Draft Official Community Plan Stakeholder Meeting Submission
To: Mélodie Simard (Manager of Planning and Sustainability Services)
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association
Date: May 29, 2022
Note: For the purpose of the Draft Official Community Plan (OCP) review, Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA) will focus on concerns related to issues concerning trails, regional parks, and greenbelts.
1.1. 5 Plan Framework
"While the OCP is not the only Plan the City approves and updates, it is considered to sit at the top of the plan hierarchy providing policy guidance to other City plans and guidance documents.”
Too often we find that this is not the case with regard to Active Trails Whitehorse Association’s (ATWA) interests. It is our feeling that the City too often ignores the contents of the OCP when in comes to issues related to both recreation and the environment. (For example out and away trails, the separation of motorized and non-motorized users where possible, and ESAs.)
3.1 Vision Statement:
The Yukon’s Capital City
Whitehorse in 2040 is a vibrant capital city. The city is an inclusive, innovative, entrepreneurial, authentic, and resourceful northern community. The growing community is diverse, liveable, and affordable. Whitehorse residents and visitors enjoy access to the land, some of the cleanest air in the country, and opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events.
The Vision Statement as written does not include reference to what makes this city liveable, and those are our regional parks, trails, and greenbelts.
The Vision Statement should include a statement that the City in 2040 will be one that continues to promote the maintenance and conservation of its trails, regional parks, and greenbelts for future generations. In addition, we should have a community that supports active forms of recreation and transportation, which will lead to a healthier population.
Explanation is needed as to what is meant by the term authentic city. If the intent is to say that we are an authentic northern community, then please let us know the characteristics of such a community, so that we can strive (if we really want to) to achieve that goal. It is suggested that the word be dropped from the Vision Statement.
The last sentence of the Vision Statement’s first paragraph does not make much sense and is unnecessary. What do “opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events” have to do with “access to the land, and some of the cleanest air in the country?”
If we are to have a healthy community in 2040, then some of the reasons why, will be the presence of clean air, greenbelts, regional parks, and trails, as well as access to active forms of recreation and transportation. This should be made clear in the Vision Statement for our Wilderness City.
As well, we have now, and will always have “opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events.” Perhaps it would be better to say increased “opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events.” The reference to some of the “cleanest air in the country” should be dropped.
The second paragraph of the very long Vision Statement should be amended as follows: (See words in red.)
The City of Whitehorse is committed to being home to a healthy community with equitable access to a range of economic opportunities, housing types, [green spaces], mobility options; and a vibrant social and cultural scene, which continues to strengthen the community’s social fabric. The City’s leadership is recognized across the country for its meaningful and continued efforts towards reconciliation with First Nations, its actions to adapt and mitigate [the effects of] climate change, and its sustainable growth. The City remains committed to sustainable development and planning for future generations.
The words in bold in the last sentence of the Vision Statement should be eliminated, as the point about sustainable development has already been mentioned in the previous sentence. The words “and planning for future generations” could simply be added to the previous sentence.
3. 2. Principles:
Sustainable City: Whitehorse is a modern wilderness city with continued world- class access to [the natural world through its trails, regional parks, and greenbelts.] The City’s services, policies, and programs support sustainable community development and make it a leader in climate [change] mitigation and adaptation.
Please consider adding the words in red to the first sentence, as the way we access the natural world in Whitehorse is via its trails, regional parks, and greenbelts.
Hopefully, the City will not be involved in climate mitigation, but rather in climate change mitigation.
Engaged City: Whitehorse residents are meaningfully engaged in City decision- making and their contributions are valued.
We are glad to see this is one of the OCP’s principles, as in our opinion the City talks about this all the time, but frequently fails to demonstrate sincere adherence to these concepts.
For example, a number of years ago the City was involved with the territorial government with regard to the much publicized the Talking Together Initiative. As a result of the Talking Together Initiative the City commenced the Public Engagement Capacity Development project. However, repeated efforts to find out the status of this project have failed.
Civic Engagement
4.9 Community needs, preferences, and feedback will be considered during decision-making and when planning for municipal services, programs, facilities.
4.10 The City will use plain language in communication materials.
4.11 The City will continue using a variety of communication tools and/or platforms to reach as many residents as possible.
An addition to this section is required. We have numerous City policies and plans that say the City will engage and consult citizens before certain initiatives are undertaken. However, it often fails to do this. The September 2021 construction of the alternate Pee Wee Hill trail is a perfect example of the failure to follow proper process. The recent destruction of user trails in Chadburn Lake Regional Park appears to be a current example.
Please add the following to this section: The City will ensure that the various engagement initiatives found in its plans and polices are followed. (Perhaps City Council needs its own Oversight Committee to ensure the various initiatives and actions found it is plans and policies and the promises made by administration are realized.)
Connection to the Environment
5.10 Regional Parks, as shown conceptually on Map 1 Natural Features and Conceptual Parks, will be managed, and enhanced to maintain the integrity of the natural and heritage features within them and promote healthy lifestyles through physical activity and connectivity to the land.
We are confused by the term “Conceptual Parks.” (Page 35 of draft OCP) The City has five regional parks. They are not conceptual; they exist in fact, although only Chadburn Lake Park has its own management plan and approved boundaries. So, we question the use of the term conceptual to describe these parks. It is somewhat misleading. Clarification is needed.
The City will engage with the Government of Yukon, affected First Nations, and Yukon University to establish McIntyre Creek Park, building on the conceptual park referenced in the 2010 OCP. This Park may include a transportation corridor connecting Mountainview Drive to the Kopper King area. The development of a transportation corridor will be based on, among other things, the results of relevant studies (5.1.12.2)
We strongly oppose “a transportation corridor connecting Mountainview Drive to the Copper King area.”
The Whistle Bend Transportation Network Impact Study did make a number of proposals based on the likely population growth of both Porter Creek and Whistle Bend.
One proposal was to extend Pine Street to the Alaska Highway; the other was to connect Mountainview Drive to the Pine Street Extension. This would have a signicant negative impact on the wildlife living within Porter Creek Regional Park. (The area serves as a wildlife corridor.)
It would also severely detract from the recreational enjoyment of the park by its users, particularly those users who live in Porter Creek.
At one time the City said that when Whistle Bend was built it would serve as an example of how to build an environmentally friendly community in the North. One by one the ideas that were brought forth to make that a reality were dropped. Now the City seems intent on spreading the failures of Whistle Bend to another community in Whitehorse, that being Porter Creek and its regional park.
Building more roads will simply encourage more people to drive and eventually the proposed “transportation corridor” will become clogged with vehicles. As well, the proposed transportation corridor will do nothing to address the problems encountered at the point where incoming roads meet the downtown core.
The majority of the driving public will only start using alternate forms of transportation (buses, bicycles, e-bikes, and legs) when there is no alternative. Do not give them one, particularly when it will not solve the problem.
The City will formally establish the Regional Parks as shown in Map 1 Natural Features and Conceptual Parks through the creation of comprehensive management plans and cooperation with stewards, user groups, interested residents, and other governments. During the completion of each management plan, the boundaries of the parks will be determined, along with the vision for the park, which will set a desired level of protection and outline suitable activities to be undertaken within them. (5.1.1.)
As Chadburn Lake Regional Park has a management plan does it not already have established/approved boundaries? And, as previously mentioned, why are any of the parks considered “conceptual” as the City considers all five as existing regional parks? Please clarify this section as it leaves an incorrect impression of our regional parks.
