) use our trails. • Slow down and let skiers and other users pass. • Get along well with skiers. • Bicyclists put ruts on the snowmobile trails. • Snowmobilers pay to maintain trails - shouldn't be anyone else allowed to use them. • Equestrians leave ruts on the trails and their horses leave excretement. • On mild days motorbikes come in and tear up their trails.

Cross-Country Skiers: • Used to have problems with snowmobilers until they separated the trails. • Don't like to see them (snowmobilers) or hear them on trails. • Shouldn't be in a Conservation Area (snowmobilers). • Where trails cross - also noisy, very aware of their existence (snowmobiles). • Some snowmobiles on the ski trails. • All users get along well. • Rarely see anyone.

Spring Survey Comments: • Hikers are a problem for people involved in races. • Mountain bikers think they may be scaring hikers. • Motmtain bikers scare you- don't know they are coming. Ring bell or yell. Mountain bikers should be allowed in

the Central Section but they should reveal their presence. • Dirt bikers are generally friendly- they always turn off engine. • See more horses on the weekend, but we stop and let them go by.

IO.

• Should leave up-to-date messages on answering machine of trail conditions. • Ifcross-country skiers have to pay to use trails, they should at least be groomed. • Should advertise more for more revenue. • Great place to snowmobile. • One of the nicest places in Ontario to cross-country ski. • Very comparable to Hardwood hills as a place to cross-country ski. • Great deal - ski trails are well maintained - not too busy. • / Not a lot of people know about it - like it that way. • Should plow parking lot. • Get rid of flies in eating area. • Would be nice to have indoor toilets. • Shouldn't have to pay all the time - some things should be free. • Nice chalet for lunch. • Trails are well marked. • Very professional every time they have come. • Should have garbage cans; more people to check memberships etc ...

88

APPENDIX 8.7: OBSERVATIONS OF RECREATION USE IN Tiffi.. FOREST . ~--·· i:

89

DATE TIME FOREST SITE No. OF VEHICLES No. OF PEOPLE RECREATION

May 10 5PM Central Parking Lot · 18 cars at forest centre kids event 3 cars in other lot, one with trailer adult with 2 kids mountain biking

May 18 10.20 am West Boundary Rd: lot 6 9 vehicles; 1 with A TV, rest with dirt bikes 10.25 am E. of lot 6 2 vans with dirt bikes

N. of entry pt. 4 family of 5 horseback riding party of 11 horseback riding

May24 2pm Central Forest Centre none 2.30 pm Central Forest Centre 5 - 3 with mountain bikes mountain biking

May26 11.30 am Porter Rd. and 115 entrance 3 cars with dirt bikes dirt biking 11.40 am Boundary Rd: Anderson lot 3 vans/trucks with bikes mountaing biking 3.35 pm Boundary Rd: Anderson lot none 3.45 pm Access pt. 8 none 3.48 pm Access pt. 14 none 4.30 pm Central Forest Centre 4vehicles

Boundary Rd. E. of Cold Springs Rd none lots using it dirt biking

June3 12.02 pm Boundary Rd. lot 2 trucks with bike trialers dirt biking Anderson lot none

12.21 pm Central Forest Centre 1 car and 1 truck School group

June4 4.35 pm West Boundary Rd. lot 1 van with dirt bike trailer 1 person dirt biking 1 truck dirt biking

June? 10.42 am Sandaraska Park 1 person A TV enters forest 10.46 am Road lot 1 truck 10.48am Anderson lot 1 truck with 2 dirt bikes dirt biking 10.56 am post 9 1 van

Forest Centre Guides & Pathfinders camping 12.19 pm post 8 1 horse trailer horseback riding 12.24 pm lot/road none

June 25 12 pm Boundary Rd. none

June 26 3.30 pm Boundary Rd. none

June 30 2.33 pm Central Forest Centre 2 cars with mtn. bikes mountain biking

2 trucks with dirt bikes dirt biking Anderson lot 1 truck with 3 dirt bikes dirt biking lot next to Anderson lot 2 cars with trailers dirt biking

2 vans with trailers dirt biking family of 5 picnicing

July 16 10.46 pm Central Forest Centre lots of Army cadets workshop/camp

July 31 11.30 am Boundary Rd. none

August 1 11.45 am West post 6 1 car, 1 truck with trailer post 6 dirt bike trail 3 persons horseback riding

August 4 11.05 am West Boundary Rd. lot 6 none Wilcox Rd. 1 person dirt biking Spruce Valley 4 persons horseback riding

12 pm Wilcox Rd. 1 truck with mountain bikes 2 persons mountain biking 2 trucks with 3 unloaded 4-wheelers 3 persons 4-wheeling

1 pm Top of Lookout Hill 2 persons dirt biking · 1 person horseback riding 2 persons 4-wheeling

2.45 pm Central Forest Centre 7 cars lots of Army cadets workshop/camp

I

APPENDIX 8.8: PHOTOGRAPHS

• 8.8.1 Measuring impacts in East Forest • 8.8.2 Measuring impacts in West Forest • 8.8.3 Mountain bike impacts in Central Forest • 8.8.4 Measuring depth of earth on road in East Forest • 8.8.5 Measuring impacts in West Forest 1

• 8.8.6 Measuring impacts in Central Forest • 8.8.7 Observations of impacts oflogging in West Forest • 8.8.8 Observing impacts on Lookout Hill from top • 8.8.9 Observing impacts on Lookout Hill from bottom • 8.8.10 Permitted recreational uses in Central Forest • 8.8.1 rBlair Sharpless dirt bike school in West Forest • 8.8.12 Ganaraska Ranch trail ride in West Forest • 8.8.13 Mountain bike event in Central Forest • 8.8.14 A.T.V.s in West Forest • 8.8.15 Snowmobiles, A.T.Vs and skiers in Central Forest

92'

j

I

'/:

