Nelson List archive

---

From: "David Beringer" <dberinge@[xxx]>
Subject: [NL] Burlington Northern Trail Meeting packed!
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:48:20 -0700

Ì just attended an open house at Mary Hall about the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Recreational Trail Management Plan... That's quite a mouthful but
it didn't prevent about 150 people from showing up to listen to what Don
Barcham, a consultant hired by the RDCK to gather input and come up with a
management plan, had to say, and also to give their input on what they felt
was important about the trail.

I think it is fair to say that everyone in the room agreed that the former
rail line is an excellent recreational opportunity for Nelson, Ymir, Salmo,
and everywhere in between.

There were some people who pointed out that it is important for more than
just recreational use - wildlife and broader ecosystem values were
eloquently spoken about, as were issues such as: the use of parts of the
right of way for (City of Nelson) water infrastructure (although this would
consist of a buried water main and little else, as I understood it); the
importance of keeping the history of the railway (it was actually the
Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway for much longer than it has been called
BNSF) in the public mind; and the use of the trail to access recreational
opportunities, as opposed to being a destination in itself.

Some user groups had obviously rallied their members to attend. I believe
a past president of the Nelson Nordic Ski Club spoke, as did members of the
Snogoers snowmobile club, and a loose knit group of dirt bikers/ATV riders.
The Nelson Area Trails Society, the citizen group that was instrumental
in getting the Ministry of Highways to purchase the land from BNSF and
whose members put in countless volunteer hours over many years, was also
represented by several knowledgable people.

However, it seemed to me that the majority of people, as far as they
identified themselves, were concerned individuals who use the trail already
and want to see it developed (or not developed) in a certain way. There
were a lot of impassioned pleas for and against motorized use of the trail
(the major topic of debate), but there were also a lot of other points that
bear repeating and considering. I'll endeavor to list what I can remember:

So far, the use of the trail has been remarkably free of conflicts - both
between people and animals, and between various users of the trail. This
concept of "self-policing" was put forth as an example to demonstrate that
most people are respectful and that there are ways to "manage" public
assets without compiling and enforcing a complex set of rules.

There was no mention of any accidents on the trestles, which are certainly
in dire need of some basic repair/upgrading. There were anecdotal
references to close calls with motorized vehicles (especially dirt bikes)
and also mountain bikers, who, judging by the response to a comment
criticizing their behavior, have angered more than a few other trail users
in the past.

Problems of erosion (by water and by trail users - dirt bikes and mountain
bikes) were touched upon. Addressing these seem to me to be one of the
most pressing issues, as there are a few bad spots in the small section
above Nelson that I'm familiar with.

Gord McAdams, speaking as a councillor, but more (I think) from his
experience with solving land use conflicts, reminded everyone that if we
wanted to find ways to disagree with each other, we would be guaranteed to
succeed, but that we would also thereby fail to reach a workable solution
for managing/enjoying the trail in the long term.

Several people with property adjoining the Trail spoke about motorized
vehicle use and people camping in the woods along the track.

There were large maps (about 10) of the trail from Troupe Beach/Junction to
Salmo (where the publically-owned portion ends). There were so many people
wanting to speak that there was no time to really look at them and to write
in comments (as had been intended).

Don Barcham (RDCK consultant) spoke of the issues facing the RDCK in their
managament of the land. RDCK signed an agreement in principal to lease the
land from the MOTH for 20 years and maintain it as a park. The issues are
many. A few: liability, liabililty, liability, construction and
maintenance of facilities (washrooms, parking lots, camp facilities),
overall management objectives.

Well, that's it for the objective report. Now my 2 cents on the issues
(everyone is encouraged to make their views know to the RDCK):

Self policing: A great idea that works best when there is a "second level"
of police as a backup if the need arises. These police officers need to
have laws to enforce, otherwise they can not be effective. I would hope
that noise and nuisance laws would be sufficient in most cases, but I'm not
sure they are.

Facilities: Keep it to a bare minimum. Repair the trestles or replace
them with foot bridges. I know this idea will anger historians, but I
would prefer it to user fees. Perhaps the most outstanding trestle could
be restored and the rest replaced with steel bridges.

