Category Archives: Updates

Weeks 10-13 Reflection

 

As we have progressed through our project we have worked with Ken Day and Cathy Koot to clearly outline the main objectives of our land use assessment and management plan. Below we have outlined our most up to date list of goals.

 

Summary of the project

Objective: to create trail maps and a written report of recommendations.

 

Consolidate recreational features in ArcMap into one recreation layer totally up to date:

These include:

1. A)  Bike trails, officially listed under BC Rec Sites and Trails
2. B) Bike trails, formerly BC Rec Sites and Trails, but removed from that official layer but typically still used by the public because they’re obvious on the ground
3. C) Bike trails, known to some members of the WL Bike Club but that are not part of the BC Rec Sites and Trails
4. D) Buffered trails
5. E)  Rock climbing sites

 

Major components of the proposed plan

 

Task 1: Map bike trails and other recreational trails

Create a recommendation on how to handle inaccurate portrayal of trails/excessive quantity of different variations and produce map

Using GIS create one layer for all trails (biking, hiking, etc), then classify them into different status (official, unsanctioned, used to be official)

 

Task 2: Communicate to trail users where the “closed” trails are located

Create a recommendation for what the AFRF should do to avoid continuing to add difficult to manage trails to the inventory

Find a solution to communicate trail closure to forest users

 

Task 3: Recommendations for forest management activities  

Create a series of access points (one for ATVs, one for logging, mountain bikes, etc) that will be permitted in order to minimize negative interactions.

 

Task 4: Cows versus bike trails access
Create a coherent plan for the rancher and the cyclists on interaction between the cattle and the bike trails by posting signs

Task 5: Bike trails and forest roads recommendations  

Create a recommendation to outline how bike trails and forest roads interact

Speak to stakeholders with the objective of establishing a Standard Operating Procedure for WLCF road junctions with bike trails

 

Task 6:  Create a recommendation for methods for contractors

Create cohesive signage alerting contractors to the presence of trails

 

Task 7: Document trail interaction in SOP

Document specific practices in a Standard Operating Procedure format so that bikers and the WLCF agree on with regard to skid trail crossings, e.g. approach, spatial frequency etc.

 

Task 8: Map climbing wall and parking lot, create climbing wall management recommendation

Map the general area around the climbing wall and find out who manages individual aspects of the area

 

Initial Data Gathered

The information we have currently includes different GIS layers from WLCF, which contained information such as; known official bike trails, proposed fences for herding, areas of old growth forests, etc. Many of them would not be directly necessary for our project and hence we will be focusing mostly on the first two we have identified.

The Flat Rock Block of the Williams Lake Community Forest will require a new access management plan that will be followed by all the stakeholders without compromising safety or accessibility for any individuals or groups. Previously unclaimed, the area had been developed and used many in different ways. It has been been used for community recreation as well as for livelihood purposes (ex: Bill Stafford- cattle rancher, logging and wood processing). The discrepancy between official data on bike trails versus commonly used trails, along with non active trails, and many other categories proved to be an immediate concern. Biking activities often overlap with herding, which creates a source of tension. As the purpose of the community forest is to eventually gather revenue to be invested back into infrastructure around the area, it is important to identify which and where the development should take place in order to avoid compromising the safety of recreational users. Some development plans include building of roads and ditches, which might create access for ATVs into bike trails, which could potentially destroy these trails. Furthermore, the construction of ditches would ideally avoid safety hazards for mountain bikers. Hence, our focus on this access management plan is to first consolidate information on the various trails taken by mountain bikers.

 

We also have access to data taken from a mobile app on trails commonly taken by bikers. We are currently working on transferring these data over to a new layer to later consolidate it in regards to Task 1.

 

After consulting other case studies of community forest management especially in regards to managing diverse trails in regards to safety, we would come up with a draft recommendation on some of the possibility to communicate these information effectively and present it to our stakeholder up at Williams Lake. Specifically we will be talking to Kurt Williams and Mark Savard, who are both key contacts for information regarding maps and biking culture.

 

In identifying these task, we understand that most of our information would have to be gathered while we are at Williams Lake, hence we are focusing week 13 on scheduling meetings with our stakeholders, keeping in mind our time constraints. We will split up tasks in advance and would have a flexible schedule with identified tasks.

 

To work on our access management plan when we visit Williams Lake, we will be speaking to different members on the Williams Lake Community Forest Board, the bike shop, visiting the Williams Lake Community Forest and climbing wall to make management recommendations.We will also be working to consolidate and confirm information that we already have. We will be bringing up our draft access management plan with our draft recommendations, maps and report, to consult with the board members and community. As we start to organize our week in Williams Lake we have begun outlining a schedule for ourselves so that it is possible for us to meet with each of the stakeholders and participants whose views are relevant. Logistically, this could become a challenge. While not particularly pressing, we do have a lot of individuals and groups to meet with and each has a specific schedule they have already predetermined while we only have a limited amount of time and a limited capacity. To mitigate any such problems we have discussed potentially splitting up. Donna is the GIS expert so she may spend more time working one on one with Ken Day to discuss the specific trail maps. The other three may spend time speaking directly with the stakeholders they have been communicating with over the course of the project.
Additionally, throughout the entirety of the course we, as everyone else has, have been communicating with a wide variety of people with different schedules and needs within their individual workplaces. To maintain a coherent path of communication we have maneuvered within our group and within our community partner who we speak to about which specific problems and sections of the report. Additionally, as time has passed we have become more aware of how we work together as a group and which members specialize in certain parts of the research process.