'l

.\ "' .,

Mountain Biking

'" m Orienteering

Jif~:~toSkiing Only Fr~m Dec 15 - March 31 a'rriping'Allowed in the Forest

:;~V~~ ii) the Central Forest :Ai} .. ·;:a~k.aForestis Restricted to MembenfO·n

~~",\·:·~ :,-.· •• - ,..·,·,,; .. ,f'

. \f?,,'0.,11'1ted ~y Users of the Centr.a 1/Fci ;~,,.,; ,,-;. - - - ~ . -- ':"lj/.J-'Vt"iiti;/!:f.~-

\

I

8.9 APPENDIX: TRAIL RESTORATION - LOOKOUT HILL Al MacPherson

Fleming College, Lindsay

100

Trail Restoration

People's attitudes towards trails have changed over the years. These attitudes have paralled attitudes regarding the environment in general. The original use of trails in the early 20th centmy were mainly on Crown land and in National or Provincial Parks. These original trails on Crown land were for fire and resource protection. In the early 1950's, during what is referred to as the "recreation boom era" a lot of time and investment was directed towards recreational trails within public parks. Labour was cheap and the work was considered glamorous.

A major increase in trail development by the not for profit trail organizations occurred in the 1960 's and early 1970' s outside of government parks such as the Bruce Trail. At the same time, the introduction of the snowmobile resulted in demand for more motorized recreational trail opportunities. The demand for trails on public lands continued to increase, especially in Southern Ontario. Conservation Authorities such as the Ganaraska Region were encouraged to develop trails by the government to supply this ever increasing demand. Now, in the I990's these earlier trails are in need of major environment restoration and re-design. Past and increasing use, little or no trail funds, lack of annual maintenance and the lack of new trails being developed for the new trail user technologies such as, mountain bikes, trail bikes, A TVs', are some of the changes that have resulted in trail and environment degradation in the Ganaraska Forest.

This section of the report provides ideas as to how to respond generally to this degradation by suggesting restoration intervention techniques for sites accessed by recreational trails. In particular, a restoration plan is suggested for one site called Lookout Hill.

Recreational Trails and Restoration

The majority of environmental impacts from recreational trails results from inappropriate trail design, construction and maintenance. Thorough site analysis, careful planning and design, and thoughtful maintenance and monitoring, guided by the concept of sustainability, will benefit any trail system while affording a reasonable standard of safety and comfort for all trail users.

Types of hnpacts

The main types of deterioration affecting specific sites in the Ganaraska Forest are:

I. trail erosion- mainly rill formation due to water flow and gouging due to tran1pling and motorized impacts on steeper gradients;

2. trail widening; and

3. trail braiding.

1

I

These problems are exacerbated by the inherent fragility of much of the Oak Ridge Moraine and by the fact that many of the existing trails in the area are used for access to the areas for resource extraction and protection. The sites most heavily impacted are on steep slope areas.

Other problems occurring in the forest include the unplanned formation of new trails, and the deterioration of existing trails through the loss of vegetation.

Sustainability

Sustainability ofrecreational trails is defined as the ability of the travel surface to support current and anticipated appropriate uses with minimal impact to the adjoining natural systems and cultural resources. Sustainable trails have negligible soil loss or movement and allow the naturally occurring plants necessary to build and maintain the trail. If well built, a sustainable trail minimizes seasonal mud and erosion. It should not normally affect natural fmma adversely nor require re-routing and major maintenance over long periods of time.

Planning

One way of ensuring long-term trail sustainability is identifying new and rebuilt trails projects in relevant planning documents such as a Restoration Plan - Lookout hill and incorporating such restoration plans in the Ganaraska Recreational Trails Plan or Forest Management Plans. This will ensure the involvement of an interdisciplinary planning team. Each site is different and will need to have information about topography, soils, visitor statistics, design guidelines, and anticipated maintenance strategies. Good planning can avoid problems such as user conflicts and environmental degradation due to poor trail design which eventually destroys sustainability.

Design and Construction

Two of the most common problems of recreational trails are deterioration through overuse of popular·trails and the development of undesired routes at popular destinations. These situations exist in the Ganaraska Forest such as Lookout hill. Both problems can be avoided by drawing on personnel for advice with trail design and management experience such as Ganaraska Trail Club, Bruce Trail Organization or technical schools offering trail courses such as Fleming College. By following commonly accepted standards of trail design and construction as outlined in the manual Trail Planning and Design Guidelines produced by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, enviromnental impacts will be minimized. In addition, observing proposed or existing routes through several seasons, including winter, will assist the planning team in determining the level of improvement or rerouting required to achieve sustainability for new or restored trails.

Design guidelines must identify the type of trail ( e.g. shared-use) and construction standards ( e.g. tread width, clearing height) that are to be used. These are essential for decision-making on specific trail locations at different sites. A simple outline, with supporting sketch plans and views is usually sufficient to describe the desired crite1ia, trail segments, trail destinations, nodes, natural and cultural resource points of interest, design intentions, design

2

and construction standards, environment concerns and the anticipated investment in improvements.

Aside from the soil type, the grades of sustainable trail surfaces are almost always less than 15% and should be less than 1/4 the prevailing adjoining cross-slope. The maximum grade of a length of a trail should also vary, since steeper topography is able to sustain steeper trail grades. This relationship suggests 5% grades in 20% cross-slope areas, 10% in 40%, and 12% maximum profile grades in 48% or more cross-slopes. Trails with grades greater than 15% are especially prone to erosion as in the case of Lookout Hill.

New Uses on Existing Trails

When new and improved uses ( e.g. mountain biking and motorized trail biking ) are being reviewed for existing trails (many of which have evolved through use and not design), · planning teams must carefully consider sustainability factors. The design principles used for old roads and railway beds are significantly different from those used for trails, so it is necessary to evaluate sustainability factors when redeveloping these types of trail routes for new uses. In addition, the evaluation of other trail projects in the local area can assist in developing sustainabiltiy criteria for the current project. For example, if other recreational trail opportunities exist nearby it maybe an environmentally sound decision to ban certain trail use activities in some areas.

