ARIZONA TRAILS 2005 STATE MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZED TRAILS PLAN Arizona Trails 2005 Janet Napolitano Governor of Arizona Arizona State Parks Board John Upton Hays Chairman Yarnell Elizabeth J. Stewart Tempe William C. Porter Kingman Bill Cordasco Flagstaff Janice Chilton Payson Gabriel Gonzales-Beechum Florence Mark Winkleman State Land Commissioner Phoenix Arizona State Parks 1300 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Tel & TTY: (602) 542-4174 Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director ii www.azstateparks.com Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona Trails 2005 Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan November 2004 Arizona State Parks iii Arizona Trails 2005 Acknowledgements The Arizona Trails 2005: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan is comprised of the State Off-Highway Vevicle Recreation Plan and the State Nonmotorized Trails Plan. The Planning and Recreational Trails Section, Resources Management Division of Arizona State Parks prepared this planning document and facilitated the statewide public involvement used to develop the priorities and recommendations included in this Plan. Arizona State Parks Annie McVay, State Trails Coordinator (Principal Author) Tanna Thornburg, Chief of Planning and Recreational Trails (Supporting Author, plan design and layout) Robert Baldwin, Recreational Trails Grants Coordinator (Supporting Author) Special acknowledgements are due to Robert Baldwin, Recreational Trails Grant Coordinator, Audra Beyer, Research Project Manager, Amy Hartle, Facilitator/Administrative Assistant, Annie McVay, State Trails Coordinator, Tanna Thornburg, Chief of Planning, and Vivia Strang, Advisory Committee Coordinator, for their help in the planning process. Cover design is by Iris Krondorff, Research and Marketing Project Manager. Arizona State University, Department of Recreation Management and Tourism and Survey Research Laboratory, conducted the surveys and prepared the technical report for this plan. Dave D. White, Ph.D., Project Director/Principal Investigator Carlton Yoshioka, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator Amy C. Racki, Research Assistant Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission (AORCC) Jeffrey Bell, Apache Junction Parks and Recreation Dept. (Vice Chair) Steve Bills, Yuma County Parks and Recreation Department Pamela Foti, Coconino County, General Public Member Richard Samp, Mohave County, General Public Member (Chair) Bill Scalzo, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and Fish Department Ken Travous, Arizona State Parks iv Arizona State Committee on Trails (ASCOT) Don Applegate, Bureau of Land Management Bonnie Bariola, Pinal County Planning Department Roger Blakeley, City of Yuma Parks and Recreation Department Catherine Bradley, National Park Service (Chair) Maureen DeCindis, Maricopa Association of Governments Elizabeth J. Field, Camelback Saddle Club Tom Fitzgerald, City of Phoenix Library, Parks and Recreation Dept. Terri Gay, Pima Trails Association Reba Wells Grandrud, Oregon-California Trail Association Daniel Gruber, Citizen-at-Large, Maricopa County Jan Hancock, Arizona Trail Association Jennifer Lawrence-Harris, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Dept. Robert Miles, Arizona Game and Fish Department Sonia Overholser, International Mountain Bicycling Association Douglas Potts, Tucson Audubon Society Frederick Pfeifer, APS Hiking Club Mary Pratt, Arizona Highways Lynn Reddell, Yavapai County Trails Committee Linda Slay, Arizona State Horseman’s Association Mike Snodgrass, Volunters for Outdoor Arizona Jack Steele, Mohave County Health Department Kent Taylor, Citizen-at-Large, Pinal County Crystal Thompson, Valley Forward John Vuolo, Citizen-at-Large, Navajo County Bonnie Winslow, Citizen-at-Large, Graham County Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Group (OHVAG) Harold “Drew” John, Graham County, Gila Valley ATV Riders Club Harry Kilb, Mohave County, Lake Havasu – 4-Wheelers Sandra L. McCullen, Maricopa County, AZ Assoc. of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs Steven E. Morehouse, Yavapai County, Casual OHV Recreationist/Public Michael L. Sipes, Navajo County, Citizen-at-Large (Vice Chair) Chuck Smallhouse, Pinal County, American Motorcyclist Assoc. (Chair) Shannon T. Wilson, Maricopa County, Riding Arizona Photographs provided by Arizona State Parks, Arizona Trail Riders and Riding Arizona. Additional thanks to everyone who participated in the public surveys and workshops, and reviewed and commented on the plan. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ VI LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................ VII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................1 PURPOSE...............................................................................3 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................3 ARIZONA’S TRAIL USERS .......................................................4 BENEFITS OF TRAILS ..............................................................5 ARIZONA’S TRAIL PARTNERS ................................................10 CURRENT TRENDS AFFECTING TRAILS RECREATION ...............12 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING PROCESS............................15 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................51 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................53 MOTORIZED TRAIL USE RECOMMENDATIONS .........................56 NONMOTORIZED TRAIL USE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................58 OTHER PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOTH MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZED TRAIL USE .....................................61 CHAPTER 5: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND TRENDS OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.....................................63 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE PROGRAM .....65 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF NONMOTORIZED TRAIL PROGRAM .......69 TREND ANALYSIS OF THE ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN AND THE ARIZONA TRAILS 2005 PLAN....................................71 APPENDICES ....................................................................77 SURVEYS ............................................................................17 FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOPS .................................................18 PUBLIC COMMENT ...............................................................18 REFERENCES ...........................................................................78 CHAPTER 3: PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED BY THE PUBLIC ..............................................................................21 APPENDIX B: REGIONAL FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOP PRIORITIES ..90 SURVEY PRIORITIES .............................................................23 SATISFACTION WITH TRAILS .............................................23 PUBLIC ACCESS TO TRAILS ...............................................23 TRAIL USAGE AND ACTIVITIES ..........................................25 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ............................................26 SOCIAL CONCERNS ..........................................................30 TRAIL MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING PRIORITIES.................33 TRAIL SUPPORT FACILITIES ...............................................37 TRAIL ISSUES ..................................................................41 FOCUS GROUP PRIORITIES ....................................................44 Arizona State Parks APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ARIZONA TRAILS 2005 SURVEYS ....79 APPENDIX C: ARIZONA STATE TRAILS SYSTEM SUMMARY ........92 APPENDIX D: OHV RECREATION FUND SUMMARY ..................93 APPENDIX E: ESTABLISHING LEGISLATION AND AMENDMENTS ...94 APPENDIX F: ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF OHV RECREATION TO ARIZONA....................................................................102 v Arizona Trails 2005 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: ARIZONA OHV RECREATION FUND AND MOTORIZED RTP FUND COMPETITIVE GRANT AWARDS FYS 1993-2003 .......................................10 TABLE 2: ARIZONA OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE RECREATION FUND PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS FYS 2001-2003................................................................11 TABLE 3: ARIZONA TRAILS HERITAGE FUND COMPETITIVE GRANTS AWARDED FYS 1994-2003 ....................................................................................11 TABLE 4: NONMOTORIZED RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM TRAIL MAINTENANCE PARTNERS FY 2001-2004 ...............................................11 TABLE 5: PERCENT OF POPULATION THAT PARTICIPATES IN TRAIL ACTIVITIES ....14 TABLE 6: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH TRAILS .............................................23 TABLE 7: PERCEPTIONS OF TREND IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO TRAILS ......................24 TABLE 8: SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC ACCESS TO TRAILS IN AZ REGIONS ........24 TABLE 9: MOTORIZED ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS .......25 TABLE 10: NONMOTORIZED ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS .26 TABLE 11: MOTORIZED USER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ON TRAILS ..............27 TABLE 12: NONMOTORIZED USER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ON TRAILS ........28 TABLE 13: MOTORIZED USERS SOCIAL CONCERNS ON TRAILS ...........................30 TABLE 14: NONMOTORIZED USERS SOCIAL CONCERNS ON TRAILS .....................31 TABLE 15: MOTORIZED USERS IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION WITH TRAIL MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES .......................................................................33 TABLE 16: NONMOTORIZED USERS IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION WITH TRAIL MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES .............................................................35 TABLE 17: MOTORIZED USERS IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF TRAIL SUPPORT FACILITIES ................................................................................37 TABLE 18: NONMOTORIZED USERS IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF TRAIL SUPPORT FACILITIES ................................................................................39 TABLE 19: MOTORIZED USERS IMPORTANCE OF TRAIL ISSUES ...........................42 TABLE 20: NONMOTORIZED USERS IMPORTANCE OF TRAIL ISSUES .....................43 TABLE 21: OHV RECREATION FUND AND RTP MOTORIZED PORTION GRANT PROJECT SUMMARY FYS 1999-2003.......................................................66 TABLE 22: NONMOTORIZED RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM TRAIL MAINTENANCE PARTNERS FYS 2002-2003 ....................................................................70 TABLE 23: TRAILS HERITAGE FUND GRANT PROJECT SUMMARY FYS1999-2003. 71 TABLE 24: PREFERENCE OF TRAIL DESIGNATION ..............................................72 TABLE 25: MOST IMPORTANT TRAIL MANAGEMENT NEEDS ..............................72 TABLE 26: LOCATION FOR TRAIL ACTIVITY DONE THE MOST ............................73 TABLE 27: LOCATION FOR TRAIL ACTIVITY ENJOYED THE MOST .......................73 TABLE 28: MOST IMPORTANT SUPPORT FACILITIES ...........................................74 vi TABLE 29: COMPARISON OF MOTORIZED PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARIZONA TRAILS 2005 PLAN AND ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN......75 TABLE 30: COMPARISON OF NONMOTORIZED PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARIZONA TRAILS 2005 PLAN AND ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN......75 TABLE 31: COMPARISON OF OTHER PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOTH MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZED TRAIL USE FOR ARIZONA TRAILS 2005 PLAN AND ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN ........................................76 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: OVERALL USE TYPE BY COUNTY .................................................... 6 FIGURE 2: CORE USE TYPE BY COUNTY ......................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: PERCENT OF DIRECT OHV EXPENDITURES–$3.1 BILLION ................ 9 FIGURE 4: TOTAL OHV RECREATION FUND PERCENT DISTRIBUTION FYS 1999-2003 ................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ON TRAILS ........................................ 29 FIGURE 6: SOCIAL CONCERNS ON TRAILS ..................................................... 32 FIGURE 7: IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF TRAIL MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR MOTORIZED USERS .......................................................................... 34 FIGURE 8: IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF TRAIL MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR NONMOTORIZED USERS ................................................................... 36 FIGURE 9: IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF TRAIL SUPPORT FACILITIES FOR MOTORIZED USERS ............................................................................... 38 FIGURE 10: IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION OF TRAIL SUPPORT FACILITIES FOR NONMOTORIZED USERS .......................................................................... 