Question: When the word “stewards” is used, what is its context? Is the OCP referring to the City’s two trail stewards as defined in the 2020 Trail Plan? Or, are we using the term to simply suggest that stewards are those who care for the natural environment that is contained by the boundaries of the regional park?
The definition of a trail steward that is found in the 2020 Trail Plan reads as follows:
An organization or individual that formally takes on responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular City trail. A trail steward is generally a volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a Memorandum of Understanding.
The above definition does not encompass what it means to be a true trail steward. Obviously, the City’s two trail stewards are going to promote the interests of its members, and not necessarily the interests of non-mechanized users groups.
The term trail stewards should be left out of the sentence in question if the OCP is actually defining the term as found in the 2020 Trail Plan, as they are also considered to be user groups.
5.15 The City will continue to maintain and enhance a diverse trail network that accommodates a range of users.
The above is simply inadequate. The City claims that it is trying to promote active forms of both recreation and transportation. The OCP should support that claim. We suggest the following change to 5.15
5.15 The City will continue to maintain and enhance a diverse trail network that accommodates a range of users, and promotes active forms of recreation and year-round non-motorized multiple use trails.
We also ask the inclusion of the following statement:
The City will amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized multiple use trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, and to restrict snowmobile operation to motorized multiple use (MMU) trails that are designed and designated for their use. (This will make the bylaw consistent with the ATV bylaw and bring equity to our trail system.)
The new Trail Plan demonstrates the public’s desire to have trails that are free from motorized use over the course of the entire year. The Snowmobile Bylaw must be changed to reflect the 2020 Trail Plan’s definition. The OCP should support this initiative.
Section 7 Protection of the Environment
In Section 7 the term “non-motorized” trail is used. (See 7.5 iii) This term needs to be defined in the Glossary so that the public knows what is actually meant by the term.
The City’s 2020 Trail Plan defines the term as “Trails to be used by a variety of non- motorized users.” However, the Snowmobile Bylaw makes a mockery of that definition, as any non-motorized trail not listed in Schedule “C” or “E” of the bylaw is open to snowmobile use in the winter.
If you are going to use this term in the OCP, then in brackets behind the term list those trails in the Snowmobile Bylaw that are truly non-motorized and supposedly free of machines over the course of the entire year.
These include the following: Chadburn Lake Ski Trails, Mount McIntyre Ski Trails, Magnusson Ski Trails, Biathlon Ski Trails, the Birch Loop Trail in Crestview, the Millennium Trail, and the Whistle Bend Paved Perimeter Trail (Whistle Bend).
Let us not continue to misinform the public as to the actual status of a so-called non- motorized multiple use trail.
The 2020 Trail Plan says that the City is to “build upon and integrate existing policies, bylaws, management plans, memoranda of understanding[s], and safety documents associated with City trails.” (2020 Trail Plan, p. 3) However, it continues to refuse to change the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the 2020 Trail Plan definition of a non-motorized trail.
The OCP should support the integration mentioned above in order to ensure that the Snowmobile Bylaw agrees with the Trail Plan with regard to the meaning of a non-motorized multiple use trail.
Unfortunately, the suggestion in this section of the Draft OCP is that non-motorized trails are an exception to the Riparian Setback requirement because they are free from motorized vehicles. However, this is not necessarily the case.
7.8 An environmental study prepared by a qualified professional may be required when considering any potential reduction of the Riparian Setback.
7.9 Any new development within 100 metres of the Yukon River, or any other area deemed at risk of flooding as determined by the City, will be subject to site-specific examination by a qualified professional to determine suitable setbacks beyond the required Riparian Setback.
The above (7.8 and 7.9) are appreciated, but they do not go far enough in ensuring the Riparian Setback is maintained. The use of the word may, does not provide confidence that Riparian Setbacks will be honoured.
We feel that the City must do more to ensure the protection of ESAs and riparian areas.
In our December 14, 2018 submission with regard to the review of the OCP, we included the following proposal:
“ATWA proposes the creation of a COW Environmental Advisory Review Committee - a committee comprised of local environmental specialists that reviews Zoning Applications, Trail Designations, Development Initiatives and In-Filling, with the objective of providing information to City Administration (and Council) that will maintain the protection of ESAs and riparian areas using the OCP as a guiding document.”
We would like to see this voluntary committee established. It will greatly enhance the City’s ability to protect riparian areas and ESAs.
Schwatka Lake
There is no mention in this section of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan. There should be an indication here that the OCP supports the recommendations found in that plan.
Greenspace
14.5.2 To encourage the community’s enjoyment of Greenspace areas, infrastructure that supports outdoor recreation (e.g., trails, interpretive signage, gathering areas) will be supported, as long as its presence does not negatively impact on the greenspace area itself.
We suggest adding the words in red.
The City needs to recognize that we already have a myriad of trails. Some of these may need to be decommissioned or consolidated. As well, trail building has impacts on flora and fauna, and does not always bring positive results. Nor does such building necessary reflect the interests of all user groups.
Other Suggestions
ATWA suggests that the public have an opportunity to query the success of the OCP once every five years. This could take the shape of a public forum, where citizens, members of administration, and members of City Council gather to discuss the OCP.
When the OCP review is completed and approved, ATWA would like to see an immediate review of City bylaws to ensure they reflect the desires of the public as expressed in the OCP.
Glossary
Add definitions of the following: motorized multiple use trail, non-motorized multiple use trail, active recreation and trail steward.
We respectfully submit this document as ATWA’s Draft Official Community Plan submission.
Thank you.
Pat Milligan and Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
activetwa@gmail.com
www.activetwa.org
Official Community Plan stakeholder meeting submission December 14, 2018
To: Madison Guthrie Planning and Sustainability Intern
Planning & Sustainability Services
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
Date: December 14, 2018
For the purpose of the Official Community Plan (OCP) review, Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA) will focus on environmental and recreational considerations.
Purpose of an OCP (p. 6)
“Once an OCP is adopted by a bylaw, all future land use decisions made by Council must be consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.” (OCP p. 6)
Too often we find that this is not the case with regard to our (ATWA) interests. It is our feeling that the City too often ignores the contents of the OCP when in comes to issues related to both recreation and the environment. (Examples will be provided later in this document.)
3.1 Vision (p. 7)
It is suggested that the Vision statement be rewritten as follows:
Vision Statement: Whitehorse will be a well-planned self-sustaining community, and a leader in energy conservation and innovation, that works to promote the maintenance and conservation of its green spaces for future generations. Whitehorse will continue to strive for a better quality of life that is reflected in its ethnic diversity, expanding economy, thriving social life and, by designing a community that supports active forms of recreation and transportation, will generate a more healthy population.
3.2 Values (p. 7)
1. Whitehorse Residents Value the Natural Beauty and the Closeness to Nature
In the Vision statement (see above) we have replaced the term wilderness spaces with green spaces, and that is because our citizens do not live in the wilderness, but are surrounded by wilderness.
“Our residents value the nearby access to the wilderness.” In light of what we have just said, what is the actual meaning of this sentence? Do residents value “access to the [surrounding] wilderness”, or do they value access to the green spaces within our City’s boundaries? As we are reviewing an OCP for the City and not for the latter’s surrounding wilderness, we feel the sentence should be rewritten as follows: “Our residents value access to the City’s green spaces.”
This section makes the claim that the City values its green spaces and trails, as well as its clean air and water. However, this is not reflected in one of the City’s bylaws (i.e. Snowmobile Bylaw). Currently, unlike ATVs, snow machines are allowed access to greenbelts, open spaces, and non-motorized trails.