Maintenance

Some degree of maintenance is required to perpetuate a trail's intended health and integrity. This often occurs at the beginning and end of each use season, as well as in response to emergencies. On some trails, routine activities may be required each month during peak use. Long-tenn maintenance should be part of the planning and design considerations. Typically, trails require about 10% of the original time and dollar investment each year after construction in routine maintenance. Much of this work can be carried out by volunteers. Monitoring and updating maintenance schedules each season and year ensures continued sustainability. A sample of a maintenance task schedule is included in this report.

Undesired trails develop when use cannot be sufficiently limited to existing trails. Undesired trails most commonly develop close to managed trails, existing roadways, along switchbacks, and in open meadow areas. Away from managed trails, undesired trails develop along frequently used cross-country routes and in popular destination areas as multiple trail braiding. Management techniques available for resolving this problem include keeping users on the managed trails by locating and delineating them properly (e.g. signs) or by enforcement, proper timing of visitor use, education on trail ethics, and limiting overall use patterns.

hnportance of Monitoring

Monitoring is an essential component of effective recreational trail management. Only by monitoring environmental and social impacts in recreational areas can managers make

,., .)

I

informed decisions and assess the effectiveness of management actions and policies (Cole, 1986, Lucas 1987. ). In particular, monitoring plays a central role in the "limits of acceptable change" (LAC) approach to recreational trail management which involves the implementation of management strategies designed to maintain the values of specified impact variables within specified limits (Stankey, and Manning, 1986. p. 47-58).

Monitoring systems are being developed such as the procedure used for the Turkey Bay Outdoor Recreational Vehicle Area located in western Kentucky and Tennessee that are practical and feasible tools for management. These systems are becoming increasingly necessary to provide documented information for management decisions. They represent a new form of proactive, information-based recreation land management ( Chihnan et al, 1991 p. 26).

In addition, monitoring various use factors over time such as access, patterns, and intensity is important to ensure ongoing sustainability. Consistent multi-year record keeping is important to ascertain trends. The type and amount of use on a particular trail, along with that trail' s ability to support changing patterns of use, will influence the type and complexity of the monitoring program.

Managing Trail Users

Besides dealing with the environmental and design elements of trails, user education is needed. Behavioral problems must be changed from hostility into mutual respect. How well are we communicating with users? We need to make clear what is appropriate behavior, who has the right of way, and make it clear with signs, brochures, and informative programs. We need to involve users, whose right to use trails is in jeopardy. There is just not enough money in the world to build separate trails for everyone, and we need the support of everyone who is a potential trails user (Macdonald, 1992. p. 40)

Restoration

Three excellent books were used to develop a restoration plan for Lookout Hill. These books are:

Restoring Natural Habitats- A Manual for Habitat Restoration in the Greater Toronto Bioregion -Waterfront Regeneration Trust (1995)

This manual provides a five step plan to restore habitats. It explains how to assess the potential and significance of the site, what species are appropiiate for planting, and how to involve the local community in restoring the site. Diagrams and photos explaining techniques and illustrate examples of restoration in progress are provided. Most of the restored sites are within close travelling proximity of the Ganaraska Forest.

4

I

Ecoloajcal Restoration Opportunities for the Lake Ontario Greenwav- Waterfront Regeneration Trust ( 1994)

Provides a survey of ecological restoration and implementation strategies for the Greater Toronto Bioregion. Address the benefits and general approaches for a wide variety of habitats. Includes chapters on site selection, assessment of ecosystem functions, vegetation communities, and the urban landscape. Provides names of relatively local places where you can visit to see these sites. An extensive annotated bibliography is provided.

Restoring Nature's Place: A Naturalization Program for Ontario Parks and Greenspace - Jean­Marc Daigle and Donna Havinga -prepared with the Ontario Parks Association

This book is a guide for undertaking environmentally related work. The guide provides steps to a community-based approach to restorative naturalization. The book uses current ecological concepts and case studies, it focuses on naturalization within the context of sustainability. It provides suggestions for longterm monitoring and maintenance strategies. After each chapter a e)\._"tensive annotated bibliography is provided.

The Plan

Restoration focuses on restoring already damaged areas and the ecological health of the landscape as a whole, while preventing further damage through addressing the ways in which humans live. Restoration is at once a short-term mechanism and a long-term view(Daigle, 1993)

In developing a restoration plan you need to consider either direct or indirect restoration.

1. Direct restoration - involves actual hands-on intervention in a site or ecosystem- e.g. activities planting, reconstructing by adding gravel fill to the sides of slopes, removing invasive exotics, or bioengineering.

2. Indirect restoration-eliminating the causes of degradation so that recovery can occur. It can involve fairly simple steps, such as building fences to control trampling- or more complex approaches developing education programs targeted to various groups, designing and utilizing ecologically sound practices in the surrounding landscape.

In some cases, indirect restoration is all that is necessary. In such cases once the causes of degradation have been addressed, health can return to the ecosystem on its own. For example, if excessive erosion is occurring due to excessive recreational motorized use- controlled is needed- use of fencing, education, and natural barriers, and erosion is not severe, the process of natural succession can begin once again. On going maintenance can then focus on preventing further impacts.

Usually the degradation of ecosystem is often the result of many effects on the site. Restoration will similarly involve combined efforts, or an ecology of actions. Direct restoration can alleviate the symptoms and in some cases, contribute to eliminating the causes of degradation. Yet without complementary indirect actions, direct restoration often amounts

5

I

to little more than applying a temporruy bandage. Much more then a quick fix, a holistic approach to restoration is a complex, long-term. and incremental process. Thus the restoration site plan must be developed in context of the whole Ganaraska Forest Plan.

The chart called Checklist of Trail Problems- Observed in the Ganaraska Forest with Recommended Restoration Treatments provides both direct and indirect techniques for the most common environment problems observed. Each treatment recommended is explained in more detail including diagrams in the Trail Planning and Design Guidelines and Restoring Natural Habitats manuals previously identified.