I don't see a pressing need for washrooms or parking lots. Let's face it,
the trail is not spectacular, like the Meadows To the Sky Parkway in Mt
Revelstoke National Park. There won't be hordes of tourists stomping along
it anytime soon. It is used mainly by locals for relatively short periods
of time. We know where to park our cars and where we can find bathrooms.
Even if one or two outhouses are set up, for example at mountain station,
that won't ensure that only bears use the woods...

The issue of people camping in the woods is different and would not be
addressed/solved by putting up a few outhouses along the way.

Finally, parking lots are expensive (will winter users want them ploughed
out as well?) to build and I would rather scarce resources be spent on
controlling erosion or protecting the riparian habitat along the Salmo
river.

Lastly, the issue of motorized vehicle use:

No doubt a compromise will have to be reached on this issue. It seems
possible that the current informal arrangement wherin motorized vehicles
are using the Trail from Salmo to Cottonwood Lake and non-motorized users
are enjoying the Cottonwood Lake to Troupe section in peace, may be
formalized. As a Nelsonite who hears the odd snowmobile or dirt bike
screaming along the trail (yes, those polluting 2 strokes scream even if
not being ridden at full throttle) I am opposed to motorized vehicles using
the section above Nelson for that reason alone. But there are many more.

Many dirt bike/snowmobile proponents spoke of their desire to see the
Trail as a "shared" trail open to all members of the public. This sounds
very democratic until you pause to think a bit. A dirt biker is riding a
heavy machine that does more damage to the trail surface than any mountain
bike, merely because of the weight of machine and rider. Speed also plays
a role. What seems slow on a dirt bike is pretty fast if you're pedalling!
(let alone walking) The difference in speed between a cross country skier
or snowshoer and a snowmobiler is also very high.

The exhaust of a motor lingers long after the rider, however courteous to
non-motorized users of the trail, has passed by. Just as the noise
preceeding his/her arrival is often disturbing long before the rider comes
into view. Several people at the meeting spoke of their use of the trail
as a place to get away from the noise and pollution of vehicles. Some
people have breathing difficulties or are very sensitive to pollution.
With the whole city designed to accomodate cars and literally 1000s of km
of forestry roads available to motorized vehicles, where is the larger
"shared use" concept? To clarify: since just about everywhere is available
to motorized vehicles, can not the larger region be "shared" a little
between the people who like to use vehicles to "recreate" and those who
prefer a motor-vehicle free environment? And please don't say there are
lots of parks around. Not everyone can get up into the mountains and the
parks that are at low elevation and relatively close to Nelson are not out
of the sight and/or sound of motor vehicles (including motor boats).

Many of the motorized use proponents said that they mainly use (or would
use) the Trail as an access route to get to areas that they use with their
machines. (After all, how exciting can it be to drive up and down a 2%
grade in the forest?) But then I've never understood the thrill of going
round and round in circles on a jetski on a lake, and yet it appeals to
some (and everyone on shore has to put up with, or maybe I should say
"share", the noise).

If the trail is being used merely as a shortcut to access other areas, or
if it is being used by unlicenced kids on unlicenced dirt bikes to get to
certain areas, one has to ask if this is really a fair imposition on those
who view and use the Trail as a destination in and of itself? Those
seeking peace and quiet, perhaps hoping to see a few birds or other
wildlife, cannot use the roads or highways to attain their goal. But those
merely wanting to cut across the top of town or bypass the highway DO have
an alternative.

Not to mention liability issues and the "shared" cost of insurance which
will be born by everyone (through taxes), even though the majority of
insurance claims resulting from accidents on trails are motor vehicle
related. In other words, there will be a huge insurance premium to pay if
the RDCK officially sanctions motorized vehicle use on the trail. Is it
fair that that financial burden is SHARED equally by those who don't assume
such high risks (operating a motor vehicle)?

All in all, an interesting meeting. With some degree of compromise among
users and concerned citizens, it should be possible to make this abandoned
railway into Nelson's premier understated, year round, low-cost,
environmentally-benign, all-ages recreation facility!

David Beringer





--

All communications made available as part of this mailing list and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication. The Kootenay Communications Society does not certify, endorse, verify, edit or review the contents of any communication posted to these forums, nor do we offer warranty of any kind, express or implied, with regard to the posted communications or information contained therein. KICS is not responsible for defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any author posting to this forum.