40 FIGURE 11: IMPORTANCE OF TRAIL ISSUES FOR MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZED USERS ................................................................................................... 41 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 • Executive Summary The purpose of this plan is to provide information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other agencies in Arizona in their management of motorized and nonmotorized trail resources, and specifically to guide the distribution and expenditure of the Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Fund (A.R.S. § 28-1176), trails component of the Arizona Heritage Fund (A.R.S. § 41-503) and the Federal Recreational Trails Program (23 U.S.C. 206). This plan includes both motorized and nonmotorized trail information, public involvement results and recommendations for future actions regarding trails in Arizona. This plan was prepared by Arizona State Parks as required by state legislation (State Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Plan, A.R.S. § 41-511.04 and State Trails Plan § 41-511.22). The 2004 publication of the two plans referenced above has been incorporated into this single document titled Arizona Trails 2005: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan, which supercedes the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN. When the word “trail” is used in this plan, it refers to recreational trails and/or roads used by motorized and nonmotorized trail users. Specific objectives of the Arizona Trails 2005: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan include: • Assess the needs and opinions of Arizona’s residents as they relate to trail recreation opportunities and management; Arizona State Parks • • Establish priorities for expenditures from the Arizona OHV Recreation Fund, Arizona Heritage Fund trails component and Federal Recreational Trails Program; Develop strategic directions to guide activities for the Arizona State Parks’ OHV and Trails Programs; and Recommend actions that enhance motorized and nonmotorized trail opportunities to all agencies and the private sector who provide trail resources in Arizona. Arizona State Parks implemented an extensive research and public involvement process to determine the final priority recommendations of the plan. A statewide survey of over 5,000 residents was conducted from January to September 2003. The statewide survey had two components, first Arizona residents were contacted via telephone for a short survey and those that agreed were given a longer mail survey. In addition to the statewide surveys, Arizona State Parks facilitated 15 public workshops in order to gain further information from trail users, land managers, recreation and natural resource managers and interested residents. This plan is written primarily for recreation planners and land managers. The plan also includes information regarding trail users and trends affecting trails in Arizona. The plan first presents background information on trails in Arizona. Next the planning process is described along with findings of the surveys and workshops, and then the recommendations are outlined. The plan also includes accomplishments of the OHV and Trails Programs over the past five years and appendices of relevant information. This information is intended to be a resource to guide trail agencies for the next five years–2005 through 2009. vii Arizona Trails 2005 Findings include: • The majority of trail users (62% to 70%) prefer trails of moderate difficulty, though more motorized users (17%) prefer challenging trails than do nonmotorized users (5%). • Public access to trail opportunities is a concern of Arizona’s trail users, especially motorized trail users. Nearly half (48%) of motorized users feel that public access to trails for their preferred activities has declined in the last five years. • Approximately two-thirds of Arizona residents (66.4%) are trail users and one-third (33.6%) are nonusers. • 62.7% of respondents participated in nonmotorized trail use at some point during their time in Arizona and 56.5% said most of their trail use involved nonmotorized activities. • 24.5% of respondents participated in motorized trail use at some point during their time in Arizona and 7.0% said most of their trail use involved motorized activities. • • The most important motives for using trails for both nonmotorized and motorized trail users were to view scenic beauty, to be close to nature, and to get away from the usual demands of life. Both nonmotorized and motorized users feel that environmental concerns, such as litter, trash dumping, erosion of trails, damage to historical or archaeological sites are slight to moderate problems. • Social issues that are considered slight to moderate problems by nonmotorized and motorized trail users include residential/commercial development, unregulated OHV use, and lack of trail ethics by other users. • The most popular motorized activities on Arizona’s trails are four-wheel driving, driving to sightsee or wildlife viewing/birding, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding and motorized trail biking/dirt biking. Trail support facilities that were important to both nonmotorized and motorized users included trash cans, trail signs, restrooms and drinking water. • Nonmotorized trail users most often recreate just outside a city or town or in a city or town, but said they prefer to use trails in a remote area or a rural area. Motorized trail users most often recreate in rural and remote settings and most prefer those settings. Both motorized and nonmotorized users said the top management priorities were to keep areas clean of litter/ trash, maintain existing trails, repair damage to trails, and enforce existing rules and regulations. • When asked to rate the top three trail issues in Arizona, nonmotorized users said lack of funding for trails, urban development limiting access, and inadequate trail maintenance. Motorized users replied closure of trails, urban development limiting access, and lack of funding for trails. • • • • viii The most popular nonmotorized activities on Arizona’s trails are trail hiking (day hiking), walking, visiting historical archaeological sites, and jogging/running. Nonmotorized users travel an average of 23 miles and motorized trail users travel an average of 51 miles for the activity they do most often. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Developed from the Arizona Trails 2005 public involvement process MOTORIZED TRAIL USE NONMOTORIZED TRAIL USE First Level Priority Motorized Recommendations First Level Priority Nonmotorized Recommendations Develop New Trails and Motorized Recreation Opportunities Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Protect Access to Trails/Keep Trails Open Protect Access to Trails/Acquire Land for Public Access Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Develop Signage and Support Facilities Education and Trail Etiquette Second Level Priority Nonmotorized Recommendations Second Level Priority Motorized Recommendations Comprehensive Planning Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring Trail Information/Maps Trail Information and Maps Education and Trail Etiquette Comprehensive Planning Other Priority Recommendations Reduce Cultural and Environmental Resource Impacts (both motorized and nonmotorized) Seek Additional Funding Sources (both motorized and nonmotorized) Interagency Coordination (both motorized and nonmotorized) Develop Signage and Support Facilities (motorized) Develop New Trails (nonmotorized) Coordinated Volunteerism (nonmotorized) More Accessible Trails for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (nonmotorized) Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring (nonmotorized) Arizona State Parks ix Arizona Trails 2005 Hikers at Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park x Four-Wheel Drive Enthusiasts on the Great Western Trail Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 1 Introduction “The time for trails is now, if we all act now, we can begin to see results. We can realize the vision for a system of trails, connecting people and communities. This can be the era of the recreational interstate system– with a trail within 15 minutes of most of our homes.” American Trails, Trails for All Americans report, 1990 Arizona State Parks 1 Arizona Trails 2005 Four-wheel drive enthusiasts, horseback riders, trail motorcyclists, ATV riders, hikers, cross-country skiers, mountain bicyclists and backpackers are all part of Arizona’s trails community. 2 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter One: Introduction This plan includes both motorized and nonmotorized trail information, public involvement results and recommendations. The plan was prepared by Arizona State Parks as required by state legislation (state off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation plan, A.R.S. §41-511.04 and state trails plan, A.R.S. § 41511.22). The 2004 publication of the two plans referenced above has been incorporated into this single document titled Arizona Trails 2005 Plan, which supercedes the 1999 publication titled ARIZONA TRAILS 2000: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan. Information (narrative and tables) specific to either motorized or nonmotorized trail use is presented separately throughout the chapters. A substantial part of this plan is composed of findings from motorized and nonmotorized trail users, recreation planners, land and natural resource planners and the general public gathered during the public involvement process. Additional information can be found in Appendices A and B and in the full survey report, Trails 2005: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users. Purpose The purpose of this plan is to provide information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other agencies in their management of motorized and nonmotorized trail resources, and specifically to guide the distribution and expenditure of the Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Arizona State Parks Fund A.R.S. § 28-1176, the trails component of the Arizona Heritage Fund A.R.S. § 41-503, and the Federal Recreational Trails Program (23 U.S.C. 206). This opening chapter provides general information about recreational trail use in Arizona including definitions, user information, trail management partnerships and trends affecting trail recreation. It is meant to provide a background to the plan findings and recommendations. Definitions The term “trail” can be interpreted in many different ways. For this plan, a “trail” is defined as any pathway or roadway, which is usually unpaved, but can include paved pathways, that is used by either motorized or nonmotorized recreational trail users. A trail can be single or double track, dirt or paved, or for single or multiple uses. Trails can be urban, rural or wilderness in their setting. This plan focuses primarily on recreational trails or roads as linear paths or corridors that are accessible to the public. When the word “trail” is used in this plan, it refers to a “recreational trail” (see page 53 for definition) used by motorized and nonmotorized trail users. Different land managing agencies utilize various definitions for “trail.” While this definition of trail highlights trails as a mode of recreational travel, trails also involve natural, scenic, historic and other recreational values. When the plan mentions “motorized trails” it is addressing off-highway vehicle use. “OHVs” are defined broadly to include all vehicles (licensed or unlicensed) powered by an internal combustion engine that travel off paved surfaces. OHVs include: pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUV) 3 Arizona Trails 2005 and other high clearance and four-wheel drive vehicles; allterrain vehicles (ATV); motocross, Trials, enduro and trail motorcycles; dune buggies or sandrails, and snowmobiles. There are few areas in Arizona that are truly open to crosscountry vehicle travel, therefore, the term off-highway vehicle (OHV) is favored over off-road vehicle (ORV). “Nonmotorized trails” are defined as those trails used for hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, mountain bicycling, walking, backpacking, jogging, running, rollerblading, in-line skating, skate boarding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and hiking with pack stock such as horses, mules and llamas. It also includes water trails for canoes and kayaks. When referring specifically to the Arizona Heritage Fund, State statute defines trails as “those trails for nonmotorized use nominated for inclusion in the State Trails System, including urban, cross-state, recreation, interpretive or historic trails.” The Arizona Trails 2005 survey (see Figures 1 and 2 and Chapter 2) conducted by Arizona State Parks and Arizona State University found that: • Over 66.4% of Arizona’s residents consider themselves trail users. This translates to approximately 3.7 million Arizonans who use trails in this state, which does not include the millions of visitors who come to Arizona each year and also use trails. • Over 62.7% of residents participated in nonmotorized activities at some point during their time in Arizona, 56.5% reported that nonmotorized trail use accounted for the majority of their time and are considered ‘core users.’ • The percentage of nonmotorized trail core users ranged from a high of 69.4% in Coconino County to a low of 37.2% in Yuma County; overall nonmotorized use ranged from 82% in Coconino to 47% in Yuma. • Over 24.5% of residents participated in motorized trails activities, 7.0 % reported that motorized trail use accounted for the majority of their time and are considered ‘core users.’ • The percentage of motorized trail core users was higher in rural counties and ranged from a high of 25.0% in La Paz County to a low of 5.3% in Pima County; overall motorized use ranged from 50% in Greenlee County to 21% in Pima. • The remaining 33.6% of Arizonans say they do not use trails at all. • To determine user type percentages, survey respondents were asked to indicate their predominant type of use (greater than or equal to 51%). Arizona’s Trail Users This plan recognizes motorized and nonmotorized trail users as those utilizing recreational trails and roads for traditional uses such as four-wheel driving, motorized trail biking, ATV riding, hiking, bicycling and horseback riding. However, a significant portion of Arizona’s trails community is made up of those who use recreational trails and roads as avenues to sightsee, watch wildlife, visit historic sites, access hiking trails, picnic areas, rock climbing sites and hunting and fishing areas, trailer in horses, mountain bicycles or ATVs to trailheads; and in general, explore the outdoors. All of these people are part of the Arizona trails community, but are not necessarily reflected in the following trail use numbers. 4 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 A small percentage (2.9%) of the population said they use trails equally (50/50) for motorized and nonmotorized activities. These respondents were classified as generalists and were left out from the survey findings as they tend to homogenize the results. The overall trail users are comprised of respondents who answered yes to the question, “Have you ever used a trail for motorized recreation?” and/or yes to “Have you ever used a trail for nonmotorized recreation?” Respondents could answer yes to both questions. The percentages of motorized and nonmotorized trail users is shown in Figure 1. In short, 24.5% of respondents participate in motorized activities and 62.7% participate in nonmotorized activities. The motorized percentage (24.5%) includes those who said they are motorized users exclusively as well as those who said they use trails for both motorized and nonmotorized uses. The nonmotorized percentage (62.7%) includes those who said they are nonmotorized users exclusively as well as those who said they use trails for both motorized and nonmotorized uses. These figures exclude the small percentage who say they use both types equally. McVay AZ Core users are comprised of respondents who said they are predominantly motorized or predominantly nonmotorized trail users. The percentages for each trail use type and for nonusers of trails are shown by individual counties and by the statewide total in Figure 2. (See pages 19-20 for further explanation. Also, see chart on page 81 for participation percentages and number of use days by individual trail activity.) Arizona State Parks Motivations for Trail Use Both motorized and nonmotorized trail users indicated the same top five motivations for using trails: • View scenic beauty • To be close to nature • To get away from the usual demands of life • Learn more about nature • Be with family or friends • For nonmotorized users, the fifth top motivation for using trails also included Improve my physical fitness Benefits of Trails Trails enrich our quality of life by making communities more livable, by highlighting and linking people to areas rich in culture, natural beauty, unique geography, historic significance, and ecological diversity. Trails also provide economic, health and fitness, and education benefits, as well as other recreation opportunities. Economic. An organized trail system is a desirable amenity that can contribute to the economic soundness of a community. Trails and trail systems have the potential to create jobs, increase property values, expand or attract business, increase local tax revenues, decrease local governmental expenditures and promote a local community. In urban areas, the increased use of trails directly benefits outdoor businesses that provide merchandise associated with trail activities. These trails may increase property values, as many housing developments are located close to trail systems. Trails can enhance property values by providing trail access to owners, making such areas more desirable in which to live. Trails also benefit other, more remote areas of Arizona by serving as recreational destinations supporting tourism and benefiting nearby communities. 5 Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona’s Overall Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Use Percentages 24.5% of adult Arizona residents participate in motorized trail activities and 62.7% participate in nonmotorized activities. Overall trail use percentages are comprised of survey respondents who answered yes to the question, “Have you ever used a trail for motorized recreation?” and/or yes to “Have you ever used a trail for nonmotorized recreation?” Figure 1: Overall Use Type by County 90.0% Motorized Users Nonmotorized Users 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 6 a on riz um a A Y av ap ru aC nt Y ai z l na Sa Pi a m Pi aj o av N av oh M ic ar e a op z La Pa M G re en le e m ha ra G ila G in o on Co c ise ch Co A pa ch e 0.0% Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona’s Core Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Use and Non-use Percentages Core users are comprised of respondents who said they are predominantly motorized or predominantly nonmotorized trail users. See chart on page 81 for participation percentages and number of use days by individual trail activity such as hiking or four-wheel driving. Figure 2: Core Use Type by County 80.0% Nonmotorized Users Motorized Users Non-users 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Arizona State Parks on a A riz a um ap av Y Y ai z nt aC ru na l Sa Pi a m Pi o av aj N M oh av e a op ar ic M Pa z La le e en re G ha m ra G ila G no ni Co co ch ise Co A pa ch e 0.0% 7 Arizona Trails 2005 Wherever the region in Arizona, the use of trails generates revenue and creates jobs for those living nearby. Health and Fitness. Recreational trail use has direct benefits that satisfy personal needs of health, fitness and well-being. Trails offer fitness opportunities in natural settings with attractive scenery. Trails also provide an inexpensive, often free, way for individuals to increase their physical activity level, and often these trails are close to home. Many areas in Arizona offer trails that may be used throughout the year. In addition, trails have the potential to offer alternate forms of nonmotorized transportation that contribute to a healthier environment with less pollution. This has a direct effect on the health of the whole community. The benefits of trails include improvements to an individual’s emotional health and quality of life. Using trails for recreational purposes can lead to the reduction of stress experienced in daily life. Trails also act as a meeting place for the community and can foster community involvement, corresponding pride and the opportunity to interact with people (Active Living–Go for Green). Education. Trails provide opportunities for citizens to learn about environmental, cultural, historical or geological aspects of a particular area. They offer a means for people of all ages and abilities the opportunity to gain access and insight into the natural world. Increasing use of interpretive trails is an excellent example of how such information can be distributed to the public, resulting in a heightened awareness of an area. Utilizing trails as an avenue for education can nurture appreciation, knowledge and respect for the natural environment. 8 Resource Protection. Established trails provide a designated area for users, and these trails offer benefits concerning the protection of resources in natural settings. This removes people from critical or sensitive areas, reducing resource impacts. Trails can help in reducing cross-country travel that may have a negative impact on the physical environment. Local trail corridors can serve as buffers between various land uses, such as separating commercial and residential areas. They can be used to define areas where growth is planned or to protect unique environmental areas, such as floodplains, washes and critical wildlife habitats. Access and Linkages. Trails in Arizona play a primary role in providing access to many different areas. Recreationists use trails to reach areas for fishing, hunting and rock climbing. Trails also provide the only access to wilderness areas in primitive Arizona settings. Trails may provide valuable linkages throughout the State as well. In certain communities, trails connect neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and parks and recreation facilities. Economic Benefits of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation to Arizona Whether one enjoys exploring Arizona’s backcountry driving a truck, dirt bike or quad, or one prefers using their own muscle power to hike the trails, the following information may be of interest. Arizona State University conducted a yearlong economic study of recreational off-highway vehicle use in Arizona in 2002, completing 15,000 telephone surveys and 1,269 mail questionnaires from randomly selected Arizona households. See Appendix F for more detailed results of this survey. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 The study findings show the total economic impact (direct and indirect) to Arizona from recreational OHV use is more than $4 billion annually. OHV recreation activities provide an economic contribution to the State and its 15 counties mainly through direct expenditures for motorized vehicles, tow trailers, related equipment, accessories, insurance and maintenance costs. Figure 3: Percent of Direct OHV Expenditures–$3.1 Billion Equipment Expenditures 38% Trip Expenditures 28% Vehicle Expenditures 34% Additionally, an economic benefit is generated when OHV recreationists spend money in local communities close to areas they recreate in for recreational trip items such as gasoline, food, lodging and souvenirs. These direct purchases (Figure 3) provide indirect benefits by helping to pay for many people’s salaries and wages, and contributing to local and State tax revenues. Arizona State Parks In 2002, Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Arizona: • Created a statewide economic impact of $4.25 billion • Generated over $3 billion in retail sales (trip expenditures, $842.3 million; vehicle expenditures, $1,035.2 million; equipment expenditures, $1,178.2 million) • Added $187 million to annual State tax revenues • Created household income (salaries and wages) for Arizona residents totaling $1.1 billion • Supported 36,591 jobs in Arizona • Was participated in by 455,453 households or 1.1 million people, which accounts for 21% of Arizona’s population • Accounted for 12.2 million OHV Recreation Days in Arizona and an additional 1.8 million days in adjacent states and countries The number of OHV households was determined by positive phone survey responses to three specific questions: 1) Do you own an OHV?; 2) Do you drive it off-highway?; and 3) Do you use it for recreation? Totals for vehicle and equipment purchases were factored (reduced) by the percentage owners said their vehicles were used for OHV recreation, not total vehicle cost. The economic model (IMPLAN) used to generate the direct/indirect estimates is more conservative than other frequently used models. Expenditures by OHV visitors to Arizona were not included. These numbers show that off-highway vehicle recreation is participated in by many more people than just those core users recreating with dirt bikes, ATVs or snowmobiles. The majority of outdoor recreationists use many types of motorized vehicles, such as sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, to reach their destination and enjoy driving the backroads in their vehicles to sightsee along the way. 9 Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona’s Trail Partners The agencies and organizations responsible for conserving and managing Arizona’s trail resources include city, town, county, state, federal, tribal and private sector as well as clubs, organizations and individual enthusiasts. Many of the entities above also own the land that trails traverse. Arizona’s Land Ownership Arizona is the sixth largest state in the nation in terms of land area and includes over 72.9 million acres of land. The greatest portion of land, 30.6 million acres (42%) is federally owned, managed primarily as national forests, parks, wildlife refuges and military lands. The next highest percentage (27%) or 19.9 million acres is tribally owned. There are 12.8 million acres (18%) of privately owned land and 9.3 million (13%) of State Trust land (State Land Dept., 2003). City, town, county, and other State lands account for approximately 0.4% of Arizona’s land. Partnerships Many of the land managing entities have established partnerships with other agencies or organizations to share resources and improve trails. Of particular note is the partnerships between the Arizona State Parks Board and the many agencies and organizations involved in the planning, development and management of Arizona’s trail resources. The State OHV and nonmotorized Trail Programs managed by Arizona State Parks (ASP) actively work with their partners in a variety of ways. Many agencies have partnered with Arizona State Parks utilizing monies from the State Parks’ administered OHV Recreation Fund (Tables 1 and 2), the Trails Heritage Fund (Table 3) and the Federal Recreational Trails Program (RTP) 10 (Tables 1 and 4) to implement a variety of motorized and nonmotorized trail projects. The OHV Recreation Fund comes from a fixed percentage of total license tax on motor vehicle fuel. The Arizona Heritage Fund comes from Arizona Lottery revenues. The RTP comes from the Federal Highway Administration and is part of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The RTP monies administered by Arizona State Parks equally funds motorized and nonmotorized trail projects statewide. Table 1 shows competitive grants awarded from the OHV Recreation Fund and motorized portion of the RTP. Table 2 shows Partnership Agreements that utilize the OHV Recreation Fund. Table 3 shows competitive grants awarded from the Trails Heritage Fund. Table 4 shows partners awarded with trail maintenance services through the nonmotorized portion of the RTP fund. Table 1: Arizona OHV Recreation Fund and Motorized RTP Fund Competitive Grant Awards FYs 1993-2003 Partnering Entity # of Grants $ Awarded Cities/towns Counties State Federal Nonprofits Totals 3 7 3 58 1 72 $445,609 $2,240,085 $590,681 $7,646,814 $20,000 $10,943,189* * The OHV Recreation Fund was redirected to the State General Fund in FYs 2002, 2003 and 2004. This forced the suspension of grants already awarded to recipients across the State. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 2: Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund* Partnership Agreements FYs 2001-2003** Partnering Entity Agreement Amount Forest Service $750,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture Bureau of Land Management U.S.Department of Interior Arizona State Land Department OHV Recreation Program Arizona State Land Department Interagency Inventory and Mapping Project $750,000 $670,000 $2,500,000 * Arizona OHV Recreation Fund Source: Arizona State Motor Fuel Tax. ** The OHV Recreation Fund was redirected to the State General Fund in FYs 2002, 2003 and 2004, forcing the termination of agreements already awarded to recipients above. Table 3: Arizona Trails Heritage Fund Competitive Grants Awarded FYs 1994-2003* Partnering Entity Cities/towns Counties Federal/tribes Total** # of Grants 31 16 49 96 $ Awarded $2,137,573 $934,706 $2,075,878 $5,148,157 *Arizona Heritage Fund Source: Arizona Lottery Revenues ** Since 1994, Arizona State Parks has received 5% of the Trails Heritage Fund annually for nonmotorized trail projects within the State Parks system; ASP did not compete for Heritage trails grant projects in FYs 1994-2003. Arizona State Parks Table 4: Nonmotorized Recreational Trails Program Trail Maintenance Partners FYs 2001-2004* Partnering Entity Cities/towns Counties State Federal Tribal Totals # of Projects 11 5 3 24 2 45 RTP Project Amount (estimated**) $366,134 $282,354 $84,253 $1,417,311 $32,187 $2,182,239 * Federal Recreational Trails Program Source: Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) from the FHWA. ** All projects have not yet been completed so the amounts are estimated until expenditures are finalized. Figure 4 shows: 1) the overall percentage (41%) of the total OHV Recreation Fund used by State agencies (Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Parks and Arizona State Land Department) for education and information programs, law enforcement, OHV management of State Trust land, technical assistance and administration, and 2) the overall percentage (57%) of the total Fund awarded by Arizona State Parks to various agencies through the competitive grant process (see Table 1) and partnership agreements (see Table 2). The competitive grant monies have been distributed to National Forests (57%), cities and counties (38%), State agencies (4%), and Bureau of Land Management (1%). 11 Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 4: Total OHV Recreation Fund Percent Distribution FYs 1999-2003* Interagency Partnerships Competitive Grants State OHV Programs 39% 41% 20% *The OHV Recreation Fund was redirected to the State General Fund in FYs 2002, 2003 and 2004. Current Trends Affecting Trails Recreation The findings of the Trails 2005: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users report shows the importance of recreational trails to Arizona residents. There are several current trends that affect both the resources available for trails and the user demands for the recreation opportunities. Arizona’s Population Continues to Grow at a Rapid Rate According to the 2000 Census Bureau, Arizona is the now the 18th largest state with 5.6 million residents estimated in July 2003. The metro Phoenix area has catapulted to the sixth largest city in America, with over 1.3 million residents. With approximately two-thirds of the State residents who consider themselves trail users, more people are utilizing the State’s trails every year. Results from the survey indicated several 12 top priorities for trails that correlate with Arizona’s growing population. Urban development limiting access and new development doesn’t include trails were issues that rated high on the survey. Loss of Access to Trails is Decreasing Recreational Opportunities Along with the increased population comes increased development. As mentioned above urban development limiting access is identified as a priority concern of trail users in the State. Trails are not always considered when planning for a community’s growth. Arizonans are losing access to trails on public lands for a variety of reasons including land sales, closed lands, fee increases and urban sprawl. Another priority issue identified in the survey was the need to acquire new land for public access to trails. Public Land Managing Agencies Experiencing Limited Budgets In the past few years, governmental agencies and particularly land managing agencies have seen their budgets decrease. In their efforts to prioritize needs for their limited budgets, land managers find trails and recreation budgets often fall short of the need. Obesity and Physical Inactivity Epidemic While America has seen an increasing level of the population become inactive and overweight for the past two decades, the issue is just recently coming to the forefront and being considered an epidemic. Recreation opportunities including trails are making a natural connection. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 In the past few years, National Trails Day themes have focused around the health aspects of hiking and other forms of trail use. National Trails Day is an annual event founded by the American Hiking Society to celebrate trails throughout the country. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) founded the Hearts ‘N Parks program. It is designed to help park and recreation agencies encourage heart-healthy lifestyles in their communities. The Center for Disease Control has made the beneficial link between physical activity and trails. Trail use, especially hiking and walking, is effective in preventing or alleviating heart disease, hypertension, back pain, osteoporosis, diabetes and arthritis. A healthier population assisted by an inexpensive, often free, means of exercise can contribute to a decrease in expensive medical care. Trails can be considered a fun and inexpensive way to improve physical activity. Arizona’s Increasing Urban Population Seeks Trails Opportunities Close to Home In the past, demand for trail opportunities was fulfilled by the State’s rural areas and back roads. As the urban areas continue to develop across the State and urban sprawl affects the major cities, there is an increased demand for urban trail opportunities. Residents are seeking trails that are closer to Arizona State Parks home and can be utilized before and after work and in free time without considerable travel time. The survey indicated that for the trail activities done most often by nonmotorized users, 60% preferred locations that were in a city or town or just outside a city or town. For motorized users, 17.8% preferred locations that were in a city or town or just outside a city or town. Rising Sales of Off-Highway Vehicles Off-highway vehicle recreation has been increasing every year and this trend is shown through the rising sales of off-highway vehicles. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), estimated combined motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) sales for 2003 reached 1,882,000, which is an all-time record up 5.2% over the previous year. As new OHVs are sold the demand for recreational trails and use areas along with effective management of motorized trail use is increased. Trail Activity Participation The percentage of Arizonans who say they use trails has decreased somewhat since the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 survey, however, because the State’s overall population has greatly increased, the actual number of trail users in Arizona has also increased. A comparison of trail activity participation percentages from the 2000 and 2005 plans can be found in Table 5 (also see page 81). Of note: ATV use has nearly doubled and bicycling has decreased by nearly two-thirds. 13 Arizona Trails 2005 Table 5: Percent of the Population that Participates in Trail Activities AZ Trails 2005 Motorized Trail Users AZ Trails 2000 Percent of Respondents Motorized Trail Activity NSRE 2003* Nonmotorized Trail Users % U.S. Pop. Nonmotorized Trail Activity Four-wheel driving Motorized trail biking ATV (all-terrain vehicle) riding 55.0% 16.6% 58% 20% 17.4%* Trail hiking (day hiking) * Walking (excluding trail hiking) 42.4% 24% * Dune buggies and sandrails 5.0% 12% * Snowmobiling High clearance two-wheel driving Driving to sightsee or view wildlife Driving to visit historical/ archaeological sites 0.5% 3% 5.5% 10.6% 37% * 49.8% N/A 50.6% 40.1% N/A - *NSRE: 2000-2003 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment of people 16 years and older across the U.S. The survey combines fourwheel, ATV and motorcycle activities under Driving off-road. AZ Trails 2005 AZ Trails 2000 Percent of Respondents NSRE 2003 % U.S. Pop. 75.5% 67.1% 78% 78% 32.7% 82.3% Backpacking 20.7% 19% 26.4% Mountain bicycling (natural terrain) Bicycling 14.3% 19% 21.2% 13.7% 36% 39.4% Horseback riding (trail) 13.5% 13% 8.0% In-line skating 5.0% 12% - Cross-country skiing 5.3% 5% 3.8% Visiting historical/ archaeological sites Wildlife viewing/birding Canoeing/kayaking (using water trails) Orienteering/geocaching (using map, compass, GPS) 52.1% N/A 45.3% 40.0% N/A 44.1% 9.3% N/A 9.6% 1.6% N/A - 5 TR 200 TR 2005 14 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona Trails 2005 Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan November 2004 Arizona State Parks iii Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 2 Planning Process “I want to see what’s on the other side of the hill–then what’s beyond that.” Emma “Grandma” Gatewood, at age 67 first woman to thru-hike the Appalachian Trail (1995), 1887-1973 Arizona State Parks 15 Arizona Trails 2005 At least three-quarters of all trail users get out and enjoy the trails with one to three other people; less than 7% go alone. 16 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 2: Planning Process Planning Process In preparation for drafting the 2005 State OHV and nonmotorized Trails Plans, Arizona State Parks staff began a public involvement process in January 2003. State Parks combined much of the public involvement process for the motorized and nonmotorized plans. Staff chose to call the combined process Arizona Trails 2005 as a follow up to the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 Plan. From January to September 2003, State Parks contracted with Arizona State University to conduct an extensive telephone and mail survey of Arizona residents regarding their participation, motivations, attitudes and preferences about recreational trails. Arizona State Parks staff along with Arizona State University researchers developed the survey questions and pretested them for clarity. Arizona State Parks utilized these survey questions in polling a targeted group of OHV and nonmotorized trail users, recreation planners and agency resource managers. Arizona State Parks staff also conducted 15 workshops or focus groups statewide as an additional way to obtain information regarding trail use and perceptions. Surveys In order to gain an understanding of trail perceptions and usage around the State, approximately 5,000 people participated in the phone and mail surveys. The surveys provided information about public satisfaction of trail opportunities, estimates of trail use, preferences and concerns regarding recreational trails. The study included both motorized and nonmotorized trail Arizona State Parks users as well as people who do not use trails at all. This allows for preference comparisons between the two user groups. Staff utilized three different survey tools for the Arizona Trails 2005: 1) Random phone survey–a statewide, random, digit-dialed telephone survey was conducted with 4,888 Arizona adult residents to determine population percentages of trail user types at the county level and to gather basic information regarding trail usage (4,888 completed phone surveys–54.8% response rate from those who agreed to participate). 2) Random mail survey–1,197 households from the phone survey also completed a 12-page written survey to provide detailed information regarding trail usage, preferences and opinions (50.6% response rate). 