The City acknowledges snow machines can damage vegetation as the Snowmobile Bylaw says that snowmobile operators are not to “damage any vegetation or ground.”
The failure to address this issue results in negative impacts on our (so-called) non-motorized trails, discourages active transportation and recreation, and leads to obvious air and water concerns. It also undermines the public’s confidence that Council decisions will be “consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.”
6. Implementing the Vision (p. 19)
It is claimed that 65% of land within the City is reserved for green space. Yet the City fails to protect that same green space from motorized ORV use. Until the Snowmobile Bylaw is amended to mirror that of the ATV Bylaw, green spaces will not be afforded the protection they deserve.
We also believe that the City is building too many new trails. We should think as much about decommissioning trails as we do about creating new trails that really only satisfy the interests of City trail stewards, such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association and the Contagious Mountain Bike Club.
Once again the OCP suggest that we “preserve pristine wilderness areas” within our city. Perhaps this should be changed to “preserve green spaces,” as the claim cannot be made that we have “pristine wilderness areas” within our city.
This section suggests that the City “support[s] active transportation. Yet every trail plan in the City supports the opposite. Few, if any non-motorized trails (summer and winter) are designated in the respective City of Whitehorse trail plans, even though public surveys (and the OCP) indicate the desire to separate motorized from non-motorized use.
One only needs to look at what happened with regard to the Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail and the Casca Blvd. paved trails to realize that the City often says one thing, and then does another when it comes to the promotion of active transportation and active recreation.
The Pine Street extension paved gas tax funded trail is another example of the City’s lack of support for active transportation trails. It is now motorized, despite numerous City assurances that it would be non-motorized (summer and winter).
6.5 New Residential Development Areas (p. 23)
We would like to see Porter Creek “D” (Extension) concept permanently dropped, and the area included in the proposed McIntyre Creek Regional Park. The area is too close to a major wildlife corridor to allow development. The Guiding Principles of the OCP reflect the need to protect the “natural environment” in which we live, and recognize its importance “for quality of life.” In addition, the OCP says, “Decisions on development, land use, infrastructure, energy and transportation shall be integrated to minimize our ecological footprint.” (OCP p. 10)
6.8 Future Studies, Regulations and Bylaws (p. 26)
According to #2 in this section the OCP was to be monitored on a regular basis “to gauge the success of the Official Community Plan.” We would like to know if this current review is seen as fulfilling that obligation. We would suggest that the public have an opportunity to query the success of the OCP at least once every five years. This could take the shape of a public forum, where citizens, members of administration, and members of Council gather to discuss the OCP.
Again, according to this section, the 2010 OCP proposed that the City “conduct a review of all City bylaws to determine consistency with the Official Community Plan.” ATWA would like to know if this has been done. Certainly our efforts to change the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect certain aspects of the OCP have proven fruitless.
When the OCP review is completed and approved, ATWA would like to see an immediate review of our bylaws to ensure they do reflect the desires of the public as expressed in the OCP.
According to this section the 2010 OCP called for the creation of an Active Transportation Map that would encompass both trails and routes “for the urban area of the City.” There is no such map listed under Maps on the City’s website. We can find a commuter cycling map, but that is all. Map 3 of the 2010 OCP does contain a map, which features the then existing active transportation roads and paved trails in the downtown core.
ATWA would like to see a map of all the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) designated trails and asphalt paths available to citizens in the City of Whitehorse. Please note that there is a 2015 Motorized Multi-Use Trail Map available to the public under Maps on the City’s website.
At present, due to the Snowmobile Bylaw, most so-called non-motorized multi-use trails are actually motorized trails. In this community no does not mean no when it comes to our trail system.
If, as a City, we are truly trying to encourage active forms of transportation and recreation, we must do as the OCP currently advises when it says, “Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails.” (18.5.1 p. 74)
Protect and Use Green Spaces (p. 31)
1.1.1. The OCP says, “Proposed development or activities that may impact the ecology of [environmentally sensitive areas] shall be examined through comprehensive planning processes.” The OCP should clarify what is meant by “comprehensive planning processes.”
1.1.4.The OCP says, “Where [trail] routes have the potential to impact wetlands, appropriate mitigative measures shall be followed.” To mitigate means to make less severe. One could easily mitigate an area to death.
It is our feeling that the OCP should insist that the public be made aware of how the wetland area under discussion could be impacted by a proposed trail, and how the City intends to mitigate those impacts.
We also think it appropriate that citizens be given assurance that qualified people are employed to determine if impact concerns can be mitigated, and if so, how they can be mitigated.
ATWA proposes the creation of a COW Environmental Advisory Review Committee - A committee comprised of local environmental specialists that reviews Zoning Applications, Trail Designations, Development Initiatives and In-Filling, with the objective of providing information to City Administration (and Council) that will maintain the protection of ESAs and riparian areas using the OCP as a guiding document.
Snowmobiles and ATVs are supposed to stay out of environmentally sensitive areas unless there is an existing designated motorized trail. This should be made clear in the OCP. In addition, the OCP should clearly state that the City should not be creating new motorized routes through such areas. The City should also ensure that an easily readable map of ESAs be made available on the City’s website to which both operators of ATVs and snowmobiles could refer.
Today our City’s green space trails are built not out of necessity, but out of desire to satisfy our recreational pursuits. The world is not going to end because a trail is not approved for construction.
1.3 Riparian, Wetland and Wildlife Areas (p. 33)
1.3.1.This section tells us that there is supposed to be a “30-metre riparian setback along both sides of all rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands, year-round or seasonal, [which] shall be protected from development and remain in a natural condition.” It implies that the only type of trail permitted within this 30-metre setback is a non-motorized trail.
This 30-metre riparian setback should remain. However, we would like the OCP to clarify what it means when it says that only non-motorized trails are permitted within this setback. In other words, are these non-motorized trails non-motorized summer and winter, or just in summer?
Objective 12: Improve Transportation (p. 61)
12.1 Active Transportation (p. 61)
The relationship between active transportation and active recreation should be emphasized. The same trails that we use for transportation may also be used for recreation. (Example: gas tax funded asphalt trails) In addition, while transporting yourself you are also likely to be enjoying the active recreation involved.
This section indicates the City wants to “provide a safe and enjoyable experience” for those using active forms of transportation. If active transportation trails are to be safe for such people, then they should be free of motorized use summer and winter.
Gas tax funded paved trails in the City of Whitehorse are promoted as commuter trails for those using active forms of transportation, although they can be used for motorized activities as long as non-motorized uses are included. It is the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse to manage these trails and to decide (hopefully with public input) whether or not motorized use will be permitted. (Please note that not all asphalt-paved trails in the City are gas tax funded.)
To our knowledge all federal, territorial and municipal government comments, and all local newspaper articles with regard to Whitehorse gas tax funded paved trails, have indicated that these trails are to be used only for active forms of transportation.
Yet, little effort is made to designate and sign these trails as non-motorized summer and winter. If we want people to use active transportation trails, then we must ensure that said trails are free from motorized use the entire year. Motorized use of trails can lead to the displacement of non-motorized users, who are looking for a different experience.
12.1.2(p. 62) As mentioned before, we are not able to find any Active Transportation Map under Maps on the City’s website. We believe that not only do we need an Active Transportation Map for the City, but also an Active Recreation Map that would include all the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) designated trails and asphalt paths available to citizens in the City of Whitehorse.
Objective 18: Promote Active Living (p. 71)
We would suggest changing the term Active Living to Active Recreation as that is what makes up the major discussion points in this section.