Week 8:
As suggested by Leo, we met with Dr. Loch Brown to ask for feedback on our theoretical framework. With Loch’s expertise in environmental assessment, we hoped talking to him will guide our research to include an environmental approach as well. As in Loch’s own research where he had participants draw maps of areas to their knowledge, he suggested this tool could be applied similarly in our own research, specifically in the area of research regarding mountain biking trails. With available technology and apps such as, TrailFork, mountain bikers who use trails in the community forest can gather data on trails they take which we can then convert to use in our mapping with GIS. As mentioned by our stakeholders, the data of unofficial trails and official trails taken by mountain bikers will be a priority for us to map in our access management plan. With the data, we can provide the community with the updated version of trails and make recommendations for safety regulations and maintenance.

Loch also suggested we consider the trade-off analysis of the land uses and stakeholders in the community forest. With this framework, areas of the community forest can be mapped in priority and can help with visually displaying the areas that have tenure conflicts or need to be conserved. Additionally, Loch suggested we could also look at research between the relationship of agriculture and recreational uses of trails.

Week 9:
In our first meeting with Ken Day, the manager of the community forest, we felt it was extremely productive in clarifying and negotiating the outcomes of our project. Together with Ken, we looked over a long list of issues the community forest faces and problems we could tackle. Prior to this meeting, we had felt we could not take on all the issues. With Ken, we discussed our abilities and strengths as well as the priorities of the community forest. While this meeting and discussion of expectations and goals should have been held earlier, it was extremely beneficial for us at this stage to clarify our focus. Moving forward, we will continue to work on mapping trails and roads of the community forest as well as negotiating safety regulations and concerns of the community and stakeholders.

We also spoke to Tom Foley, a member on the Board of Directors as well as Henry Doucette, a member on the Standing Committee. Tom, who is appointed by the city of Williams Lake, holds responsibilities in the business area of the community forest. Henry is a resident in the area close to Flat Rock, the area of our focus, who holds water rights to his property for farming and residential use. He and other neighbors like him have not experienced any conflicts in the recreational uses of the community forest. However, he shared that the cattle rancher whose cattle tenure extends across the entire community forest has more conflicts with the recreational uses of trails in the forest. For Henry and his neighbors, their main concern is the unregulated maintenance of roads, specifically Frizzi Road, and the safety of its use. This has caused uproar with the community because Frizzi Road is the main road which residents take to get to the city but the government has not taken any actions to maintain it. Instead, residents including Henry has taken responsibilities to clear the road themselves. The city has also closed the road without proper communication with the residents.

We have also worked on the methodology and tools of our research this week.

 

Between weeks 4 to 6, our group has begun gathering data that will help us answer our research question. The questions that are guiding our research are:

• Which are the overlapping tenures and uses of the community forest?
• How can we create a working access management plan that mitigates conflicts in the uses of stakeholders while also conserving the natural resources of the forest?

—-

Stakeholder Analysis
We have identified the different stakeholders of the community forest and have been introduced to them by our community contact, Cathy. We will be emailing and skyping with each of these stakeholders individually and interviewing them with questions including their values and uses the community forest, the conflicts they have encountered with other stakeholders, and the concerns they have with the management of the forest. During our visit to Williams Lake, we have considered hosting focus groups with different groups to create conversations in a more informal and comfortable way. A list of stakeholders we have identified include, but are not limited to:

• Board of Directors (including representatives of the government and the Alex Fraser Research Forest)
• Standing Committee (including representatives of the Indian band and community members from surrounding regions)
• Mountain bikers and clubs
• Bill Stafford and cattle ranching
• Foresters and Woodlots
• Participants of general recreation (including hiking/rock climbing/mudbogging/ATVs)

Our research has presented us with the challenge of considering all these different stakeholders. To organize our information in an orderly and readable way, we hope to use tools of mapping and stakeholder analysis to help visualize the data we will gather.

 Additionally, we have been kindly offered the opportunity by a member on the board of directors who will be guiding us to do some field work in the community forest. This will give us an opportunity to engage in some participant observations and understand the community forest environment in a more visceral way.

—-

Meetings
In our meeting with Iain, a student from last year’s course, we learned from Iain’s expertise and experience in mountain biking. He helped us identify some of the issues that mountain bikers were inflicting upon the community forest that other important stakeholders felt were disruptive. Iain put us in contact with Mark at Red Shreds, a mountain bike shop in Williams Lake. Since this meeting, we have also requested to speak with someone at the Varsity Outdoors Club who is knowledgably about mountain biking in Williams Lake.

Iain spoke of the problems ATVS were causing on trails and streams. This is a sustainability issue that is a concern will be look into addressing. Iain had many ideas to help us problem solve the conflicts with trail use, such as putting boulders at trail heads so ATVs and the owners’ pickup trucks cannot move the boulders. Another viable option he suggested would be to put in maze gates that would prevent ATVs from accessing the trails. Previous to our meeting, we were unaware of the significance the damage recreational users are creating in forest. We currently do not have any resources or contacts that can provide us with more information about the attitudes in the recreational uses of ATVs.
Iain also provided us with a background on what has been done before to control the forest use, such as volunteers patrolling, where young adults patrol and area and educate users about the importance of responsible usage. However, that effort has been given up as the area is too large to patrol. He suggested instead, perhaps surveillance cameras can be put up. Iain also gave us the names of bike shops, and suggested we talk to people in Vancouver about mountain bike trails. We have requested if someone from the Varsity Outdoors Club, that has mountain biked at Williams Lake can talk to us.

—–

We have been in contact with Jennifer, the executive director of the BC Community Forest Association. We initially requested for examples of other community forest who have undergone a similar process of creating a working access management plan but Jennifer did not have any in her archives. However, she will be putting a word out in the monthly newsletter which will be received and read by other community managers across British Columbia who may be willing to share their working plan.