Defining Acceptable Visitor Impacts

Recreation, such as ORV(outdoor recreation vehicle), can disturb_ soil stability, vegetation, wildlife ,water, scenery, and the natural quietness of many outdoor environments. In many cases in the past, the management response has been to regulate, restrict, or prohibit use ( or type of equipment ), harden sites, or install protective facilities. But the meaning of these management changes is often unclear to recreationists. Such actions may have consequences as disruptive of recreational opportunities and recreationists' experiences as are the impacts they are meant to control (Clark, 1980). The need to detennine and agree upon what changes to the environment will be acceptable and what changes will not be acceptable. Is key for proper trail design and construction to happen. As these acceptable changes will be reflective in a restoration plan.

A Restoration Plan

The following is a outline of a nine-step planning process adapted from Restoring Nature's Place: A guide to Naturalizing Ontario Parks and Greenspace, that was used to develop the restoration plan for Lookout Hill.

1. Define the local site context 2. Conduct a site inventol)' and analysis 3. Articulate project goals and objectives 4. Prepare a site plan. 5. Identify a plant community model(s). 6. Develop a restoration and management strategy. 7. Develop a plant lists and identify plant sources. 8. Develop a project monitoring program. 9. Prepare an action plan.

Restoration Plan for Lookout Hill

1. Define the local site context

The Environment- Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Life Zone

The Ganaraska forest is underlain by limestope which is characterized by a ve1y fine Cl)'staline limestone and claystone. No rock exposures occur in the forest. The topography is rolling with

6

I

Checklist of Trail Problems Observed in the Ganaraska Forest

with Recommended Restoration Treatments

Problem Type of Restoration Terrain Treatment

Water running moderate 1. divert water at source down hill to steep 2. build waterbars to divert water off

slopes trail 3. stabilize existing trail and reroute to a more acceptable grade 4. close trail- import material (top soil) to rehabilitate

Surface washouts moderate 1. install drainage devices and minor gullying slopes e.g. waterbars or french drains to

redirect water away 2. consider rerouting depending on severity

Steep, root steep slopes- 1. provide drainage devices exposed trail- some e.g. stop dams actively eroding moderate 2. stabilize trail- obtain gravel from

a borrow pit reroute trail to better grade

Steep slope of steep 1. divert trail away from existing slope sand/gravel ground eroding slope 2. build a switchback to grade- restore

damaged vegetation 3. build steps, and restore damaged ground 4. close area

7

I

Trail Problems a'nd Treatment- Continue

Braided trail or minor to steep 1. define and improve best route migrating trail slopes 2. close off other trails with fencing or down slope and open natural debris, and restore vegetation.

field areas Encourage use of defined trail. It must be made more appealing than the adjoining terrain. 3.Erect signs indicatil")g reasons for using indicated trail 4. temporarily fence or block off damaged area 5. close area

1. better define and improve major Numerous trails minor to steep routes with serious slopes and 2. close off/ restore damaged routes Major repair work open areas 3. restore vegetation by seeding, needed. transplanting, and planting similar

- vegetation found in the area 4. provide educational information to help gain support for the closure or reroute

I

Muddy trail forest on mineral 1 . remove overgrowth and widen trail soil to let sun and wind dry out the trail.

2. construct crossfall to shed water , into side drains

3. build waterbars, drainage dips, or - side drains and use culverts as

necessary 4. build barrier to prevent further damage to surface

Aug-97

8

I

moderate to steep hill formations. The forest is located on the Oak Ridges moraine. This type oflandscape provides excellent aesthetic appeal due to the variety of vista opportunities.

The predominant soil type is Pontypool sand. It is characterized by excessive drainage, low fertility and soil instability which makes it vulnerable to severe erosion. The underlying soil is deep and largely stratified sands ranging from medium to fine grain and occasionally stony.

There are two main branches of the Ganaraska River system that flow through valleys into Lake Ontario. These are cold water streams vital to maintain fish populations such as trout. Very few wetlands or standing water is found within the forest boundaries ..

Plantations account for about 50% of the forest cover, the predominant species being Red Pine. The remaining 50% is composed of mixed confer, mixed hardwood and some pure hardwood stands (OMNR, 1985).

Conifers Red and White Pine are best to plant for survival in most of the sites in the forest. The European Larch grows well throughout the forest, especially on slopes and provides excellent protection for young confers. Deciduous Northern Red Oak and Poplar (Largetoothed Aspen) both grow well throughout the forest and are excellent food sources for wildlife.

There is a limited amount of wildlife shrubs found in the forest. Shrubs located along the edge of the forest are doing well, but more is needed. Plantings of wildlife shrubs should be encouraged and planted along forest edges, base of steep slopes, stream valleys and low lying areas. Species such as nannybeny, autumn olive, highbush cranberry and juneberry need to be planted to provide a food source in the fall and early winter.

2. Conduct a site invent01y and analysis

Existing access by road and trail Site heavily used by motorized and non motorized trail users- over many years Sample Vascular Plant Checklist completed by MNR June 1994. Observation and recording of major species found on site Soil condition- major areas of heavy erosion due, deep, exposed sand and gravel deposits, loss of ground cover and organic material primarily due to excessive use by motorized vehicles Major restoration needed on south west side of moraine- very steep slope- 50% plus, full sun exposure, affected by prevailing winds Video taped existing condition of site Need to provide soil amendments ( e.g. manure, leaflitter etc) Need to plant vegetation that will grow on sandy/gravel soil Need to stop any further use of the southwest slope Refer to main portion of this report for further site analysis information

3. Articulate project goals and objectives

The following are suggested goals and objectives for the Lookout Hill site:

9

I

1. To restore the existing forest cover in selected areas where sever deterioration has occurred due to recreational impacts.

2. To restore watershed function and integrity to this area.

· 3. To maintain landscape aesthetics and trail access .