18.1.1 (p. 71) As mentioned previously ATWA would like to see the City prepare a management plan for the McIntyre Creek regional park. The park should include the area usually referred to as Porter Creek “D.” If the City is not prepared to do this then there may be another option: a territorial park.
As well, we would like to see steps taken to ensure that the three other proposed parks are given formal regional park status. Wolf Creek Regional Park should be next in line for park status following that of McIntyre Creek.
18.2 Trail Development (p. 71)
This section states, “designating trails for specific uses . . . aids in the safety of trail users.” Yet, every time ATWA has suggested that for certain trails in the City this should be done, our input has been rejected.
For example, certain types of mountain bike trails should be designated single-use trails. A trail developed specifically for downhill riding and speed should be closed to other uses, to reduce safety concerns.
“Downhill riding is all about rhythm and flow. As they descend the trail, downhillers go as fast as possible by finding the best lines and riding smoothly. Advanced riders tend to ride faster lines - those that require a higher level of strength, agility, and reaction.
A downhill trail should be technical, with features and lines that challenge riders of all abilities.” (See https://www.imbacanada.com/resources/freeriding/building-dh-trails).
Similarly, dirt bike trails should be built as specific-purpose trails and off-limits to all other users.
If organizations are willing to develop and maintain such trails, and go through the trail development process, then single purpose trails should be an option. Obviously, the City would have to be cautious as to how many such trails are built, but the City should recognize that the OCP allows for the designation of specific-purpose trails.
As well, there needs to be recognition that when an organization builds a trail, it is building it first for the recreational use of that organization. The trail may be open to other users, but it is not necessarily built to accommodate the needs of those other users.
A mountain bike trail may not be the best type of trail for a runner or a walker or a skier. The latter have different needs to those of mountain bikers. This may necessitate the designation of at least some City trails (already in existence) as specific use trails for the under-represented recreational groups in our community, walkers being one such group.
18.2.2 (p. 72)
There is no mention in this section about the decommissioning of trails. We already have too many trails within our City’s boundaries. It is impossible to maintain them all. It is also our impression that there has been a proliferation of trails in the last five years perhaps due to the popularity of mountain biking.
Many existing trails are unnecessary and should be closed and if possible returned to their original green space state. In fact, if trail builders were required to decommission two trails (of similar length) for every one that they built, we might have a better chance of maintaining our green spaces.
There is a tendency to forget the impact that trail building can have on other users of trails in the immediate area, and on vegetation, bird life, and animal life. We can easily end up “trailing” an area to death.
18.3.5 (p. 73)
This section mentions the Porter Creek area as one that contains trails “that contribute to active living (recreation) and active transportation.” Yet it fails to mention the fact that almost all (if not all) trails in the area are open to motorized use. The negative impacts of this fact were readily expressed in the 2016 Porter Creek/Range Point/Whistle Bend/Takhini Trail Planning Process – Feedback, an on-site study done by the Yukon Conservation Society (YCS) in partnership with the Friends of McIntyre Creek (FOMC) and the Porter Creek Community Association (PCCA). See http://yukonconservation.org/docs/2016_Porter_Creek_Range_Point_Whistle_Bend_Takhini_Trail_Plan_Survey_-_feedback.pdf.
If the City wishes to promote active transportation and active recreation, and better protect its green spaces, then it needs to change bylaws to help it achieve these goals. As mentioned previously, the Snowmobile Bylaw is one such bylaw that needs to be amended to reflect such goals.
18.5 Motorized Recreation (p. 74)
This section promotes the idea of out and away trails. “These trails would be designated for motorized use, allowing those residents routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.”
If this is the case, why does the City permit snowmobile operators to use their machines on so-called non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces within our community? Take a look at our approved City trail plans and see how many trails are actually designated non-motorized (summer and winter). It seems we have gone far beyond simply providing out and away trails for motorized trail users. The now very much out-dated 2015 MMU City Trail Map verifies the previous statement. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=4210).
The Klondike Snowmobile Association sent out a Candidates Survey for the recent municipal elections. Candidates were asked, “to indicate whether they agree or disagree with four statements that reflect the concerns of our membership.” One of the statements reads as follows: I will work to maintain or increase the inventory of trails and areas open to motorized recreation within city limits. (See https://ksa.yk.ca/news/).
The OCP indicates that we should be trying to provide routes/trails to get ATVs and snow machines out of town. The KSA wants to increase “the inventory and areas open to motorized recreation within city limits.”
Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, due to the Snowmobile Bylaw the vast majority of so-called non-motorized trails are open to motorized use in the winter.
It should be noted that in order to designate a truly non-motorized trail (summer and winter) one has to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw. Imagine, after looking at the MMU map, how much time and energy city officials would waste if every time a motorized trail was designated, a Walking Bylaw would have to be amended.
Considering the fact that there is already a huge complex of motorized trails within our City as evidenced by the out-of-date, 2015 Motorized Multi-Use Trail Map, and the fact that snowmobile operators can use greenbelts, open spaces, and most so-called non-motorized trails within our community, the KSA’s demand for even more access to such areas borders on the absurd.
The OCP should address this most confusing, frustrating, potentially expensive, and rather ridiculous situation by recommending that the Snowmobile Bylaw be amended to ensure that non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces be protected from snow machine use.
18.5.1 (p. 74)
This section makes the following comment: “Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails. Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.”
There are three points in the above statement that we would like to emphasize.
18.5.2 (p. 74)
This section makes the following comment: “The Trail Plan recommends the creation of a map of "out and away" trails for motorized recreation vehicle usage. This map shall be designed to strongly discourage the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas. The map would be accompanied with physical upgrades such as signage. Work on this project shall be done in conjunction with groups such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association, Motor Vehicles Branch, and others.”
Where can one find this map? As far as we can tell it does not exist. If the City’s website had such a map, off-road-vehicle (ORV) operators would know what routes are considered to be out and away trails, and could better avoid so-called non-motorized trails on their way out of town.
(Another way we can “discourage the use of all terrain vehicles (snowmobiles) on non-motorized trails” by simply changing the Snowmobile Bylaw as previously suggested.)
Is there any existing signage that indicates a trail is an out and away trail?
Was any work done by the “Klondike Snowmobile Association, Motor Vehicles Branch, and others” on this project?
Glossary
ATWA would also like to see the following terms defined in the Glossarysection of the revised OCP document:
Multi-use trail:One that accommodates both motorized and non-motorizedrecreational or transportation uses. (OCP 18.5.1) (Hamilton Blvd paved trail is correctly signed as a Multi-use trail.) Having said this, it may be better to use the term Mixed-Use trail rather that Multi-Use trail, to represent this type of trail, as do other jurisdictions.
Motorized Multiple Use Trails - includes only those trails formally designed and designated by the City of Whitehorse to allow the use of motorized vehicles, including 4-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles. (2007 Trail Plan p. 25) Please note that there is no mention that such trails would include non-motorized users.
Non-motorized Multiple Use Trails - designated non-motorized trails and all others by default – officially (but not in practice) includes all trails not officially designated by the City of Whitehorse to allow use of motorized vehicles. (2007 Trail Plan p. 25) Please note that there is no mention that such trails would include motorized users.
(In our view, administration continues to misuse the definitions of trail types as stated in the 2007 Trail Plan, which leads to much confusion.)
Thank you for allowing us to meet with you to discuss the above.