3) Targeted mail survey–the same 12-page survey was completed by 285 “special interest” OHV and nonmotorized trail users, land managers and affected parties. These individuals were targeted because of their expressed interest in trail issues and planning (56.5% response rate). The telephone survey served two purposes. The first was to obtain population estimates for motorized recreation trail users, nonmotorized recreation trail users and nonusers in each of Arizona’s fifteen counties. The second purpose of the telephone survey was to recruit participants to complete the mail survey. Staff followed a modified Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000) for both the general public and target group mail surveys. The survey mailings began in February 2003. The 17 Arizona Trails 2005 original mailing contained an introductory letter, survey and the incentives (half-off entrance fee to any of Arizona State Parks and a brochure/map). A second mailing of a reminder postcard was sent two weeks later to those original respondents who had not yet returned surveys. Two weeks after that a third followup mailing was sent to the nonrespondents which included a personalized cover letter, replacement survey and postage-paid return envelope. Staff applied the same survey methods and questions to both the target group and the general public so that the groups’ responses could be compared. By soliciting input and analyzing the findings from both groups a more accurate picture of Arizona’s entire spectrum of motorized and nonmotorized trail users was established. Focus Group Workshops Arizona State Parks staff conducted 15 public workshops or focus groups as an additional way to obtain information regarding trail use and perceptions. These regional workshops were held in Flagstaff, Tucson, Pinetop-Lakeside, Lake Havasu City and Phoenix. The focus groups consisted of separate regional workshops for 1) motorized trail users, 2) nonmotorized trail users, and 3) land managers. Staff sent electronic invitations to land managers, trail organizations and user groups, and known active trail citizens to participate in the workshops. In addition, press releases were sent out in each of the communities where workshops were held. State Parks staff made a concerted effort to include all types of motorized and nonmotorized trail users, representatives from recreational clubs, environmental groups and other organizations interested in or concerned about recreational trail and OHV activities, and staff from local, regional, state, federal and tribal agencies involved with trails and off-highway vehicle recreation. 18 Staff’s intent for the workshops was to facilitate in-depth discussion about motorized and nonmotorized issues with small but diverse groups of interested people in various regions throughout the State. These focus groups allowed State Parks staff to 1) address in more depth questions from the survey, and 2) identify topics related to trails that were not addressed in the survey. Approximately 150 people participated in these workshops. Additional Public Input The Arizona State Committee on Trails (ASCOT) and the OffHighway Vehicle Advisory Group (OHVAG), both advisory committees to the Arizona State Parks Board, were heavily involved in the planning process for the Arizona Trails 2005 Plan. State Parks staff presented the process, survey and findings at regular meetings of ASCOT and OHVAG. These meetings were open to the public. Public Comment The Draft Arizona Trails 2005 Plan was open for public comment from April 19 through June 30, 2004. The draft plan was posted on the Arizona State Parks’ website and notification of the draft plan was sent to land managers, trail associations, related list-servs and trail users statewide. During the public comment period, staff discussed the draft plan with both ASCOT and OHVAG at a joint meeting of the Committees and at separate meetings. The draft plan was also presented and discussed at public meetings of the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission (AORCC) and the Arizona State Parks Board. Staff received comments from various groups and land managers including: American Hiking Society, Arizona Trail Riders (who commented on behalf of numerous OHV Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 organizations in the State), Maricopa County, National Park Service–Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, along with individual trail users. For the most part, comments provided for the plan were positive in nature regarding the planning process and results. Some comments suggested changes or clarifications to statements made in the plan. Certain comments requested elaboration of specific issues and additional issues to be addressed, a few comments requested additional information regarding the economic aspects of trails and trail use. Several comments were received from the OHV community indicating they felt the percentage of motorized trail users was too low to accurately reflect the motorized usage in Arizona. To help explain the survey findings, faculty at ASU provided clarification and some observations. After close review of this study and the 2000 trails study, one reason for the difference in user percentages may be attributable to differences in the research methods and sampling approaches for the two studies. While the two studies used generally similar methods, there were differences in the sampling strategies. According to the 2003 survey, 24.5% of adult Arizona residents used trails for motorized recreation during the previous year. Based on the 2003 U.S. Census estimate of 3,763,685 adult residents, this finding indicates that nearly one million (922,103) adult Arizona residents used trails for motorized recreation during the previous year. The 2003 study also found that a total of 7.0% of adult residents used trails predominantly for motorized use (i.e., greater than 50% of all their trail use was motorized). This represents more than a quarter million adult residents and this estimate does not include residents less than 18 years of age or visitors from out of state. Arizona State Parks Of all trail users responding to the phone survey, 24.5% indicated that they had engaged in motorized activities on trails at some point during their time in Arizona (Figure 1). The 24.5% motorized trail use estimate is consistent with other estimates defining a motorized trail user based on any such use, such as the economic impact study described in Appendix F. However, in the current study, a smaller percentage (7.0%) of the trail users said that motorized use accounted for the majority of their trail use (Figure 2). Although the estimate that 7.0% of trail users are predominately motorized users is lower than some other previous studies, close inspection of the data reveals some insights. For example, while 24.5% of trail users engage in motorized recreation, just 15.3% of that group was exclusively motorized users. The remaining 84.7% of people who engage in motorized trail use also participate in nonmotorized trail activities (see Figure 1). This nonmotorized use accounted for a greater percentage of total use for most respondents. That is, while nearly one quarter of all respondents did participate in motorized trail use at some point, for most, nonmotorized activities accounted for the majority of their overall trail use. Therefore, while categorizing trail users as motorized or nonmotorized is useful for comparison and planning purposes, it should be noted that most motorized trail users participate in a variety of motorized and nonmotorized activities while engaging in their motorized trail pursuits. In addition, the population of Arizona continues to grow at a tremendous rate, with the most pronounced growth occurring in urban and urbanizing areas, especially Maricopa County and northern Pinal County. This growth is a critical factor impacting this plan’s trail figures. The major influx of 19 Arizona Trails 2005 residents has been to urban and urbanizing areas and, as this and previous studies show, residents in urban areas are less likely to be motorized trail users and significantly less likely to be enthusiastic or core motorized trail users. Since 1990, Arizona’s population has increased 40%, gaining nearly 2 million more people. The State’s largest and most urban county, Maricopa County, has increased 45%, gaining 1.3 million people. Maricopa County has consistently had the lowest percentage of motorized trail users and with most of the State’s population growth occurring in this one county, one would expect the statewide motorized use figures to drop substantially, but instead they went up from 17% (417,482 adult motorized trail users) in 1990, to 21% (666,494) in 1997, to 24.5% (922,102) in 2003. This 7.5% increase in motorized users statewide from 1990 to 2003 represents an increase of 282,276 new adult motorized trail users than if the 17% had remained constant. Thus, motorized trail use is increasing in terms of the percentage of State residents that participate. And, with the State’s growth, that percentage increase represents an even more dramatic increase in the total number of motorized users, but the core group of OHV enthusiasts may be a smaller overall percentage of motorized trail users, as this core group has been joined by a growing number of more casual motorized users. These findings reflect the continued growth in popularity of motorized trail use; a finding that is corroborated by the intuitive observations of land managers, planners and trail users. Also, many popular OHV use areas have been closed in the past few years resulting in a higher concentration of users in areas that remain open, making the growth in motorized recreation even more noticeable. 20 These factors are of critical importance to land managers who are charged with managing and providing quality recreation experiences for this increasingly popular activity. Note: While there have been no recent studies regarding children under age 18, the 1994 Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan surveyed children ages 9-18 regarding their participation in recreational activities. More than 50% of the children said they had participated in motorized trail activities in the last year and motorcycle and ATV riding ranked number 8 (out of 47) as their favorite activity; four-wheel driving ranked 16th; snowmobiling ranked 40th. More than 75% said they had participated in nonmotorized trail activities (walking, jogging, bicycling) and horseback riding (55%) ranked number 6 as their favorite activity; trail hiking (69%) ranked 12th; mountain bicycling (32%) ranked 24th. Hanging out, basketball and attending sport events were the top favorites and the most frequently participated activities. For the 1994 study, the findings estimated that 210,757 children ages 9-18 participated in motorized and 316,135 children in nonmotorized trail activities. While not statistically valid, extrapolating these estimates to Arizona’s 2003 population provides a “guestimate” of 320,896 children participating in motorized trail activities and 481,345 children in nonmotorized trail activities. Final Plan State Parks staff incorporated changes to the final plan based on the comments received and prepared the document for final design and layout. In September and October 2004, staff submitted the Arizona Trails 2005 Plan to AORCC, ASCOT and OHVAG for approval and recommendation to the Arizona State Parks Board for final action in November 2004. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 3 Priorities Identified By The Public “We will be known by the tracks we leave behind.” Dakota Proverb Arizona State Parks 21 Arizona Trails 2005 22 31% of nonmotorized trail users and 17% of motorized trail users prefer trails that are limited to a single activity. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 3: Priorities Identified by the Public One of the objectives of this plan is to identify the most significant issues related to motorized and nonmotorized trail use in Arizona. This chapter presents priorities from the combined general public and target group surveys and the focus group workshops. This chapter and the Trails 2005: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users survey data provide sources of information for land managers and trail users to determine the issues and needs on which to focus their efforts and resources. Survey Priorities The Arizona Trails 2005 survey was organized to produce the following types of information from Arizona’s citizens: • • • • • • • Satisfaction with trail opportunities in Arizona. Estimates of trail use in Arizona with participation broken into specific recreational types and activities. Motivations for using trails. Preferences for recreation settings. Environmental and social concerns on trails in Arizona. Importance and satisfaction for trail support facilities in Arizona. Priorities for trail management and planning in Arizona. Arizona State Parks The following information is provided separately for motorized and nonmotorized trail user responses. The responses listed are representative of the 7.0% of Arizonans surveyed who identified themselves as motorized trail “core users” and the 56.5% of Arizonans surveyed who identified themselves as nonmotorized trail “core users” since these are the users for whom the resources and facilities are planned and managed. Satisfaction with Trails The majority of all trail users are satisfied with recreational trails in Arizona (see Table 6). Overall satisfaction levels of nonmotorized trail users appears to be slightly higher, as more nonmotorized users report being very satisfied or extremely satisfied. Table 6: Overall Satisfaction with Trails Satisfaction with Motorized Trails Trail Users Not at all satisfied 4.6% Slightly satisfied 6.0% Satisfied 72.7% Very satisfied 15.3% Extremely satisfied 1.4% Total 100% Nonmotorized Trail Users 0.2% 6.2% 58.8% 35.1% 3.4% 100% Public Access to Trails Survey participants were asked to respond to the following question regarding access to trails–What is your opinion about the trend in public access to recreation trails in the past five years in Arizona (i.e., the public’s right to use trails)? Table 7 shows that nearly half (48.3%) of motorized users feel that public access to trails has declined for their preferred activities 23 Arizona Trails 2005 in Arizona in the past five years. In contrast, less than 20% of nonmotorized users feel that access has declined. Table 7: Perceptions of Trend in Public Access to Trails Public Access Trend Access is declining; fewer trails are open for my preferred activities Access is about the same Access is improving; more trails are open for my preferred activities Not sure Total Motorized Trail Users Nonmotorized Trail Users 48.3% 18.7% 19.5% 34.5% 8.8% 13.0% 23.4% 100% 33.8% 100% Public Access by Region In addition, respondents were asked how satisfied they were with access in 1) the region of the State they used the most, and 2) the region of the State they enjoyed the most. Table 8: Satisfaction with Public Access to Trails in Regions Motorized Trail Users Nonmotorized Trail Users Satisfaction with Region Region Region Region Access to Trails used most enjoyed most used most enjoyed most Not at all satisfied 7.8% 7.3% 0.6% 0.7% Slightly satisfied 18.0% 17.0% 8.9% 10.0% Satisfied 47.5% 50.0% 55.7% 58.7% Very satisfied 21.7% 19.9% 27.2% 21.8% Extremely satisfied 5.1% 5.8% 7.1% 8.8% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Overall both motorized and nonmotorized trail users were generally satisfied with access in both of those regions (see Table 8). It is interesting to note that no single region of the State was reported to be of greater preference than any other. Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with public access (i.e., your ability to use trails) in the State? 24 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Usage and Activities One of the primary objectives of this study was to estimate trail use in Arizona with participation broken down into specific types and activities. Respondents were asked to report their participation in an extensive list of motorized and nonmotorized activities on Arizona’s trails last year. The results are displayed in Tables 9 and 10 and on page 81. Based on the percentage of respondents who participated in an activity at least once in the past 12 months, the most popular motorized activities for motorized trail users were four-wheel driving (55.0%), driving to sightsee or view wildlife/birding (49.8%), and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding (42.4%). Based on the percentage of respondents who participated in an activity at least once in the past 12 months, the most popular nonmotorized activities for nonmotorized trail users were trail hiking (day hiking) (75.5%), walking (excluding trail hiking) (67.1%), and visiting historical/archaeological sites (52.1%). It is interesting to note that 12% to 20% of nonmotorized users participate in various motorized activities and 43% to 54% of motorized users participate in various nonmotorized activities (see page 81). Table 9: Motorized Activity Participation in the Past 12 Months Motorized Trail Users Motorized Trail Activity Four-wheel driving Driving to sightsee or view wildlife/birding ATV (all-terrain vehicle) riding Driving to visit historical/ archaeological sites Motorized trail biking/dirt biking High clearance two-wheel driving Dune buggy or sandrail driving Competitive events Snowmobiling 55.0% Mean Number of Days 22.3 49.8% 15.2 42.4% 31 40.1% 8.9 16.6% 21.2 10.6% 12 5.0% 0.9% 0.5% 10.2 2.6 0.7 Valid Percent AZ Trail AZ GW Arizona State Parks T 25 Arizona Trails 2005 Table 10: Nonmotorized Activity Participation in the Past 12 Months Nonmotorized Trail Users Mean Valid number of Nonmotorized Trail Activity percent days Trail hiking (day hiking) 75.5% 16.4 Walking (excluding trail hiking) 67.1% 39.5 Visiting historical/archaeological 52.1% 5.8 sites Wildlife viewing/birding 40.0% 17.1 Backpacking 20.7% 4.4 Jogging/running 15.8% 23.1 Mountain biking (natural terrain) 14.3% 10.9 Bicycling 13.7% 16.3 Horseback riding 13.5% 8.3 Canoeing/kayaking (using water 9.3% 5.3 trails) Cross-country skiing or 5.3% 1.1 snowshoeing In-line skating 5.0% 4.8 Orienteering/geocaching (using 1.6% 2.3 map, compass, GPS) Hiking with pack stock (horses, 0.7% 2.5 mules, llamas, etc.) 26 To assess the frequency of participation for each activity, respondents were also asked to estimate the number of days they had engaged in each activity in the previous 12 months (see Tables 9 and 10 and page 81). Motorized users spent the most days on trails engaging in motorized activities such as ATV riding (31 days), four-wheel driving (22.3 days) and motorized trail biking/dirt biking (21.2 days). Nonmotorized users spent the most time on trails walking (excluding trail hiking) (39.5 days), jogging/running (23.1 days) and wildlife viewing/birding (17.1 days). Environmental Concerns Perceptions of environmental concerns are important to identify as they can affect both trail users’ satisfaction as well as ecological integrity of the recreation setting. Mail survey respondents were asked to rate each of fourteen environmental concerns on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (very serious problem). Findings are displayed in Tables 11 and 12 and Figure 5. Based on mean scores, motorized and nonmotorized users have similar primary concerns: litter (M=3.2; NM = 2.92), trash dumping (M = 2.92; NM = 2.57) and erosion of trails (M = 2.69, NM = 2.53). Motorized users also find vandalism (2.60), damage to historical or archaeological sites (2.58) and trampling of vegetation (2.2) to be of concern. Nonmotorized users rate trampling of vegetation (2.42), damage to historical and archaeological sites (2.40) and vehicle emissions (2.40) as slight to moderate problems. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 11: Motorized User Environmental Concerns on Trails Motorized Trail Users Environmental Concerns Litter Trash dumping Erosion of trails Vandalism Damage to historical or archaeological sites Dust in the air Trampling of vegetation Water pollution Vehicle emissions Fire rings/charcoal Erosion of stream banks Human waste Damage to soils Air quality Arizona State Parks Not a Slight problem problem 8.4% 12.4% 12.0% 20.4% 28.8% 24.8% 32.0% 33.4% 42.2% 36.3% 40.1% 48.4% 44.8% 46.6% 25.5% 28.1% 32.2% 24.8% 22.7% 36.2% 32.9% 36.8% 27% 34.5% 34% 32.5% 35.2% 36.1% Moderate problem Valid percent 20.6% 23.8% 37.3% 35.6% 17.9% 28.8% 24.6% 14.5% 18.2% 21.8% 16.7% 9.5% 11.1% 9.5% Serious problem 28.8% 24.3% 12.3% 12.3% 23.3% 9.2% 3.4% 9.9% 6.9% 6.6% 3.8% 3.6% 7.7% 7.4% Very serious problem 16.7% 10.9% 6.3% 6.9% 7.3% 1.9% 7% 5.4% 5.7% 0.7% 5.4% 6.1% 1.2% 0.4% Mean 3.20 2.92 2.69 2.60 2.58 2.27 2.20 2.17 2.07 2.01 2.00 1.86 1.85 1.79 27 Arizona Trails 2005 Table 12: Nonmotorized User Environmental Concerns on Trails Nonmotorized Trail Users Environmental Concerns Litter Trash dumping Erosion of trails Trampling of vegetation Damage to historical or archaeological sites Vehicle emissions Vandalism Water pollution Dust in the air Erosion of stream banks Air quality Damage to soils Fire rings/charcoal Human waste 28 Not a Slight problem problem 11.3% 23.1% 14.1% 23.0% 30.2% 28.5% 27.3% 32.8% 35.1% 32.0% 38.2% 32.1% 44.0% 52.0% 25.6% 27.6% 34.6% 35.6% 29.2% 32.3% 35.5% 32.9% 30.3% 32.7% 27.6% 38.8% 34.4% 29.2% Moderate problem Valid percent 33% 28.6% 37.8% 23.9% 17.9% 20.6% 21% 15.1% 20.2% 24.8% 21.8% 18.7% 13.9% 12.2% Serious problem 20.2% 10.8% 11% 10.9% 15.3% 8.5% 11.5% 13.4% 10.4% 6.2% 7% 5.9% 7% 3.3% Very serious problem 9.9% 9.9% 2.5% 6.6% 7.4% 10.1% 4.6% 5.9% 4% 4.3% 5.4% 4.5% 0.6% 2.%3 Mean 2.92 2.57 2.53 2.42 2.4 2.4 2.31 2.27 2.18 2.18 2.14 2.12 1.86 1.73 Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � ��� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� ��������� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � � ��� � � �� �� � �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� � �� � � �� � �� �� �� � � �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 5: Environmental Concerns on Trails ������������ ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � 29 Arizona Trails 2005 Social Concerns The survey also asked respondents to rate social concerns that may reduce the overall quality of trail users’ recreation experience. Respondents ranked 13 different social concerns on a scale from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (very serious problem). Findings are displayed in Tables 13 and 14 and Figure 6. Based on mean scores, trail users considered residential/ commercial development (M = 2.85; NM = 2.59) as the greatest concern. Unregulated OHV use (M = 2.25; NM = 2.47), lack of trail ethics (M = 2.48; NM = 2.40) and too many people (M= 2.13; NM = 2.16) were also considered slight problems. Table 13: Motorized Users Social Concerns on Trails Motorized Trail Users Social Concerns NP SP Residential/commercial development Lack of trail ethics Unregulated OHV use Too many people Unskilled people Uncontrolled dogs 36.3% 23.0% 37.1% 26.4% 24.0% 44.1% MP SP Valid percent 6.8% 12.8% 23.3% 32.0% 23.4% 17.8% 29.3% 12.2% 14.2% 32.9% 33.3% 6.5% 51.9% 17.4% 5.0% 24.5% 17.9% 7.7% Target shooting Personal safety Noise disturbance Vehicle noise Conflict between users Damage to/loss of personal property Recreational livestock 45.5% 45.5% 44.9% 46.6% 48.9% 54.1% 64.9% 27.1% 27.2% 39.0% 36.1% 38.7% 30.2% 29.5% 10.5% 21.2% 5.9% 8.1% 9.9% 14.0% 4.0% 11.2% 5.3% 5.4% 4.4% 2.2% 1.5% 1.6% VSP 20.8% 3.8% 7.1% 0.9% 1.7% 5.9% Mean 2.85 2.48 2.25 2.23 2.08 2.07 5.7% 0.8% 4.8% 4.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 2.05 1.89 1.86 1.85 1.66 1.63 1.42 NP = not a problem, SP = somewhat of a problem, MP = moderate problem, SP = serious problem, VSP = very serious problem. 30 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table14: Nonmotorized Users Social Concerns on Trails Nonmotorized Trail Users Social Concerns Residential/commercial development Unregulated OHV use Lack of trail ethics Too many people Uncontrolled dogs Vehicle noise Noise disturbance Unskilled people Target shooting Personal safety Conflict between users Recreational livestock Damage to/loss of personal property NP SP MP SP Valid percent VSP Mean 34.0% 14.0% 24.5% 14.5% 13.0% 2.59 32.1% 26.3% 33.7% 38.4% 40.2% 39.0% 35.9% 51.5% 46.8% 49.2% 60.2% 20.2% 31.9% 28.4% 33.5% 31.7% 34.3% 9.2% 22.8% 34.1% 35.9% 31.5% 25.4% 22.5% 27.9% 14.4% 18% 18.2% 20.3% 13.3% 11.6% 11.7% 5.5% 12.7% 13.8% 8.4% 8.3% 5.6% 5.4% 2.9% 4.8% 4.8% 2.5% 1.8% 9.6% 5.5% 1.7% 5.4% 4.6% 3.2% 1.7% 7.6% 2.7% 0.7% 1.0% 2.47 2.4 2.16 2.09 2.03 2 1.95 1.94 1.82 1.7 1.52 64.6% 23.5% 9.6% 2.2% 0.1% 1.5 Hiking with recreational livestock (pack stock such as mules, horses or llamas) is a popular way to enjoy trails, letting the pack stock carry the heavy overnight equipment and supplies. It also carries with it a user responsibility to properly manage the livestock to reduce negative impacts to the environment and other trail users, including overgrazing high use areas, reducing the introduction of nonnative weed species through livestock feed, and damage to trees from tying livestock up for the night. NP = not a problem, SP = somewhat of a problem, MP = moderate problem, SP = serious problem, VSP = very serious problem. Arizona State Parks 31 32 �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� �� � � �� �� � ��� �� �� �� � ��� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� � �� � �� � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��������� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� � �� � �� �� � �� �� ��� �� �� �� � Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 6: Social Concerns on Trails ������������ � ��� � ��� � ��� � Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Management and Planning Priorities Trail managers have limited resources to develop and maintain trails. To inform management decisions regarding resource allocation and issue prioritization, one section of the survey included a series of questions that allowed respondents to rate the importance of various trail issues. Trail Management Respondents were asked to rate the importance of 11 trail management priorities as well as their satisfaction with current conditions. The results are displayed on Table 15 and Figure 7 for motorized users and Table 16 and Figure 8 for nonmotorized users. maintain existing trails, keep area clean of litter and trash and acquire new land for trails. Table15: Motorized Users Importance and Satisfaction with Trail Management Priorities Motorized Trail Users Trail Management Priorities Keep area clean of litter/trash Importance Satisfaction Mean Score (out of 5) 4.37 2.70 Enforce existing rules/ regulations 3.95 3.75 Based upon mean scores, both motorized and nonmotorized users felt that keep area clean of litter/trash (M = 4.37; NM= 4.21) was the greatest priority. Also of high importance were to maintain existing trails (M = 3.93; NM = 4.15), repair damage to trails (M = 3.82; NM = 4.05) and enforce existing rules/regulations (M=3.95; NM = 3.76). The item of least importance for both groups was to provide landscaping along trails and in support areas (M= 2.24; NM = 2.54). Maintain existing trails Repair damage to trails Develop new trails Acquire new land for trails Develop support facilities 3.93 3.82 3.63 3.53 3.51 3.05 2.90 2.74 2.74 2.94 Acquire new land for public access to trails 3.49 2.79 When asked in an open-ended format, given limited funding which one of the trail management priorities is the most important, motorized users most frequently replied enforce existing rules and regulations, keep area clean of litter and trash and acquire new land for public access to trails. Provide law enforcement/ safety 3.41 2.61 Provide educational programs 3.22 2.98 Provide landscaping along trails and in support areas 2.24 3.22 When asked in an open-ended format, given limited funding which one of the trail management priorities is the most important, nonmotorized users most frequently replied Arizona State Parks 33 34 �� �� �� �� �� � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� � �� �� � �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� � �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� �� ��� �� �� � �� �� � �� ��� �� �� ��� ��� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� � � �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � � ��� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� ��� ���������� �� �� �� �� � �� �� ��� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� � ��� �� �� ��� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� ��� �� �� Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 