This post is a reworking of a letter that was recently submitted to the TRCA and the EDH Stewardship Executive subcommittee by the DMBA. The management zones discussed below are the same ones that are for discussion at the Open House on June 24th.

On April 22, 2010 the TRCA brought forth a Draft Management Zones Discussion Paper and requested feedback from the Executive Subcommittee, the Tracks subcommittee and other subcommittees. This letter speaks to several items that arise from the Discussion Paper: the need to rely on quality research; the approach of trail equilibrium; specific impacts to user circulation and trail system efficiency; and moving forward on our recommendations.

The Need to Rely on Quality Research

The TRCA proposes six management zones:

1. Nature Reserve Category 1
2. Nature Reserve Category 2
3. Natural Environment Category 1
4. Natural Environment Category 2
5. Restoration, and
6. Public Use

These are the management zones that have been used in other plans within TRCA jurisdiction, with the addition of sub-categories for the nature reserve and natural environment zones. These zones place an emphasis on preserving, or improving the biodiversity within each zone. These zones will govern, among other things, where trails will go, and in what density. It is in the application of these zones, and one criterion in particular where the shortcomings of this approach become apparent.

Let us first address the criterion mentioned in the previous paragraph. The Discussion Paper makes reference to an internal trail density study conducted in the summer of 2009. The study looked at a number of different aspects of trail density, but only one piece of information was deemed relevant; that when trail density exceeds 120m/ha biodiversity is generally seen to decline.

For a regularly shaped hectare (by which I mean square in shape) a density of 120m/ha does not allow for a trail to cross the entire hectare, unless it runs across a corner. In this particular instance the trail would make a triangle 84m on each side, and 120m across the hypotenuse. This miniscule penetration causes the trail density to rise enough that the degradation of biodiversity is sufficient for the TRCA to want to use this metric as a planning tool. The 120m/ha metric essentially means that if you have a trail on the ground it effects the environment of the land it runs through. This was already known in the literature and well understood. This metric contributes very little to the current understanding of trail impacts.

It is laudable that the TRCA wishes to use objective measures to address the impacts of trails on their properties. It is also encouraging that it relies on scientific research, rather than rules of thumb, to find those measures. However it is not appropriate for a public body to rely on internally conducted studies that have not been publicly published or peer reviewed. The 120m/ha metric may very well be causative, or it may be merely a correlation (however strong), which it is can’t be determined until further study is conducted. It may be the intent of the TRCA to eventually publish the results of the Trail Ecology Study, but until that is done, and the results can be reviewed and commented on by others in the field it is premature to use the results of the findings to guide management decisions. There is good research that has been publicly published and reviewed that the TRCA should incorporate into its planning decisions. Some of the more recent literature reviews are:

• Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science Review and Best Practices, Marion and Wimpey, 2007, http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html
• Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects, Quinn & Chernoff, Miistakis Institute 2010, Prepared for Parks Canada
• Comparing Hiking, Mountain Biking, and Horse Riding Impacts on Vegetation and Soils in Australia and the United States of America, Pickering, et. Al. 2010, Journal of Environmental Management.

This research, and the research referenced by it, is being used by land owners and managers such as Parks Canada, the National Forestry Service (USA), the National Parks Service (USA), and the Forestry Commission (Scotland, Wales) to shape their land use and trail policies.

This public research, not internal non-peer reviewed research, is what should be used to shape the trail policies of the TRCA.

Trail Equilibrium

The TRCA has adopted the concept of a “trail equilibrium” in the EDH properties, whereby there is no new trail built unless an equivalent, or greater, distance of trail is closed. This applies regardless of whether the trail is completely new or is a reroute/repair to an existing degraded section of trail.

Thus far this approach has worked well, but until this point all trail work within the EDH property has been to repair degraded trails and provide reroutes for trails that have been closed permanently. Until now there has not been an indication from the TRCA that they wish to decommission certain trails permanently without any alternative routing provided.

It is our hope that the TRCA will honour the full intent of the trail equilibrium concept and allow the length of trail closed as a result of the application of the management zones as a credit towards future trail work. This could include longer than minimally necessary reroutes, more extensive repairs and even new connectors between existing sections of trail. The overall intent of this would be to improve the user experience on the trails within EDH while still respecting the trail equilibrium philosophy.

Specific Impacts to User Circulation and Trail System Efficiency

There are a number of specific impacts to the use, particularly mountain bike use, of the EDH trail system that will result from the proposed management zones and associated trail closures.

1) TJ’s Way, Lady Di’s Memorial, Bobsled Run and “The Labyrinth”. The most significant issue is the proposed closure of the section of single track between posts 21 and 20, known to the cycling community as Upper TJ’s Way or Lady Di’s Memorial. These comments also include the single track between posts 17, 18, 19, and 20. The original proposal was to close Lady Di’s Memorial, and the connectors to the East (towards “The Spire” and the Bobsled Run) and the West back to the Trans-Canada Trail (TCT). This would significantly impact the North-South flow of mountain biking traffic. The “typical” mountain biking route on the property includes the entire length of TJ’s Way, including Lady Di’s Memorial between the intersection to the West of post 22, post 21, post 20 and the connection from post 20 West to the TCT. Closing this section would provide two less than ideal options:

i. Riders could use the lower half of TJ’s Way and then continue along the TCT at post 21. This removes a significant amount of singletrack.

ii. Riders could use the Fishing Club Trail (post 22 to 19) to get to the Bobsled Run. This trail is not as advanced as TJ’s Way and provides a different experience for the rider.