Pat Milligan and Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
activetwa@gmail.com
www.activetwa.org
To: Mélodie Simard (Manager of Planning and Sustainability Services)
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association
Date: May 29, 2022
Note: For the purpose of the Draft Official Community Plan (OCP) review, Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA) will focus on concerns related to issues concerning trails, regional parks, and greenbelts.
1.1. 5 Plan Framework
"While the OCP is not the only Plan the City approves and updates, it is considered to sit at the top of the plan hierarchy providing policy guidance to other City plans and guidance documents.”
Too often we find that this is not the case with regard to Active Trails Whitehorse Association’s (ATWA) interests. It is our feeling that the City too often ignores the contents of the OCP when in comes to issues related to both recreation and the environment. (For example out and away trails, the separation of motorized and non-motorized users where possible, and ESAs.)
3.1 Vision Statement:
The Yukon’s Capital City
Whitehorse in 2040 is a vibrant capital city. The city is an inclusive, innovative, entrepreneurial, authentic, and resourceful northern community. The growing community is diverse, liveable, and affordable. Whitehorse residents and visitors enjoy access to the land, some of the cleanest air in the country, and opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events.
The Vision Statement as written does not include reference to what makes this city liveable, and those are our regional parks, trails, and greenbelts.
The Vision Statement should include a statement that the City in 2040 will be one that continues to promote the maintenance and conservation of its trails, regional parks, and greenbelts for future generations. In addition, we should have a community that supports active forms of recreation and transportation, which will lead to a healthier population.
Explanation is needed as to what is meant by the term authentic city. If the intent is to say that we are an authentic northern community, then please let us know the characteristics of such a community, so that we can strive (if we really want to) to achieve that goal. It is suggested that the word be dropped from the Vision Statement.
The last sentence of the Vision Statement’s first paragraph does not make much sense and is unnecessary. What do “opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events” have to do with “access to the land, and some of the cleanest air in the country?”
If we are to have a healthy community in 2040, then some of the reasons why, will be the presence of clean air, greenbelts, regional parks, and trails, as well as access to active forms of recreation and transportation. This should be made clear in the Vision Statement for our Wilderness City.
As well, we have now, and will always have “opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events.” Perhaps it would be better to say increased “opportunities to gather for local, national, and international events.” The reference to some of the “cleanest air in the country” should be dropped.
The second paragraph of the very long Vision Statement should be amended as follows: (See words in red.)
The City of Whitehorse is committed to being home to a healthy community with equitable access to a range of economic opportunities, housing types, [green spaces], mobility options; and a vibrant social and cultural scene, which continues to strengthen the community’s social fabric. The City’s leadership is recognized across the country for its meaningful and continued efforts towards reconciliation with First Nations, its actions to adapt and mitigate [the effects of] climate change, and its sustainable growth. The City remains committed to sustainable development and planning for future generations.
The words in bold in the last sentence of the Vision Statement should be eliminated, as the point about sustainable development has already been mentioned in the previous sentence. The words “and planning for future generations” could simply be added to the previous sentence.
3. 2. Principles:
Sustainable City: Whitehorse is a modern wilderness city with continued world- class access to [the natural world through its trails, regional parks, and greenbelts.] The City’s services, policies, and programs support sustainable community development and make it a leader in climate [change] mitigation and adaptation.
Please consider adding the words in red to the first sentence, as the way we access the natural world in Whitehorse is via its trails, regional parks, and greenbelts.
Hopefully, the City will not be involved in climate mitigation, but rather in climate change mitigation.
Engaged City: Whitehorse residents are meaningfully engaged in City decision- making and their contributions are valued.
We are glad to see this is one of the OCP’s principles, as in our opinion the City talks about this all the time, but frequently fails to demonstrate sincere adherence to these concepts.
For example, a number of years ago the City was involved with the territorial government with regard to the much publicized the Talking Together Initiative. As a result of the Talking Together Initiative the City commenced the Public Engagement Capacity Development project. However, repeated efforts to find out the status of this project have failed.
Civic Engagement
4.9 Community needs, preferences, and feedback will be considered during decision-making and when planning for municipal services, programs, facilities.
4.10 The City will use plain language in communication materials.
4.11 The City will continue using a variety of communication tools and/or platforms to reach as many residents as possible.
An addition to this section is required. We have numerous City policies and plans that say the City will engage and consult citizens before certain initiatives are undertaken. However, it often fails to do this. The September 2021 construction of the alternate Pee Wee Hill trail is a perfect example of the failure to follow proper process. The recent destruction of user trails in Chadburn Lake Regional Park appears to be a current example.
Please add the following to this section: The City will ensure that the various engagement initiatives found in its plans and polices are followed. (Perhaps City Council needs its own Oversight Committee to ensure the various initiatives and actions found it is plans and policies and the promises made by administration are realized.)
Connection to the Environment
5.10 Regional Parks, as shown conceptually on Map 1 Natural Features and Conceptual Parks, will be managed, and enhanced to maintain the integrity of the natural and heritage features within them and promote healthy lifestyles through physical activity and connectivity to the land.
We are confused by the term “Conceptual Parks.” (Page 35 of draft OCP) The City has five regional parks. They are not conceptual; they exist in fact, although only Chadburn Lake Park has its own management plan and approved boundaries. So, we question the use of the term conceptual to describe these parks. It is somewhat misleading. Clarification is needed.
The City will engage with the Government of Yukon, affected First Nations, and Yukon University to establish McIntyre Creek Park, building on the conceptual park referenced in the 2010 OCP. This Park may include a transportation corridor connecting Mountainview Drive to the Kopper King area. The development of a transportation corridor will be based on, among other things, the results of relevant studies (5.1.12.2)
We strongly oppose “a transportation corridor connecting Mountainview Drive to the Copper King area.”
The Whistle Bend Transportation Network Impact Study did make a number of proposals based on the likely population growth of both Porter Creek and Whistle Bend.
One proposal was to extend Pine Street to the Alaska Highway; the other was to connect Mountainview Drive to the Pine Street Extension. This would have a signicant negative impact on the wildlife living within Porter Creek Regional Park. (The area serves as a wildlife corridor.)
It would also severely detract from the recreational enjoyment of the park by its users, particularly those users who live in Porter Creek.
At one time the City said that when Whistle Bend was built it would serve as an example of how to build an environmentally friendly community in the North. One by one the ideas that were brought forth to make that a reality were dropped. Now the City seems intent on spreading the failures of Whistle Bend to another community in Whitehorse, that being Porter Creek and its regional park.
Building more roads will simply encourage more people to drive and eventually the proposed “transportation corridor” will become clogged with vehicles. As well, the proposed transportation corridor will do nothing to address the problems encountered at the point where incoming roads meet the downtown core.
The majority of the driving public will only start using alternate forms of transportation (buses, bicycles, e-bikes, and legs) when there is no alternative. Do not give them one, particularly when it will not solve the problem.
The City will formally establish the Regional Parks as shown in Map 1 Natural Features and Conceptual Parks through the creation of comprehensive management plans and cooperation with stewards, user groups, interested residents, and other governments. During the completion of each management plan, the boundaries of the parks will be determined, along with the vision for the park, which will set a desired level of protection and outline suitable activities to be undertaken within them. (5.1.1.)
As Chadburn Lake Regional Park has a management plan does it not already have established/approved boundaries? And, as previously mentioned, why are any of the parks considered “conceptual” as the City considers all five as existing regional parks? Please clarify this section as it leaves an incorrect impression of our regional parks.
Question: When the word “stewards” is used, what is its context? Is the OCP referring to the City’s two trail stewards as defined in the 2020 Trail Plan? Or, are we using the term to simply suggest that stewards are those who care for the natural environment that is contained by the boundaries of the regional park?