7: Importance and Satisfaction of Trail Management Priorities for Motorized Users ������������ � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 16: Nonmotorized Users Importance and Satisfaction with Trail Management Priorities Nonmotorized Trail Users Trail Management Priorities Keep area clean of litter/trash Maintain existing trails Repair damage to trails Enforce existing rules/ regulations Develop support facilities Develop new trails Provide law enforcement/ safety Acquire new land for public access to trails Acquire new land for trails Provide educational programs Provide landscaping along trails and in support areas Arizona State Parks Importance Satisfaction Mean Score (out of 5) 4.21 2.95 4.15 3.25 4.05 3.15 3.76 2.99 3.52 3.33 2.90 3.05 3.32 2.98 3.30 2.95 3.21 3.17 3.03 3.12 2.54 3.25 Importance - Performance Analysis The importance–performance analysis (IPA) is a widely used analytical technique that combines measures of an attribute’s importance and level of performance into a two-dimensional grid in an attempt to ease data interpretation and derive practical suggestions. The IPA plot is straightforward, as four different suggestions are made based on the importance-performance measures. The four quadrants are: 1)‘keep up the good work’, are issues that are considered important and have high satisfaction in current performance, 2) ‘possible overkill’ indicates that the issues are relatively less important but were still performed well, 3) ‘low priority’ because both importance and performance ratings are lower than the average, and 4) ‘concentrate here’ that indicate the issues that are important to participants but where satisfaction of current performance is low. These are areas where resources and time should be allocated to improve performance. Based on the survey data the issues that fall into ‘concentrate here’ for motorized respondents are: develop new trails, enforce existing rules and regulations and keep area clean of litter and trash. The ‘concentrate here’ issues for the nonmotorized respondents are: keep area clean of litter and trash, enforce existing rules and regulations and develop support facilities. 35 36 �� � �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� � �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� � ��� �� ��� �� � �� �� �� �� � � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� ��� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� ��� �� �� � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� ��� �� ��� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 8: Importance and Satisfaction of Trail Management Priorities for Nonmotorized Users ���������� ������������ ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Support Facilities Respondents were also asked to rate importance and current satisfaction with 14 trail support facilities. Results are shown in Table 17 and Figure 9 for motorized and Table 18 and Figure 10 for nonmotorized users. Based on mean scores, priority trail support facilities for motorized users are trash cans (4.14), trail signs (3.95), restrooms (3.46) and drinking water (3.31). When asked in an open ended format, given limited funding which one of the trail support facilities is the most important, motorized users most frequently responded trash cans, trails signs and developed campgrounds. Based on mean scores, priority trail support facilities for nonmotorized users are trash cans (4.04), trail signs (3.90), drinking water (3.82) and restrooms (3.74). When asked in an open ended format, given limited funding which one of the trail support facilities is the most important, nonmotorized users most frequently responded drinking water, trash cans and trail signs. Table17: Motorized Users Importance and Satisfaction of Trail Support Facilities Motorized Trail Users Trail Support Facilities Trash cans Trail signs Restrooms Drinking water Motorized staging areas Picnic facilities Backcountry camping sites Developed campgrounds Ramadas Parking spaces Group camping areas RV dump station Showers Equestrian staging area Importance Satisfaction Mean Score (out of 5) 4.14 2.69 3.95 2.82 3.46 2.78 3.31 2.76 3.13 2.89 3.08 3.05 3.04 3.00 3.03 3.03 2.99 2.79 2.77 2.97 2.55 2.93 2.45 3.08 2.28 3.15 1.76 3.18 05 20 TR Arizona State Parks 37 38 �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� � �� � � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � ��� �� �� � � � � �� �� �� � �� �� ��� �� ��� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � �� � �� � �� � �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� � �� � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �������������������������� � � �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 9: Importance and Satisfaction of Trail Support Facilities for Motorized Users ���������������������������� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 18: Nonmotorized Users Importance and Satisfaction of Trail Support Facilities Nonmotorized Trail Users Trail Support Facilities Importance Satisfaction Trash cans Trail signs Drinking water Restrooms Parking spaces Picnic facilities Ramadas Backcountry camping sites Developed campgrounds Group camping areas Showers RV dump station Motorized staging areas Equestrian staging area Arizona State Parks Mean Score (out of 5) 4.04 2.94 3.9 2.96 3.82 2.87 3.74 2.93 3.24 3.02 3.06 3.19 3.02 3.09 3.00 3.20 2.94 3.18 2.57 3.25 2.35 3.08 2.18 3.24 1.93 3.16 1.91 3.32 Litter Control–To Can or Not to Can It is recognized by trail managers that providing trash cans in remote areas is not the most efficient method to control the litter problem, since trash can maintenance is costly and can lead to greater problems when not picked up frequently. In general, trash cans at trailheads are not the answer to the litter problem on trails. Trail managers instead emphasize self-cleanup educational programs such as Leave no trace and Pack it in-Pack it out for most recreational areas, especially in remote areas. However, when placed appropriately and well-maintained, trash cans can be effective in reducing litter problems in some urban recreation areas. 39 40 �� �� �� ��� � �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� � ��� �� �� � �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� �� �� �� � �� � �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� � ��� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� Arizona Trails 2005 Figure 10: Importance and Satisfaction of Trail Support Facilities for Nonmotorized Users ����������������������������� ������������������������������� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Issues To provide additional input into the State trail planning process, respondents were asked to rate the importance of 15 broad trail issues and indicate their top three priorities (see Tables 19 and 20 and Figure 11). According to mean scores, motorized users feel that closure of trails (3.92), urban development limiting trail access (3.80) and lack of funding for trails (3.70) are primary concerns. According to mean scores, nonmotorized users feel that lack of funding for trails (3.82), urban development limiting trail Figure 11: Importance of Trail Issues for Motorized and access (3.76) and inadequate trail maintenance (3.42) are top Nonmotorized Users issues. Respondents were also Motorized Nonmotorized asked to list their top 4.5 three trail issues in rank 4 order by placing a 1 next to the most important 3.5 issue, a 2 next to the 3 second most important 2.5 issue and a 3 next to the 2 third most important. 1.5 1 0.5 ds ls tr ai lh ea to s ad ss ce ac of ns tio nd i co r ro es do t en m ve lo p de Po o tr ai e ud cl in t n’ lit fa ci gh ou en ot ew N ls ne ar g ie s al on e ag gn si of k tr ai tr ai ls e ho m ie s ar ls tr ai of k op ne di ith w le La c La c N re sa bi lit tr ai ls io n r fo g ib le ss ce ac ls tr ai fu tu fo of k La c gh pe N ou en The three top issues for nonmotorized users are lack of planning for future trails, urban development limiting trail access and lack of funding for trails. N ot to ot pl an en ni n ou gh in al on gi re of ck rm at nn i pl a r fo t or pp su La of ck La ng e us m y r fo g in nd fu of di tr ai na g ig ls na io ct re La ck of k La c ls e t m en ve l op na n de an rb U tr ai In ad e qu at e Cl os lm ur ai e nt e of tr ai ls ce 0 The top three issues for motorized users are closure of trails, urban development limiting trail access and lack of funding for trails. Arizona State Parks 41 Arizona Trails 2005 Table 19: Motorized Users Importance of Trail Issues Motorized Trail Users Trail Issues Closure of trails Urban development Lack of funding for trails Lack of support for my use Lack of planning for future trails Lack of directional signage New development doesn’t include trails Inadequate trail maintenance Lack of regional planning Lack of signage along trails Not enough facilities near trails Not enough trails accessible to people with disabilities Not enough information Poor conditions of access roads to trailheads Lack of trails near home NI 1.3% 2.0% 1.3% 3.0% 2.5% 2.9% 6.2% 1.8% 3.8% 8.9% 9.7% 12.2% 6.0% 10.1% 28.6% SI I VI Valid percent 7.3% 21.2% 34.8% 10.9% 17.9% 43.1% 9.8% 28.8% 38.2% 13.5% 33.6% 21.8% 15.0% 35.8% 30.3% 8.8% 42.8% 34.3% 15.2% 33.6% 26.3% 22.6% 36.8% 29.5% 21.3% 36.9% 27.4% 14.2% 35.3% 34.8% 18.4% 40% 19.5% 27% 29.3% 12.3% 27.7% 31.5% 32.8% 27.0% 30.9% 22.1% 20.0% 25.2% 19.2% EI 35.2% 26.1% 22.0% 28.1% 16.4% 11.3% 18.7% 9.3% 10.5% 6.8% 12.4% 19.1% 2.0% 10.0% 6.9% Mean 3.92 3.8 3.7 3.59 3.43 3.42 3.36 3.22 3.19 3.16 3.06 2.99 2.97 2.95 2.56 NI = not important, SI = somewhat important, I = important, VI = very important, EI = extremely important 42 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 20: Nonmotorized Users Importance of Trail Issues Nonmotorized Trail Users Trail Issues Lack of funding for trails Urban development Inadequate trail maintenance Closure of trails Lack of directional signage New development doesn’t include trails Lack of planning for future trails Lack of signage along trails Lack of regional planning Poor conditions of access roads to trailheads Not enough facilities near trails Lack of support for my use Not enough trails accessible to people with disabilities Not enough information Lack of trails near home NI 1.9% 4.0% 2.3% 4.0% 3.0% 8.2% 8.2% 5.4% 6.0% 7.5% 10.5% 12.5% 13.8% 13.7% 22.8% SI I VI Valid percent 5.8% 33.3% 27.0% 10.7% 22.7% 31.2% 9.2% 42.2% 36.7% 11.1% 39.7% 30.1% 10.8% 44.3% 27.5% 11.2% 40.3% 23.9% 14.4% 38.1% 28.3% 22.0% 35.1% 23.1% 19.1% 41.5% 20.3% 18.8% 41.4% 21.7% 20.1% 39.4% 21.2% 18.6% 39% 19.7% 21.6% 44.2% 10% 28.6% 40.5% 13.3% 28.2% 27.9% 14.2% EI 32.1% 31.5% 9.6% 15.1% 14.3% 16.4% 10.9% 14.3% 13.1% 10.7% 8.8% 10.2% 10.3% 4% 7% Mean 3.82 3.76 3.42 3.41 3.39 3.29 3.19 3.19 3.15 3.09 2.98 2.97 2.81 2.65 2.55 NI = not important, SI = somewhat important, I = important, VI = very important, EI = extremely important. Arizona State Parks 43 Arizona Trails 2005 Focus Group Priorities Arizona State Parks staff conducted 15 public workshops throughout the state to gather information from individuals who had expressed an interest in participating in trails planning. Separate regional workshops were held for representatives of 1) motorized trail users, 2) nonmotorized trail users, and 3) land and resource management agencies. Through discussions, issues regarding motorized and nonmotorized trail use emerged, including issues that were not addressed in the phone and mail surveys. The issues were then prioritized as each participant was asked to pick his or her top five important issues from the dozens identified. Each participant was given five votes for priority issues and if they felt strongly about an issue they could give that issue more than one vote. Regional results are included in Appendix B. This section reports the motorized and nonmotorized trail issues that rated the highest from the public workshops. The level of priority was determined by the number of times an issue was in the top issues of each of the regional workshops, indicating the issue was of more than just regional importance. Agency comments and issues were incorporated in either motorized or nonmotorized sections. 44 “Share the trail.” Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 PUBLIC WORKSHOP PRIORITIES FOR MOTORIZED TRAIL ISSUES 1. MORE MOTORIZED TRAILS AND USE AREAS More trails, open more use areas, specialized terrain, closed trails, long distance. 2. KEEP TRAILS OPEN Keep motorized trails open, maintain access to existing trails, land manager recognition of existing or used trails. 3. SIGNAGE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES Adequate parking, staging areas and signage including: route marking, interpretive, access signs. 4. TRAIL ETIQUETTE AND USER EDUCATION Education through driver training, education of users, education of nonresidents, education in schools, environmental education. 5. TRAIL INFORMATION AND MAPS Provide detailed maps, identify where current trails are, better educate users where trails are, GPS information, better communication by agency where trails are. 6. FUNCTIONAL INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND PARTNERSHIPS Better communication between agencies, consistent regulations among agencies, standards for trails, share resources. 7. ENFORCEMENT OF USE TYPE/UNREGULATED OHV USE Monitoring, enforcement of existing laws, heavier fines, peer patrols, complaint registers, identify enforcement contacts. 8. PLANNING FOR MOTORIZED TRAIL USE Better long term planning, regional and county-wide planning, money for planning and environmental clearances, develop interconnectivity of trails. 