Talk:Roe Creek Ski Trail Application
Some comments
- You mention work that has already been done, but apparently we didn't have permission. Not sure if they would see this as "bad," so could potentially be omitted. Although, maybe they are more likely to approve it if they realize it is already almost done. I suppose honesty isn't so bad.
- No mention is made of the access issues for the summer trail related to the railroad trespassing. Perhaps that is irrelevant, but you do say why we want to use this trail in the winter instead of the summer trail... Has anyone thought about making the Roe Creek route summer compatible? Of course that would require a lot more work... but getting a good summer trail seems to not be going all that well.
- It's not entirely clear that we actually need help designing bridges. You'd think we could figure that out. But a ready-made design would be easier I guess.
Scott Webster 15:03, 16 Jun 2006 (MST)
It's true that we didn't have permission to clear bush and small trees from the route, but this was previously permitted under the old forest practices code. MO already knows we did this, and they are having problems with other groups too. The "we didn't know any better" excuse seems to have worked, but we can't use it anymore. I did get permission from the government to put up the markers, since this is ok under the new FRPA (maybe because cutting the lower limbs off trees is good for forestry companies???)
I was planning to deal with the summer trail seperately because of the railroad trespassing issues. Once we have a good idea where to move the trailhead to, we can make a seperate application for that trail. The ongoing sea to sky highway upgrade complicates things here, and the FMCBC is working on this issue as well.
Scott Nelson 16:46, 16 Jun 2006 (MST)
The application is getting a bit outdated...
Also, it seems that opinion has shifted on whether or not this should be a summer route as well. Although it would require more work, it seems that it would make a nice summer route up to Brew. This would likely require either a boardwalk or bypass (bypass sounds on the uphill side sounds far easier) around the small lake/swamp. I agree that we probably don't need help building/designing bridges - there is literature available, and if we don't ask for help it will likely speed the application process.
Also, since we are not applying for the Brew Hut as a recreational facility, do we want to make such specific mention of the hut? Personally I don't think it is a problem - but the reason we're not applying for the hut is worry of it being removed from our control. Possibly something to think about.
Finally, do we want more/less signs? I think the sign at the trailhead is certainly a keeper. The R200 intersection might be helpful - but similar things could be said about most of the other logging road intersections as well. Would this really be a more helpful place for a sign than those?
I'd like to get this application submitted soon - like the next few weeks, so that we can do work on it over the summer. Perhaps I should update it a bit this week, leave it up for a week to see if it raises any hairs, and run it by the other execs so it can be submitted before the end of January?
I would make the following changes:
- Remove all reference to it being a 'winter only' route.
- Add information about the trespassing issue to justify making it a summer route as well.
- Modify it to be a type IV to V foot trail in summer, type III ski trail in winter.
- Reference the BC MOF manual for what our construction standards will be.
- Remove references to why it would be a poor summer route
- Add tread construction in sensitive areas under Brief description of the proposed work section
- Propose construction timeline:
- Begin clearing for ski trail as soon as approved
- start work on hiking trail, bridge structures, and signage in spring 2007, as snowmelt allows
- finish construction by fall 2007 before major snowfall
Christian Veenstra 00:14, 9 Jan 2007 (PST)
Actually I already submitted the application at the end of August 2006. We got permission to the trail clearing work in October based on the application, although it hadn't been given full approval so that's why we couldn't cut down any big trees, just small ones. Also, I would agree that some sort of signage along the logging road would be a good thing, not just at the R200 intersection. A couple of parties have already gone up the wrong road on skis this year. Scott Nelson 10:34, 9 January 2007 (MST)