The definition of a trail steward that is found in the 2020 Trail Plan reads as follows:
An organization or individual that formally takes on responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular City trail. A trail steward is generally a volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a Memorandum of Understanding.
The above definition does not encompass what it means to be a true trail steward. Obviously, the City’s two trail stewards are going to promote the interests of its members, and not necessarily the interests of non-mechanized users groups.
The term trail stewards should be left out of the sentence in question if the OCP is actually defining the term as found in the 2020 Trail Plan, as they are also considered to be user groups.
5.15 The City will continue to maintain and enhance a diverse trail network that accommodates a range of users.
The above is simply inadequate. The City claims that it is trying to promote active forms of both recreation and transportation. The OCP should support that claim. We suggest the following change to 5.15
5.15 The City will continue to maintain and enhance a diverse trail network that accommodates a range of users, and promotes active forms of recreation and year-round non-motorized multiple use trails.
We also ask the inclusion of the following statement:
The City will amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized multiple use trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, and to restrict snowmobile operation to motorized multiple use (MMU) trails that are designed and designated for their use. (This will make the bylaw consistent with the ATV bylaw and bring equity to our trail system.)
The new Trail Plan demonstrates the public’s desire to have trails that are free from motorized use over the course of the entire year. The Snowmobile Bylaw must be changed to reflect the 2020 Trail Plan’s definition. The OCP should support this initiative.
Section 7 Protection of the Environment
In Section 7 the term “non-motorized” trail is used. (See 7.5 iii) This term needs to be defined in the Glossary so that the public knows what is actually meant by the term.
The City’s 2020 Trail Plan defines the term as “Trails to be used by a variety of non- motorized users.” However, the Snowmobile Bylaw makes a mockery of that definition, as any non-motorized trail not listed in Schedule “C” or “E” of the bylaw is open to snowmobile use in the winter.
If you are going to use this term in the OCP, then in brackets behind the term list those trails in the Snowmobile Bylaw that are truly non-motorized and supposedly free of machines over the course of the entire year.
These include the following: Chadburn Lake Ski Trails, Mount McIntyre Ski Trails, Magnusson Ski Trails, Biathlon Ski Trails, the Birch Loop Trail in Crestview, the Millennium Trail, and the Whistle Bend Paved Perimeter Trail (Whistle Bend).
Let us not continue to misinform the public as to the actual status of a so-called non- motorized multiple use trail.
The 2020 Trail Plan says that the City is to “build upon and integrate existing policies, bylaws, management plans, memoranda of understanding[s], and safety documents associated with City trails.” (2020 Trail Plan, p. 3) However, it continues to refuse to change the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the 2020 Trail Plan definition of a non-motorized trail.
The OCP should support the integration mentioned above in order to ensure that the Snowmobile Bylaw agrees with the Trail Plan with regard to the meaning of a non-motorized multiple use trail.
Unfortunately, the suggestion in this section of the Draft OCP is that non-motorized trails are an exception to the Riparian Setback requirement because they are free from motorized vehicles. However, this is not necessarily the case.
7.8 An environmental study prepared by a qualified professional may be required when considering any potential reduction of the Riparian Setback.
7.9 Any new development within 100 metres of the Yukon River, or any other area deemed at risk of flooding as determined by the City, will be subject to site-specific examination by a qualified professional to determine suitable setbacks beyond the required Riparian Setback.
The above (7.8 and 7.9) are appreciated, but they do not go far enough in ensuring the Riparian Setback is maintained. The use of the word may, does not provide confidence that Riparian Setbacks will be honoured.
We feel that the City must do more to ensure the protection of ESAs and riparian areas.
In our December 14, 2018 submission with regard to the review of the OCP, we included the following proposal:
“ATWA proposes the creation of a COW Environmental Advisory Review Committee - a committee comprised of local environmental specialists that reviews Zoning Applications, Trail Designations, Development Initiatives and In-Filling, with the objective of providing information to City Administration (and Council) that will maintain the protection of ESAs and riparian areas using the OCP as a guiding document.”
We would like to see this voluntary committee established. It will greatly enhance the City’s ability to protect riparian areas and ESAs.
Schwatka Lake
There is no mention in this section of the Schwatka Lake Area Plan. There should be an indication here that the OCP supports the recommendations found in that plan.
Greenspace
14.5.2 To encourage the community’s enjoyment of Greenspace areas, infrastructure that supports outdoor recreation (e.g., trails, interpretive signage, gathering areas) will be supported, as long as its presence does not negatively impact on the greenspace area itself.
We suggest adding the words in red.
The City needs to recognize that we already have a myriad of trails. Some of these may need to be decommissioned or consolidated. As well, trail building has impacts on flora and fauna, and does not always bring positive results. Nor does such building necessary reflect the interests of all user groups.
Other Suggestions
ATWA suggests that the public have an opportunity to query the success of the OCP once every five years. This could take the shape of a public forum, where citizens, members of administration, and members of City Council gather to discuss the OCP.
When the OCP review is completed and approved, ATWA would like to see an immediate review of City bylaws to ensure they reflect the desires of the public as expressed in the OCP.
Glossary
Add definitions of the following: motorized multiple use trail, non-motorized multiple use trail, active recreation and trail steward.
We respectfully submit this document as ATWA’s Draft Official Community Plan submission.
Thank you.
Pat Milligan and Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
activetwa@gmail.com
www.activetwa.org
Official Community Plan stakeholder meeting submission December 14, 2018
To: Madison Guthrie Planning and Sustainability Intern
Planning & Sustainability Services
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
Date: December 14, 2018
For the purpose of the Official Community Plan (OCP) review, Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA) will focus on environmental and recreational considerations.
Purpose of an OCP (p. 6)
“Once an OCP is adopted by a bylaw, all future land use decisions made by Council must be consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.” (OCP p. 6)
Too often we find that this is not the case with regard to our (ATWA) interests. It is our feeling that the City too often ignores the contents of the OCP when in comes to issues related to both recreation and the environment. (Examples will be provided later in this document.)
3.1 Vision (p. 7)
It is suggested that the Vision statement be rewritten as follows:
Vision Statement: Whitehorse will be a well-planned self-sustaining community, and a leader in energy conservation and innovation, that works to promote the maintenance and conservation of its green spaces for future generations. Whitehorse will continue to strive for a better quality of life that is reflected in its ethnic diversity, expanding economy, thriving social life and, by designing a community that supports active forms of recreation and transportation, will generate a more healthy population.
3.2 Values (p. 7)
1. Whitehorse Residents Value the Natural Beauty and the Closeness to Nature
In the Vision statement (see above) we have replaced the term wilderness spaces with green spaces, and that is because our citizens do not live in the wilderness, but are surrounded by wilderness.
“Our residents value the nearby access to the wilderness.” In light of what we have just said, what is the actual meaning of this sentence? Do residents value “access to the [surrounding] wilderness”, or do they value access to the green spaces within our City’s boundaries? As we are reviewing an OCP for the City and not for the latter’s surrounding wilderness, we feel the sentence should be rewritten as follows: “Our residents value access to the City’s green spaces.”
This section makes the claim that the City values its green spaces and trails, as well as its clean air and water. However, this is not reflected in one of the City’s bylaws (i.e. Snowmobile Bylaw). Currently, unlike ATVs, snow machines are allowed access to greenbelts, open spaces, and non-motorized trails.
The City acknowledges snow machines can damage vegetation as the Snowmobile Bylaw says that snowmobile operators are not to “damage any vegetation or ground.”