Objectives

1. To use a variety of techniques to restore and protect the natural character of Lookout Hill.

2. To suggest a list of partners and their role for the implementation of the restoration/trail development plan.

3. To provide educational information about the restoration process and the need for environmental care.

4. To develop a short term community restoration plan that is economically feasible.

5. To design a non motorized recreational trail accessing the viewing area of Lookout Hill.

4. Prepare a site plan.

Enclosed is a sketch site plan identifying the existing situation. Major problem areas are the deep gullying within three major areas on the west side of the slope. The trenching and erosion of the trail leading from the road to the viewing area This trench is at places 2 meters in depth. There are areas that have well established ground cover. The forested area surrounding the site has very little impact.

5. Identifv a plant community model(s).

Ground cover- a variety of grasses Shrub- Staghom Sumac, dogwood Trees-Tamarach, White Birch, Red Oak, Hard Maple, Poplar and White Pine

6. Develop a restoration and management strategv.

Enclosed is a sketch site plan identifying the proposed changes. Need to reduce disturbance and change human use patterns to eliminate disturbance primarily due to motorized use on steep slope. Suggest: - judiciously placing barriers such as laying bmsh piles ( material obtain from thinning of plantations) along base of slope and every 3-5 metres upslope. Also planting prickly vegetation ( shrub rose, raspberry) at top of slope.

10

flOO--;)

-p.,.noJS

l L'

,, ----'-.----

F;i'15'l9?>f S ..:7

. . . ·. . . -' . . ~ . , .. . ~ M<1f li~ V\1. : . . ·, . '· ~)'Y) I. . ' . • .

,vo ·~ ..

)

J

' " . , .

I

I

(

l f

Sketch- Lookout Hill- Proposed Restoration

T~~Es

12

I

- educate the public to use trail and walk to the site through signage ( for example sign to read ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA - please stay on trail .. Thank You ) or community based efforts (school programs or special awareness events). - develop a parking lot for motorized vehicles to park their vehicle in a safe area - discourage use off the trail - down slope by making it llllappealing- use of brushpiles along entire slope length extending into existing vegetative areas. Need to stabilize soil by installing elongated brush piles, these piles act as a erosion control device similar to a stop log. This will slow water velocity down, resulting in less cutting action, which will reduce erosion and allow planted material a chance to establish itself Selectively remove existing grasses and shrub material located near site to restore area. Need to construct a new non motorized hiking trail approximately 300 metres in length incorporating all the proper design features such as switchback, water bars and walking trail standards ( width 1 m). Existing trail to be closed and restored. Use of brush piles, rock and signs will be needed. Need to organize community planting days - this involves ensuring plant materials are on site, mulch, tools, water, refreshments and washrooms. Need to purchase potted shrub and tree stock- largest cost for restoration project. Potted stock has a longer survival rate and can be easily stored. Allows for easier organizing of time for planting. ·

7. Develop a plant lists and identify plant sources.

Tree Species

Red Oak Hard Maple Red Maple Popular White Pine Tamarack White Birch Hemlock

Understorey and edge species

red elderbeny alternate-leaved dogwood blue beech staghornsumac pincheny Canada plum

The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has listing of suppliers for most of the plant material. Using existing plant material near the restoration site by selectively thinning and transplanting will save on the cost of purchasing potted stock. It may be possible to link with the present reforestati9n projects being done within the forest and receive assistance in planting or obtaining plant material.

Other possible suppliers for some of this plant material are:

Chalk Lake Greenhouses R.R.#4 Uxbridge, On LOC2HO telephone- 905-649-5348

MTRCA Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, On M3N 1S4 telephone- 416-661-6898

13

Rockwood Forest Nurseries R.R.#3 Cameron, On KOM ITO telephone 705-374-4700

As a possible elementaxy or secondmy school project, a tree and shrub nursery could be established near the Forest Centre with the intention of supplying potted stock material for restoration sites within the forest.

8. Develop a project monitoring program.

Monitoring should include biological (plants survival) and effectiveness of cultural initiatives (barrier planting or trails to reduce human impacts). It is important to measure what worked and what did not work. This information can be used for future sites with similar problems.

Before restoration work starts- re-measure and re-photography site in order to assess successes or failures. Record date and time photos are taken, one year from that time standing in approximately the same place take a series of photographs.

The role of the public in monitoring is becoming more extensive. Naturalists and community groups can contribute a useful information base and ongoing monitoring. For example, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, track bird migration and nesting and keep yearly records maybe this site can be included in their existing monitoring activities. If not, monitoring can be done by other volunteers. It can be incorporated into school activities - e.g. each spring students measure, record and photograph the site. Perhaps it becomes assigned to a particular user group- similar to adopt a site program. To save money, to maximize effort and to detennine what we have learned. It is critical monitoring be done after the first year to assist in the development of the next site restoration plan. At least five consecutive years should be done on this site.

9. Prepare an action plan.

Step 1- establish a site restoration sub-committee ( reports to User Committee) This committee meets monthly and will first review the Lookout Hill plan, make changes or suggest adoption of strategy as outlined- October, 1997. Step 2- order potted stock material for Spring planting days- November, 1997 Step 3- contact possible volunteers (refer to partners in restoration section of report )for specific tasks e.g, brush pile construction, planting, trail construction. Step 4 ensure all logistics e.g. refreshments, tools and washrooms are on site for scheduled workdays. Step 5 1st phase of restoration is closing off site to further deterioration by having elongated brush piles installed as suggested in plan- to be completed by May 1, 1998. Step 6- 2nd phase select planting day(s) - all planting to be completed by June 1, 1998 Step 7- construct new trail May or June 1998. Step 8 - recognize volunteer efforts - letter, newspaper etc. Step 9 - ensming monitoring is done throughout year-with review April 1999. Step 10- prepare next site restoration plan- on going

14

The GRCA would apply for a environmental youth corp grant from the Ontario Government in early January 1998. This person could assist in the May, June period and start preparing for the next restoration site plan for committee approval in September 1998.

Partners in Restoration

Partnerships with private and public sector companies, small businesses, governments, not for profit organizations, individuals and most of all volunteers are the key to the success of any restoration plan. Partnerships require mutual benefits in order for both parties to be involved in any activity or project.