The updated proposal instead closes the Bobsled Run, and the connectors to The Spire, (The Labyrinth). This route, while not as widely used, is still very popular particularly by riders who are more fit and/or looking for a longer ride. As the season progresses most riders’ fitness increases and you find more traffic on this longer optional route. Once they reach post 20, rather than incorporating the TCT to the West, they include in their loop the new Easterly trail at post 20 and connect with the Bobsled Run and the Chalk Lake Road allowance before reconnecting with TCT either at post 16 or to the West of post 15. No trail usage numbers exist for how many riders take which route at any given point of the season. That would be a useful breakdown to have to more accurately judge the extent of the impact on mountain biker circulation these changes would create.

It is understandable that the TRCA would like to remove trails from this highly desirable section of land, however these are not new trails, they have been in existence for 20+ years. Yet still the habitat surrounding them is some of the best in Glen Major, if not the whole of EDH. Public research (as detailed in the literature surveys mentioned above) has established that for a wide variety of soils and vegetation responses impacts follow a curvilinear distribution. The majority of the impact is when a trail is first developed or constructed. The fact that the surrounding area is still a highly desirable habitat, speaks to this fact. No further significant impact is occurring. Users are staying on the trail, and the environment is maintaining its high quality despite existing use.

Many of these trails are in a state of degradation that will need to be addressed at some point in the future, some sooner than others. Because of the location of these trails in a Nature Reserve Category 1 zone there may be some hesitation to allow for the improvement of these trails. However it should be pointed out that using sustainable techniques the trail improvements could be designed and built to withstand multiple decades of use with little to no degradation, lowering the need of ongoing maintenance considerably. Still, during the initial work and the first season of use the impact would be large. Fortunately due to the curvilinear use-impact relationship the greatest proportion of ecological impact would occur during construction and the first season of use.

We recommend:

• Keeping both routes (TJ’s Way (21 South), Lady Di’s Memorial (20-21), Bobsled Run (19-18-17)) open and closing the “internal” routes (southwest of 18) that connect to The Spire (aka The Labyrinth);
• Thoroughly evaluating the sustainability and degradation of the trails that will remain open;
• Determine a series of reroutes and repairs to sections identified in the previous evaluation as needing remediation.

2) TCT Entry into EDH from Pickering-Uxbridge Townline. There is a suggestion to close the single track between posts 30, 29 and most of the way to 34, and reroute the TCT more directly South from post 34 rather than take the bend to the West. This is a relatively infrequently used trail and runs through an ephemeral stream. However the current proposed reroute has shortcomings. It is too steep coming off the side slope South of post 34 (violating some well known trail building rules), and it runs through a low-lying area that is the exit of the ephemeral stream mentioned previously.

We recommend the closure as it is presented, but the proposed reroute should be revisited to ensure that it is sustainable into the future.

3) The Beetle Trail near post 28. There has been a suggestion made and incorporated into the latest proposal to close a small section of single track near post 28. Rather than crossing through the Nature Reserve Category 1, it should be closed and two connectors opened to send the flow of traffic to the Pickering-Uxbridge Townline road allowance instead. This particular suggestion touches on an area that has a number of other issues:

• The trail between post 28 and 24 travels through a wet area that is one of the origins of the East Duffins Creek.
• The trail between post 28 and post 24 also travels through wet areas and is adjacent to a wetland.
• The Western branch of the junction of these two trails near post 28 has deteriorated very badly and now presents a potential hazard to trail users heading Southbound.

Potential solutions have been discussed with the TRCA in the past, and those discussion have not progressed very far as they all involve more extensive work than the TRCA was willing to undertake at the time. The proposed small closure and reroute does not address the larger issues that exist in this area.

We recommend that the small section of trail remain open and a more comprehensive solution to the broader issues in this area be developed.

4) Wilder Lands. As a rather new acquisition in the EDH properties, and not yet open to the public, the trail system on this property is not well used by the mountain biking community. The current understanding is:

• There is a significant amount of fall-line trail and trail that uses draws and low areas. This is typical of socially constructed trails and in general is unsustainable over the long run.
• The closed trails would not be taken into consideration in the trail equilibrium concept as this property has yet to be used by the public in any official capacity.
• There is no plan to construct a parking lot to access the Wilder property in a direct fashion; users will have to park at the existing parking lots (Timbers Pit, or Albright Road) and make their way to Wilder via the trail system or on 6^th Concession. This distance from the main parking lots makes it an ideal destination for more advanced users who typically have the higher level of fitness required to reach a destination further away.