The failure to address this issue results in negative impacts on our (so-called) non-motorized trails, discourages active transportation and recreation, and leads to obvious air and water concerns. It also undermines the public’s confidence that Council decisions will be “consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.”
6. Implementing the Vision (p. 19)
It is claimed that 65% of land within the City is reserved for green space. Yet the City fails to protect that same green space from motorized ORV use. Until the Snowmobile Bylaw is amended to mirror that of the ATV Bylaw, green spaces will not be afforded the protection they deserve.
We also believe that the City is building too many new trails. We should think as much about decommissioning trails as we do about creating new trails that really only satisfy the interests of City trail stewards, such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association and the Contagious Mountain Bike Club.
Once again the OCP suggest that we “preserve pristine wilderness areas” within our city. Perhaps this should be changed to “preserve green spaces,” as the claim cannot be made that we have “pristine wilderness areas” within our city.
This section suggests that the City “support[s] active transportation. Yet every trail plan in the City supports the opposite. Few, if any non-motorized trails (summer and winter) are designated in the respective City of Whitehorse trail plans, even though public surveys (and the OCP) indicate the desire to separate motorized from non-motorized use.
One only needs to look at what happened with regard to the Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail and the Casca Blvd. paved trails to realize that the City often says one thing, and then does another when it comes to the promotion of active transportation and active recreation.
The Pine Street extension paved gas tax funded trail is another example of the City’s lack of support for active transportation trails. It is now motorized, despite numerous City assurances that it would be non-motorized (summer and winter).
6.5 New Residential Development Areas (p. 23)
We would like to see Porter Creek “D” (Extension) concept permanently dropped, and the area included in the proposed McIntyre Creek Regional Park. The area is too close to a major wildlife corridor to allow development. The Guiding Principles of the OCP reflect the need to protect the “natural environment” in which we live, and recognize its importance “for quality of life.” In addition, the OCP says, “Decisions on development, land use, infrastructure, energy and transportation shall be integrated to minimize our ecological footprint.” (OCP p. 10)
6.8 Future Studies, Regulations and Bylaws (p. 26)
According to #2 in this section the OCP was to be monitored on a regular basis “to gauge the success of the Official Community Plan.” We would like to know if this current review is seen as fulfilling that obligation. We would suggest that the public have an opportunity to query the success of the OCP at least once every five years. This could take the shape of a public forum, where citizens, members of administration, and members of Council gather to discuss the OCP.
Again, according to this section, the 2010 OCP proposed that the City “conduct a review of all City bylaws to determine consistency with the Official Community Plan.” ATWA would like to know if this has been done. Certainly our efforts to change the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect certain aspects of the OCP have proven fruitless.
When the OCP review is completed and approved, ATWA would like to see an immediate review of our bylaws to ensure they do reflect the desires of the public as expressed in the OCP.
According to this section the 2010 OCP called for the creation of an Active Transportation Map that would encompass both trails and routes “for the urban area of the City.” There is no such map listed under Maps on the City’s website. We can find a commuter cycling map, but that is all. Map 3 of the 2010 OCP does contain a map, which features the then existing active transportation roads and paved trails in the downtown core.
ATWA would like to see a map of all the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) designated trails and asphalt paths available to citizens in the City of Whitehorse. Please note that there is a 2015 Motorized Multi-Use Trail Map available to the public under Maps on the City’s website.
At present, due to the Snowmobile Bylaw, most so-called non-motorized multi-use trails are actually motorized trails. In this community no does not mean no when it comes to our trail system.
If, as a City, we are truly trying to encourage active forms of transportation and recreation, we must do as the OCP currently advises when it says, “Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails.” (18.5.1 p. 74)
Protect and Use Green Spaces (p. 31)
1.1.1. The OCP says, “Proposed development or activities that may impact the ecology of [environmentally sensitive areas] shall be examined through comprehensive planning processes.” The OCP should clarify what is meant by “comprehensive planning processes.”
1.1.4.The OCP says, “Where [trail] routes have the potential to impact wetlands, appropriate mitigative measures shall be followed.” To mitigate means to make less severe. One could easily mitigate an area to death.
It is our feeling that the OCP should insist that the public be made aware of how the wetland area under discussion could be impacted by a proposed trail, and how the City intends to mitigate those impacts.
We also think it appropriate that citizens be given assurance that qualified people are employed to determine if impact concerns can be mitigated, and if so, how they can be mitigated.
ATWA proposes the creation of a COW Environmental Advisory Review Committee - A committee comprised of local environmental specialists that reviews Zoning Applications, Trail Designations, Development Initiatives and In-Filling, with the objective of providing information to City Administration (and Council) that will maintain the protection of ESAs and riparian areas using the OCP as a guiding document.
Snowmobiles and ATVs are supposed to stay out of environmentally sensitive areas unless there is an existing designated motorized trail. This should be made clear in the OCP. In addition, the OCP should clearly state that the City should not be creating new motorized routes through such areas. The City should also ensure that an easily readable map of ESAs be made available on the City’s website to which both operators of ATVs and snowmobiles could refer.
Today our City’s green space trails are built not out of necessity, but out of desire to satisfy our recreational pursuits. The world is not going to end because a trail is not approved for construction.
1.3 Riparian, Wetland and Wildlife Areas (p. 33)
1.3.1.This section tells us that there is supposed to be a “30-metre riparian setback along both sides of all rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands, year-round or seasonal, [which] shall be protected from development and remain in a natural condition.” It implies that the only type of trail permitted within this 30-metre setback is a non-motorized trail.
This 30-metre riparian setback should remain. However, we would like the OCP to clarify what it means when it says that only non-motorized trails are permitted within this setback. In other words, are these non-motorized trails non-motorized summer and winter, or just in summer?
Objective 12: Improve Transportation (p. 61)
12.1 Active Transportation (p. 61)
The relationship between active transportation and active recreation should be emphasized. The same trails that we use for transportation may also be used for recreation. (Example: gas tax funded asphalt trails) In addition, while transporting yourself you are also likely to be enjoying the active recreation involved.
This section indicates the City wants to “provide a safe and enjoyable experience” for those using active forms of transportation. If active transportation trails are to be safe for such people, then they should be free of motorized use summer and winter.
Gas tax funded paved trails in the City of Whitehorse are promoted as commuter trails for those using active forms of transportation, although they can be used for motorized activities as long as non-motorized uses are included. It is the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse to manage these trails and to decide (hopefully with public input) whether or not motorized use will be permitted. (Please note that not all asphalt-paved trails in the City are gas tax funded.)
To our knowledge all federal, territorial and municipal government comments, and all local newspaper articles with regard to Whitehorse gas tax funded paved trails, have indicated that these trails are to be used only for active forms of transportation.
Yet, little effort is made to designate and sign these trails as non-motorized summer and winter. If we want people to use active transportation trails, then we must ensure that said trails are free from motorized use the entire year. Motorized use of trails can lead to the displacement of non-motorized users, who are looking for a different experience.
12.1.2(p. 62) As mentioned before, we are not able to find any Active Transportation Map under Maps on the City’s website. We believe that not only do we need an Active Transportation Map for the City, but also an Active Recreation Map that would include all the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) designated trails and asphalt paths available to citizens in the City of Whitehorse.
Objective 18: Promote Active Living (p. 71)
We would suggest changing the term Active Living to Active Recreation as that is what makes up the major discussion points in this section.