The following are suggestions for possible partnerships concerning recreational trail restoration in the Ganaraska Forest:

Education:

Elementary and Secondary Schools- because of the interdisciplinary aspect of recreational trails subjects such as geography, science, biology provide teachers excellent opportunities to develop learning activities. Contact local schools and speak to the classroom teacher how the students can get involved in planting trees or shrubs in order to restore damaged sites, or assist in developing a educational program for local trail users.

Post Secondary- Colleges and Universities

Trent University, Sir Sandford Fleming College, Durham College and Loyalist College are all within a short travelling distance for possible student projects or assignments. Review the Colleges or University calendar for courses being offered relating to restoration or trail recreation, for example, any environmental type course or program would be interested in restoration work. Call the institution, ask to speak to the Program Coordinator, enquiry as to the possibility for assignments, placement or project practicums in the Ganaraska Forest. You must be clear as to what your needs are providing clear objectives. Remember this is a partnership. The College or University are in the business of education. There must be a mutual benefit, in this case a significant learning experience. Thus, planting trees for three days is not a significant, but planting trees for one day, building trail for one day and constructing an barrier to minimize off trail use would be educational. Do not expect alot of work to be accomplished. Remember students are learning. For example, at Sir Sandford Fleming College, the course Trail Design and Construction is taught by three faculty members at different times of the year. The course is part of the Parks and Forest Recreation Program. By speaking to the Program Coordinator he/she can tell you who is teaching this course. When it is being offered to students (fall, winter, summer). Generally, the Program Coordinator will refer you to the faculty member teaching the trails course about any possibilities for student work or projects. Depending upon the faculty member there may or may not be significant hands on component to the course. It is best to arrange a meeting with the faculty member and sell your plan. Remember it is a partnership. The faculty member will be interested in knowing how the project would relate to his/her course, what will the students learn, cost (busing, materials etc.) and what will the organizations do to prepare for this learning experience ( e.g. ensure supplies are on site) . If the faculty member can accommodate this

15

work experience it would be included in the students course outline. Contact with the individual faculty member should be done for the fall semester by late August or first week of September, early November for winter semester and Februaxy for the spring/summer semester. In the charts titled Sir Sandford Fleming College- School of Natural Resources and Sutherland Campus, names of Program Coordinators are provided with suggested trail and restoration related courses offered.

Special Interest Groups

It is primarily this group- the trail user that will provide the action and results of any restoration plan. Each stakeholder group has their own reason to be involved in the restoration of the trail or site. Based upon the philosophy of partnership a cooperative approach is needed. 1bis means a restoration project involves ALL users groups working together, at the same time, at the same site for the benefit of their self interest and the environment.

The following are a list of possible groups:

Hikers- Ganaraska Wilderness Organization, Equestrians, Motorcycle Club- Enduro, Cycling Ontario- Mountain Biking Clubs, Cross Country Ski Clubs, Snowmobile Clubs Friends of Ganaraska Forest, Outdoor Adventure Businesses - those that use the forest e.g. mountain biking, Hunters and Anglers, Naturalists clubs, boy scouts and girl guides

The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers is a organization who packages and sells work holidays for individuals from Great Britain. Hike Ontario has been veiy succes:ful in organizing opportunities in Ontario for work on specific hiking trails. The type of work being proposed in the restoration plan meets the requirements for the BTCV.For more infonnation contact Hke Ontario in Toronto and ask for Jill Leslie.

Influential Individuals

In any field, there are individuals whose leadership, experience, skills, or special knowledge make them influential. These individuals may or may not be associated with clubs, orgarrizations, or government agencies. Influential individuals may include guidebook authors, journalists, and trail activists.

Governments

Federal and Provincial governments provide "special" employment programs- a well prepared restoration project may be successful in receiving funding. The need to have government contacts who are involved with grants, in different ministries such as Human Resources Canada, Ministiy of Natural Resources, Ministry of Tourism and Economic Development, is important. Contact by calling the provincial or regional offices of these government ministries to find the right "person" for the Ganaraska area.

Municipal government bodies have elected representatives and staff members, particularly those involved in recreation and parks that could provide in-kind support or financial suppo11

16

PROGRAM

Parks and Forest Recreation

Forestry

Cartography

Geographical Information System

Ecosystems Management

Natural Resouces Law

Terrain and Water Resources

Sir Sandford Fleming College School of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 8000 Lindsay, Ontario

K9V 5E6

Telephone: 705-324-9144 Fax:705-878-9312

CONTACT PERSON Related Trails and · Restoration courses

Neil Steffler Trail Design/Construction Placement Opportunities

Gerald Guenkel Reforestation planning . Student Projects

Steve Pelletier Maps Student Projects

I

GIS Applications Ibrahim El Shayal Data Collection

Student Projects

Restoration Courses Helene Savard Student Projects

Placement Opportunities

Bob Johnson Placement Opportunities

Restoration courses Jim Adam Student Projects

Placement Opportunities

17

PROGRAM

Law & Security Administration-Police Education

Sir Sandford Fleming College Sutherland Campus

Brealey Drive Peterborough, Ontario

· K9J 781

Telephone: 705-749-5546 Fax: 705-7 49-5540

CONTACT PERSON-·, Related Trails and Restoration courses

Legislation Randy Knapp Courses

Placement Opportunities

)

18

I

for some to trail related recreation activities that benefits their particular area Again, if a partnership is to be developed what will be the mutual benefits?

Skillful restoration is necessary if trail conditions are to satisfy user expectations whilst maintaining the quality of the recreational environment.

The following organizations may also be able to provide information­

Natural Heritage Information Centre POBox7000 Peterborough Ontario K.9J8M5

Essex Region Conservation Authority 3 80 Fairview A venue West Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6

Society for Ecological Restoration, Ontario Chapter · POBox93 Schomburg, Ontario LOG ITO

Restoration Sites

The following are a list of trails/ sites and contacts for restoration projects that would offer applicable woodland/ open space restoration techniques:

• Pit and Quany Site- located Halimond Township, one mile north of Centreton, on west side of road near Northumberland Forest. This sand /gravel site was denuded of any vegetation with relatively steep slopes. In 1996 the owner rehabilitated the site with amazing results in one yem·. Contact Bill Atkinson, Pits and Quarries Inspector, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario 705-755-2000 for more information.