The current proposal suggests closing much of the existing trail, particularly to the West and North sides of the property. This has raised some concern with abutting land owners who would like to have access to the property without having to use the 6^thConcession to gain access. There has been a suggestion that a small trail to allow local land owners more direct access should be created as it is highly likely that these land owners will construct renegade trails to connect with the Wilder Trail system. Building an official trail of this nature would make sense as it could be constructed in an appropriate location and to sustainable standards.

We recommend:

• That the closed trails should be taken into consideration with the trail equilibrium concept, as the distance closed could be used in the future for overall improvement to the trail system in Wilder;
• That the trails in Wilder be developed to provide an experience tailored to more advanced users;
• Building a connecting trail for the local land owners to gain legitimate access to the Wilder property.

5) Dagmar North. Dagmar has been off limits to the public for six years. However, during all that time the TRCA has indicated that it wished to allow use of the property for the public when the Dagmar Ski Centre was not using it for its Nordic Ski operation. Mike Bender has stated numerous times that he would like to see this property become a destination for mountain bikers, so as to offload some of the volume of use in the EDH core lands. As it stands access to Dagmar North still does not exist. There has been discussion about access from the West near the Pickering-Uxbridge Townline parking lot (aka 3 Rocks) as well as a new possible connection from the North through the recent Skyloft acquisition. There is also the possibility of an access trail off the 7^thConcession, North of the 3 Rocks parking lot near the Glen Major Church. These connections would open up Dagmar, but only to those users who would be willing to undertake quite a trek just to get to Dagmar. This may not accomplish the intent of offloading a significant amount of volume from the EDH core lands. It would primarily be attractive to intermediate and advanced riders with sufficient fitness levels to undertake longer rides. To attract a signification number of riders to this area convenient access needs to be available. The Dagmar Ski Centre parking lot is ideal, but this is not a possibility until 2012 at the earliest.

The former single track trails that existed on the property have been overgrown during 6 season of no use. For all intents and purposes Dagmar North (aside from the double track trails used for the ski operation) is a green field. There have been some claims made that the old trails could be opened up rather quickly and easily - there is little evidence that this is the case. Significant growth in the understory has occurred, and large amounts of deadfall now cover the forest floor. It would take a significant effort to reestablish the 20+km of single track trails that existed before access was lost. Additionally the former trails were not designed to sustainable standards or built with sustainable approaches. If a major effort is to be made in Dagmar North it would be better to start fresh; plan, design and build a world class trail system.

We recommend:

• That multiple access points to Dagmar be established including: to the South-West near 3 Rocks, the West near the Glen Major Church, the North through Skyloft, and the Dagmar Ski Centre parking lot.
• A top-down design of a trail system be undertaken, one that will provide the foundation to establish Dagmar North as a world class trail system.
• Starting discussions with the DMBA and the Dagmar Ski Centre owners about particulars with respect to funding, planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of such a trail system.

6) Skyloft. This piece of land (just East of the Skyloft Ski Resort) was recently acquired and discussion started immediately about including it in the current EDH management plan, including the current discussion about management zones and the implications to existing trails. It is premature for us to provide any detailed commentary on the property as no one in the mountain biking community has had any access to it. There is hope that a connection between the Durham Regional Forest and Dagmar North could be established. Because of the distances involved this connection would primarily attract intermediate and advanced mountain bikers who have the levels of fitness to travel the distance between the two properties as well as the trail system within each property.

We recommend that any connecting corridor between the DRF and Dagmar North incorporate a single track trail that would provide a trail experience appropriate for an advanced mountain biker.

Moving Forward

The TRCA has inherited an extensive trail system on the EDH properties, and the associated task of managing that trail system in light of its conservation mandates. The default approach to trail system planning and management has been to inventory the existing social trails, perform a casual assessment, and after review from interested parties on the EDH stewardship committee adopt the trails as is. While expedient, this approach does not apply the knowledge in the literature or the best practices in the trail building trade.

The TRCA is a large public land owner and should be a leader in trail design and management. It should be striving to apply the best research that exists to management decisions, particularly when they are incorporated into management plans that will be in effect for 10 or more years. It should be adopting the best practices, developed over decades, in trail planning, design, construction, and management. It should be providing the trail experiences that visitors to the EDH properties are looking for.

This will take a commitment of resources; time, people, and money that some might say are not needed and in fact might not be readily available. Fortunately the TRCA can look to organizations such as the DMBA for assistance. The DMBA has been working with the TRCA and has participated as part of the EDH Stewardship committees for over 5 years now. We’ve show that we are committed to working with the TRCA, and will continue to do so. Mountain bikers make up more than 65% of the users visiting the EDH properties. We are by far the largest user constituency on the EDH properties. The DMBA directly represents over 250 of these users, and indirectly, through partnerships, and less formal relationships, close to 1000 mountain bikers. We request that the TRCA carefully consider the recommendations included here and consult with us closely through the final stages of the Management Plan and trail planning processes to ensure the success and effectiveness of both.