18.1.1 (p. 71) As mentioned previously ATWA would like to see the City prepare a management plan for the McIntyre Creek regional park. The park should include the area usually referred to as Porter Creek “D.” If the City is not prepared to do this then there may be another option: a territorial park.
As well, we would like to see steps taken to ensure that the three other proposed parks are given formal regional park status. Wolf Creek Regional Park should be next in line for park status following that of McIntyre Creek.
18.2 Trail Development (p. 71)
This section states, “designating trails for specific uses . . . aids in the safety of trail users.” Yet, every time ATWA has suggested that for certain trails in the City this should be done, our input has been rejected.
For example, certain types of mountain bike trails should be designated single-use trails. A trail developed specifically for downhill riding and speed should be closed to other uses, to reduce safety concerns.
“Downhill riding is all about rhythm and flow. As they descend the trail, downhillers go as fast as possible by finding the best lines and riding smoothly. Advanced riders tend to ride faster lines - those that require a higher level of strength, agility, and reaction.
A downhill trail should be technical, with features and lines that challenge riders of all abilities.” (See https://www.imbacanada.com/resources/freeriding/building-dh-trails).
Similarly, dirt bike trails should be built as specific-purpose trails and off-limits to all other users.
If organizations are willing to develop and maintain such trails, and go through the trail development process, then single purpose trails should be an option. Obviously, the City would have to be cautious as to how many such trails are built, but the City should recognize that the OCP allows for the designation of specific-purpose trails.
As well, there needs to be recognition that when an organization builds a trail, it is building it first for the recreational use of that organization. The trail may be open to other users, but it is not necessarily built to accommodate the needs of those other users.
A mountain bike trail may not be the best type of trail for a runner or a walker or a skier. The latter have different needs to those of mountain bikers. This may necessitate the designation of at least some City trails (already in existence) as specific use trails for the under-represented recreational groups in our community, walkers being one such group.
18.2.2 (p. 72)
There is no mention in this section about the decommissioning of trails. We already have too many trails within our City’s boundaries. It is impossible to maintain them all. It is also our impression that there has been a proliferation of trails in the last five years perhaps due to the popularity of mountain biking.
Many existing trails are unnecessary and should be closed and if possible returned to their original green space state. In fact, if trail builders were required to decommission two trails (of similar length) for every one that they built, we might have a better chance of maintaining our green spaces.
There is a tendency to forget the impact that trail building can have on other users of trails in the immediate area, and on vegetation, bird life, and animal life. We can easily end up “trailing” an area to death.
18.3.5 (p. 73)
This section mentions the Porter Creek area as one that contains trails “that contribute to active living (recreation) and active transportation.” Yet it fails to mention the fact that almost all (if not all) trails in the area are open to motorized use. The negative impacts of this fact were readily expressed in the 2016 Porter Creek/Range Point/Whistle Bend/Takhini Trail Planning Process – Feedback, an on-site study done by the Yukon Conservation Society (YCS) in partnership with the Friends of McIntyre Creek (FOMC) and the Porter Creek Community Association (PCCA). See http://yukonconservation.org/docs/2016_Porter_Creek_Range_Point_Whistle_Bend_Takhini_Trail_Plan_Survey_-_feedback.pdf.
If the City wishes to promote active transportation and active recreation, and better protect its green spaces, then it needs to change bylaws to help it achieve these goals. As mentioned previously, the Snowmobile Bylaw is one such bylaw that needs to be amended to reflect such goals.
18.5 Motorized Recreation (p. 74)
This section promotes the idea of out and away trails. “These trails would be designated for motorized use, allowing those residents routes to get away from the local green space and into the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users.”
If this is the case, why does the City permit snowmobile operators to use their machines on so-called non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces within our community? Take a look at our approved City trail plans and see how many trails are actually designated non-motorized (summer and winter). It seems we have gone far beyond simply providing out and away trails for motorized trail users. The now very much out-dated 2015 MMU City Trail Map verifies the previous statement. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=4210).
The Klondike Snowmobile Association sent out a Candidates Survey for the recent municipal elections. Candidates were asked, “to indicate whether they agree or disagree with four statements that reflect the concerns of our membership.” One of the statements reads as follows: I will work to maintain or increase the inventory of trails and areas open to motorized recreation within city limits. (See https://ksa.yk.ca/news/).
The OCP indicates that we should be trying to provide routes/trails to get ATVs and snow machines out of town. The KSA wants to increase “the inventory and areas open to motorized recreation within city limits.”
Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, due to the Snowmobile Bylaw the vast majority of so-called non-motorized trails are open to motorized use in the winter.
It should be noted that in order to designate a truly non-motorized trail (summer and winter) one has to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw. Imagine, after looking at the MMU map, how much time and energy city officials would waste if every time a motorized trail was designated, a Walking Bylaw would have to be amended.
Considering the fact that there is already a huge complex of motorized trails within our City as evidenced by the out-of-date, 2015 Motorized Multi-Use Trail Map, and the fact that snowmobile operators can use greenbelts, open spaces, and most so-called non-motorized trails within our community, the KSA’s demand for even more access to such areas borders on the absurd.
The OCP should address this most confusing, frustrating, potentially expensive, and rather ridiculous situation by recommending that the Snowmobile Bylaw be amended to ensure that non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces be protected from snow machine use.
18.5.1 (p. 74)
This section makes the following comment: “Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails. Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.”
There are three points in the above statement that we would like to emphasize.
- Separate motorized and non-motorized recreation
- Multi-use trails are defined as those that accommodate both motorized and non-motorized recreation
- Multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible
18.5.2 (p. 74)
This section makes the following comment: “The Trail Plan recommends the creation of a map of "out and away" trails for motorized recreation vehicle usage. This map shall be designed to strongly discourage the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas. The map would be accompanied with physical upgrades such as signage. Work on this project shall be done in conjunction with groups such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association, Motor Vehicles Branch, and others.”
Where can one find this map? As far as we can tell it does not exist. If the City’s website had such a map, off-road-vehicle (ORV) operators would know what routes are considered to be out and away trails, and could better avoid so-called non-motorized trails on their way out of town.
(Another way we can “discourage the use of all terrain vehicles (snowmobiles) on non-motorized trails” by simply changing the Snowmobile Bylaw as previously suggested.)
Is there any existing signage that indicates a trail is an out and away trail?
Was any work done by the “Klondike Snowmobile Association, Motor Vehicles Branch, and others” on this project?
Glossary
ATWA would also like to see the following terms defined in the Glossarysection of the revised OCP document:
Multi-use trail:One that accommodates both motorized and non-motorizedrecreational or transportation uses. (OCP 18.5.1) (Hamilton Blvd paved trail is correctly signed as a Multi-use trail.) Having said this, it may be better to use the term Mixed-Use trail rather that Multi-Use trail, to represent this type of trail, as do other jurisdictions.
Motorized Multiple Use Trails - includes only those trails formally designed and designated by the City of Whitehorse to allow the use of motorized vehicles, including 4-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles. (2007 Trail Plan p. 25) Please note that there is no mention that such trails would include non-motorized users.
Non-motorized Multiple Use Trails - designated non-motorized trails and all others by default – officially (but not in practice) includes all trails not officially designated by the City of Whitehorse to allow use of motorized vehicles. (2007 Trail Plan p. 25) Please note that there is no mention that such trails would include motorized users.
(In our view, administration continues to misuse the definitions of trail types as stated in the 2007 Trail Plan, which leads to much confusion.)
Thank you for allowing us to meet with you to discuss the above.
Pat Milligan and Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
activetwa@gmail.com
www.activetwa.org