• Highways - the expanded construction of Highway 401 by Rouge River area east side of Toronto provides a example as to how to install retaining walls and vegetation to stabilize a steep slope. Although the cost is high and the soil type is different. The techniques used to restore this area would be similar. Contact the Ontario Ministry of Transportation Roadside Vegetation Management Unit 1201 Wilson A venue, Downsview Ontario­telephone 416-235-3652 ask for technical advice regarding restoration of sandy/gravel type of sites.

• Conservation Authorities- Halton Region- Plantations- project to restore a natural mixed deciduous component with the major objective to improve species diversity in the plantations through thinning and gap creation. Contact Brenda Axon.

• Ontario Hydro- Toronto Main Office- extensive slope stabilization/valley slope restoration projects on the banks of the Don River, near Linkwood Lane. Contact David Smith.

19

• Snowden Park and Head Lake Park Haliburton- designed recreational trail and constructed trail by SSFC students. Contact Al MacPherson, Professor SSFC, 705-324-9144

• Kirk.field and Dr George Hall Public Schools- designed school yard trails. Contact Al MacPherson, Professor SSFC, 705-324-9144

• Balsam Lake Provincial Park- restoration of damaged areas on existing lookout nature trail and construction of a bridge. Contact Bill Elliot Park Superintendent, 705 454-3324

• Ganaraska Wilderness Hiking trail- re-routing of trail, brushing and bridge construction. Contact Al MacPherson, Professor SSFC, 705-324-9144

• Eastern Ontario Model Forest, several demonstration sites, forests, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Eric Boysen. Call 613-730-5968.

• University of Guelph Arboretum, forests, meadows, on-site nursery relevant planting stock for specific sites. Call 519-824-4120

20

References

Alberta Recreation and Parks. 1989. Recreation Trails manual. Edmonton, Alberta 44pp.

Albrecht, J. and Knopp T.B. 1984. Trail Planning Construction, and Maintenance: a Bibliography. University of Minnesota: St. Paul, USA. 67pp.

Appalachian Mountain Club. 1981. Trail Building and Maintenance, 2nd ed. Appalachian Mountain Club and National Parks Service National Trails Program. ·

Atkinson, Bill. 1997. Pits and Quarries Inspector, Personal Communication, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. July, 1997.

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. 1993. Natural Break Conservation Holidays. Brochure, BTCV. London England.

Chilman,K.C., James J. Vogel and Jerry L. Conley. 1991. Turkey Bay Off-Road Vehicle Area at Land Between The Lakes: monitoring Use and Impacts since 1973. Research Report. Tennessee Valley Authority. Golden Pond, Kentucky. 36pp.

Clark, Roger n. 1980. Research Roles and Priorities for Effective Management of Off-Road Recreation Vehicles. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Wildland Recreation Research Project. Seattle Washington. p.245-258.

Cole, D. 1986. Resource impacts caused bv recreation. President's Commission on American~ Outdoors. US Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. p.1-12.

Daigle Jean-Marc and Donna Havinga 1996. Restoring Nature's Place: A Naturalization Program for Ontario Parks and Greenspace. Ontario Parks Association. Toronto Ontario.

Ford, Victor and Allen MacPherson. 1996. Design .Signage and Maintenance Guidelines­Waterfront Trail. Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Toronto, Ontario.

Lucas, Robert C. 1987. Proceedings-national wilderness conference: issues. state-of­knowledge, future directions. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO. pp.369.

Macdonald, Stuart H. 1992. State Recreational Trails Master Plan. Colorado State Parks. Denver Colorado. 58pp.

MacPherson, Allen. 1997. Recreational Trails in Ontario: Historical Development and Policv Options. Master Thesis, Geography Department: Trent University, Peterborough Ontario.

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1993. Trail Planning and Design Guidelines Manual: Field Operations, Toronto, Ontario.

National Park Service. n.d .. Mountain Trails Management: an Outline. Volume 2. Technical Infonnation Center. Denver Service Centre. Colorado. p.9-14.

21

I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1994. Vascular Plant Checklist- 3 test plots -Ganaraska Forest .. Ecological Land Classification. London, Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 1993. Tree Shrnb and Wildflower Planting Program, Vegetation Management and Control Program. Maintenance Office, Downsview Ontario.

Parks Canada. 1978. Trail Manual. Heritage Branch. Ministiy ofEnvironrnent. Ottawa.

Penwell, Robert. 1997. Forester, Personal Communication, Ministiy of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. April 1997.

Stankey, G. and R. Manning. 1986. Carrying Capacity of recreation settings. President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. p.47-58.

Waterfront Regeneration Trust. 1994. Ecological Restoration Opportunities for the Lake Ontario Greenway. Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Ltd, Gore and Storrie Ltd and Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Trust. 153pp.

Waterfront Regeneration Trust. 1995. Restoring Natural Habitats: A manual for Habitat Restoration in the Greater Toronto Bioregion. Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Ltd, Gore and Storrie Ltd and Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Trust. 179pp.

22

{

/

---·-·-·----·-... , _______ , __ ,. _____ .. - .. -e. ..... a-1.~-.L"'".---1.

MAINTENANCE TASK SCHEDULE

The following chart identifies the main trail maintenance considerations and indicates what season maintenance would occur. The accented season code indicates the season or seasons in which the task should be performed while the other seasons listed indicate that the tasks should continue but on a more' moderate scale.

SP~ Spring SU- Summer

Surface Treatment

F -Fall W-Wmter

. I Rake ·and regrade gravel, surface soil, or chipped· , mulch on trails as needed. Pick axe and shovel may be helpful with this work. Compact all fill areas. The trail surface should be maintained relatively uniform and even .

. 2 Resurface with gravel as needed. Fill low spots and bare spots .

.3 Trails with wooden decking should be monitored for damage to the support members and to the decking. Broken or rotting wood should be replaced ·immediately.

. 4 For winter grooming of walk:ing trails, cross country, or snowmobile use a snow machine with a grooming attachment.

Erosion

.1 Monitor trails for erosion damage. Fill channels . eroded through trails with appropriate material and compact. Erosion alongside trails should be fille~ compact~ seeded with an appropriate natural species and covered with hay. Serious damage should be given prompt attention while diverting trail traffic for safety reasons.

.2 Reshape or redirect drainage channels to avoid run off damage.

.3 Clear culverts under trails to avoid clogging and flooding

SP SU F

SP

SP SU

SP SU F

SP SU F

SP SU F

F

F w

w

F SU

F SU

F SU

f

Litter Removal

. i Ensure that garbage left along the trails by users or blown in from adjacent roadways is picked up on a regular basis. Garbage checks should be made every

· four days in remote areas and daily in high use areas. Bottles and tin cans should be separated from other

~f ~ garbage items and saved for recycling. If excess litter ... ,. becomes a problem, ensure that garbage cans are -· :~

,,.;.:. ~-·

/ -~.--.

strategically placed. Check garbage cans regularly according to use intensity, empty when close to full, and replace plastic garbage bags .

. 2 Garbage cans should be cleaned and sanitized yearly in Fall or Spring.

Mowlng, Weeding, Clipping

.1 Mow or prune natural vegetation on either side of path with a regularity and degree of maintenance consistent _vfith the established maintenance objectives .

. 2 Trails require sensitive vegetation control on a semi­regular basis to ensure the path is not crowded or blocked while maintaining natural character along the path edge. Use a hand swing weeder or power line trimmer.

.3 Encourage healthy grass ·growth with where possible aeration and natural fertilizer in accordance to established maintenance objectives.

SP SU

SP F

F w

F w

SP SP SU SU F F

SU

SP

. · .. ·.-.

... . . ~ . ~: ~

.··;

.· .. -.-:.. '.\: ~ f:·-:··.-.:·~1

I

. ~ ......... __ .. ___ .,._, ___ ...,,., _____ , _______ ,µ __ --2 .... ,-,.,., ___ .... __ i@...,_4•.;w-=-.. Jif!

Pruning ,.

.1 Major limbs or trees adjacent to the trail which are in poor condition should be removed with use of a handsaw or chain saw. Branches, limbs, and any other debris should be removed entirely or in the case of natural trails, ~ey should be piled to encourage wildlife use but out of sight from the trail .

. 2 Using pruners or lopers, prune back branches leaning into the trail R.O.W. and prune off at ground level any woody sapling growth in the RO.W. Use standard nursery practices, especially cutting branches off flush at the main stem or tronk.

New Plant Material

.2 Newly planted areas should be fertilized on a regular basis. Use a natural component when possible. (eg. manure, humus, etc.)

.3 Water newly planted areas and prepare for winter.

"Windfalls

.1 Monitor trails for fallen trees, limbs, and debris and coordinate their removal as soon as possible .

. 2 If material cannot be cleared immediately, eliminate dangerous hanging branches and trunks or "leaners". Cut a path thrpugh fallen tree debris to allow user through-fare. Extra debris in the RO.W. may be cleaned up at a later date. Tree trunks which have fallen over pedestrian trails may be left to deter vehicular traffic if it is not too difficult for pedestrians to cross. Redirect trail users during the clearance process or close the trail to ensure user safety.

SP SU F

SU F

SP SU

F

SP SU F

SP SU F

F w

SU w

SP SU

F

F w

F w

, , Mer ,u· v,rlrdT He rre:ar:e ·

z z Ill 0 Ill 0 Cf.) Cf.)

=r ~ f/l Cf.)

::> <

ii I Jll

(:; Cf.)

- -~-~ f2

.3 Remove debris entirely in manicured areas. In natural areas (woodlot), the trunk and_ debris may be left to encourage wildlife but it should be deposited out of SP F site from the trail. Insure the trail is returned to its SU w intended condition. This many involve repairs to the F trail surface.

Structures . I . Inspect all structures for safety and stability. This SP F

.• = ,, .. 7~ ,;; ,;;~ . :•···-. -·

includes washroom facilities, railings, stairways, SU w benches, and bridges. A major inspection should be F carried out on a yearly basis but a monthly check is also useful in preventing major damage or accident.

- . - ~

-_:._.: "!

.2 Replace broken or damaged parts immediately, SP F particularly if user safety is involved. Close bridges SU w and redirect traffic until major repairs are completed. · F

.3 Repair vandalism as soon as possible after it is SP F discovered to prevent the instigation of recurrent SU w vandalism. F

.4 Inspect culvert and bridge openings for obstructions SP F such as logs and other debris which might jam and SU w cause flooding . F

. 5 Maintain a refinishing schedule for trail amenities to SP F keep the structures looking in good condition. Paint or F SP stain over graffiti damage as soon as possible.

Signage SP SP /· .. "'·-_·.-~- ~. ~~-: ,,.

-.. - -. ~

SU SU . I Check to make sure that signs have not been F F

,.::.! I removed or repositioned. Replace missing signs as soon w w

as nossible even if a temoorarv shm is reauired. SP SP

.2 Replace or repair damaged signs as soon as possible SU SU to maintain trail quality and direction. F F

w ·ur .3 Evaluate sigriage on a regular, yearly basis to SP s maintain finish and message quality. Repaint or stain s

' F

as necessary.

: ·· .. . ···.:.:·,

. ::)~/\J

:· -·.-~ ..

/•, ,·. :·.· >;.:~/~ -

. 4 Straighten and secure _posts. ·

Install seaso~ signs with appropriate sign posts and remove them promptly when their message is no longer appropriate or necessary.

·,eeu, •• ··-··"·· -·· ......... ----. ......,_ ... ________ _

SP SU F

F w