9. MORE FUNDS FOR OHV TRAILS Research licensing program, designate fee use areas, restore Arizona OHV Recreation Fund. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS Address wildlife concerns, resource protection while maintaining access, noise pollution. Arizona State Parks 45 Arizona Trails 2005 Priority Motorized Trail Issues from the Public Workshops 1. More Motorized Trails and Use Areas The most prevalent issue discussed among motorized users at the public participation workshops was the need for more trails and recreation opportunities. Discussions revolved around broad comments for more trails, open more use areas, specialized terrain, closed trials and long distance loops. The need for new trails was also a strong priority for motorized survey respondents. The general public rated develop new trails as the fourth most important trail management issue and the target group rated it the highest priority. 2. Keep Trails Open Workshop participants are concerned about the number of trails or roads previously used as motorized recreational trail use being closed. Participants would like land managers to recognize historic use of these routes or offer other opportunities while taking others away. Similarly, the motorized survey respondents rated closure of trails as the highest ranking overall trail issue. 3. Signage and Support Facilities The need for support facilities was important to workshop participants. One of the most frequently mentioned support facility was signage. Motorized trail users would like to see additional signage that includes route marking, access signage, interpretive signage, and agency standards for signs. Other support facilities needed 46 are adequate parking and staging areas. Motorized survey respondents rated the top three most important trail support facilities as trash cans, trail signs and restrooms. 4. Trail Etiquette and User Education User education was a prevalent theme among all workshops. Education through driver training, education of users, education of nonresidents, education in schools, and environmental education were all identified as areas of need. There is a need for education of environmental ethics including Leave No Trace, Tread Lightly and other resource protection messages. Trail etiquette is also needed, teaching differing user groups to share the trail can help prevent user conflicts and increase user enjoyment. Lack of trail ethics was identified as the second highest social concern by motorized survey respondents with unskilled people as the fifth highest social concern. 5. Maps and Trail Information A common need mentioned was for current and accurate maps and information telling users where trails exist. There is a need to better educate where trails are in the State and to have agencies better promote trails within their jurisdiction. Users found that in most cases comprehensive maps and trail information do not exist and when they do, they are difficult to locate. More promotion and awareness of existing trails will promote trail usage and prevent social trails. 6. Functional Interagency Cooperation and Partnerships Public participation workshop participants expressed concern regarding the inconsistency among land managers in their rules and regulations regarding OHV trail use. OHV Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 users often have difficulty knowing the differing rules and therefore trouble adhering to them. Land managers need to work together to develop standardized or similar policies regarding OHV use. Better communication between agencies was discussed so that there is clear understanding of agency plans and policies, standards for trails, shared resources and interconnection of trails. 7. Enforcement of Use Type/Unregulated OHV Use A number of issues regarding enforcement of existing laws and monitoring arose from the public participation workshops. Participants noted that unregulated OHV use was closing access to responsible users. Comments related to enforcement of existing laws, heavier fines, peer patrols, complaint registers, and identifying enforcement contacts. Users would like to see deviant trail behavior penalized knowing their behavior can cause environmental impacts and negative reactions from land managing agencies including closure of trails. Land managers need to look beyond just their borders and understand how their trails can connect with neighboring lands or communities. The need for funds to aid planning efforts was commonly discussed along with the need for NEPA and other environmental and cultural clearances required in the planning process. This issue was also a top priority for overall trail issues (lack of planning for future trails) by survey respondents. This issue is again consistent with those identified by the motorized survey respondents, enforce existing rules and regulations was the second highest trail management issue and unregulated OHV use was the third highest social concern. 9. More Funds for OHV Trails The workshop participants recognized the insufficient funds for OHV trails in Arizona. The participants suggested ways to increase the pool of monies for motorized trails. These included researching OHV licensing which has worked in other states, opening fee use areas and working towards restoring the State OHV Recreation Fund. Lack of funding for trails rated fifth highest for overall trail issues by motorized survey respondents. 8. Planning for Motorized Trail Use Planning for trail systems and access rose as a top priority. Planning aspects included several levels such as long term planning, interconnectivity planning, regional or county planning as well as simply better planning. Discussions focused around long term planning that includes changing needs and continued development. Ideas of planning within regions was also common. 10. Environmental/Cultural Resource Impacts The workshops addressed environmental impacts, wildlife concerns and cultural resource and archaeological site protection associated with the use of motorized vehicles as a common concern. The users indicated the need to protect these resources while still maintaining access. There was an expressed need to develop trails away from sensitive areas and plan with wildlife in mind. Arizona State Parks 47 Arizona Trails 2005 PUBLIC WORKSHOP PRIORITIES FOR NONMOTORIZED TRAIL ISSUES 1. TRAIL MAINTENANCE Maintenance of existing trails, limited budget to maintain trails, clean up current trails. 2. PROTECT ACCESS/ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR TRAILS Purchase easements, purchase State Trust land for access, protection from development, maintain access in urban areas. 3. TRAIL INFORMATION AND MAPS Provide detailed maps, identify where current trails are, better educate users where trails are, GPS information, better communication by agency where trails are. 4. TRAIL ETIQUETTE AND USER EDUCATION More user education regarding environmental education, Leave No Trace, Pack it In, Pack it Out, share the trail, resource protection. 5. VOLUNTEER COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT Need for more coordinated volunteer efforts, support for organizing volunteer events, training volunteers to agency standards, outreach efforts for volunteers, agency positions to organize volunteers. 6. PLANNING FOR NONMOTORIZED TRAIL USE Better long term planning, regional and county-wide planning, money for planning and environmental clearances, develop interconnectivity of trails. 7. SIGNAGE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES Trail head facilities, parking, trash cans, better signage, standards for signage, more interpretive signage. 8. ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING OF TRAILS Enforcement of existing laws, heavier fines, peer patrols, complaint registers, identify enforcement contacts. 9. MORE ACCESSIBLE TRAILS FOR INDIVIDUALS W/PHYSICAL DISABILITIES Plan for ADA trails, retrofit existing trails for accessibility. 10. FUNCTIONAL INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND PARTNERSHIPS Better communication between agencies, streamline partnerships, standards for trails, share resources. 48 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Priority Nonmotorized Trail Issues from the Public Workshops 1. Trail Maintenance Trail maintenance and maintenance of existing trails came to the top of most of the public workshops and was mentioned in all 15 workshops. The concern of trail maintenance was also the top priority of the environmental concerns of the survey for both the nonmotorized general public and target group (litter, trash dumping and erosion of trails), trail management issues (maintain existing trails, keep areas clean of litter and trash), and overall trail issues (inadequate trail maintenance). It was noted that in lean economic times, maintenance is often eliminated from tight budgets and also that it is often easier to obtain money for construction of new trails than for maintaining existing trails. 2. Protect Access/Acquisition of Land for Trails Protecting access for trails was at the forefront of conversations at the public workshops. This discussion included acquisitions of easements to protect access to trails and also to provide protection from encroaching development. Easements and purchase of State Trust land was also common in these discussions. This issue was also a priority for survey respondents (acquire new land for public access, acquire new land for trails and urban development limiting access). With Arizona’s population continuing to grow at such rapid rates there seems to be an urgency to protecting access to trails. 3. Trail Information and Maps A common need mentioned was for current and accurate maps and information telling users where trails exist. There is a need Arizona State Parks to better educate where trails are in the state, to have agencies better promote trails within their jurisdiction. Users found that in most cases comprehensive maps and trail information do not exist and when they do, they are difficult to locate. More promotion and awareness of existing trails will promote trail usage and prevent social trails. 4. Trail Etiquette and User Education User education was a prevalent theme among all workshops. There is a need for education of environmental ethics including Leave No Trace and other resource protection messages. Trail etiquette is also needed, teaching differing user groups to share the trail can help prevent user conflicts and increase user enjoyment. Lack of trail ethics was identified as the third highest social concern by nonmotorized survey respondents. The need to reach out to youth was mentioned in several workshops. Educating children through school programs was a common idea. In addition it was mentioned that the need for environmental education also applied to agency personnel. 5. Volunteer Coordination and Management The need for coordinated volunteer management was included in the priority issues. The need for alternative sources of labor and increased user involvement has led to increased volunteerism. A common message heard was there was a large pool of willing volunteers to help agencies in all aspects of trails including maintenance, construction and education. What is missing are the agency personnel to coordinate and effectively manage and train volunteers. 49 Arizona Trails 2005 6. Planning for Nonmotorized Trail Use Planning for trail systems and access rose as a top priority for trails. Planning aspects included several levels such as long-term planning, interconnectivity planning, regional or county planning as well as simply better planning. Discussions focused around long term planning that includes changing needs and continued development. Ideas of planning within regions was also common. Land managers need to look beyond just their borders and understand how their trails can connect with neighboring lands or communities. The need for funds to aid planning efforts was commonly discussed along with the need for NEPA and other environmental and cultural clearances required in the planning process. This issue was also a top priority for overall trail issues (lack of planning for future trails) by survey respondents. 7. Signage and Support Facilities The need for the development of support facilities or existing support facilities enhancement is an important aspect of trails to its users. Trailhead amenities were common issues including restrooms, adequate parking, safety at trailheads, trash cans and availability of potable water. In addition, the need for more signage, more interpretive signage, directional signage and access signage was a top concern. This is consistent with the fourth highest trail management issue identified by survey participants (develop support facilities). The survey also identified that nonmotorized trail users rated trash cans, trail signs and drinking water as the three most important trail facilities. 50 8. Enforcement and Monitoring of Trails A number of issues regarding enforcement of existing laws and monitoring arose from the public participation workshops. Comments related to enforcement of existing laws, heavier fines, peer patrols, complaint registers, and identifying enforcement contacts. Users would like to see deviant trail behavior penalized knowing their behavior can cause environmental impacts and negative reactions from land managing agencies, at most severe closure of trails. This issue is again consistent with those identified by the nonmotorized survey respondents, enforce existing rules and regulations was the third highest trail management issue. 9. More Accessible Trails for Individuals with Physical Disabilities Accessibility for people of differing physical abilities emerged from the workshops as a high priority. Comments from the workshops included that trails should be available for all users including wheelchair users and families with strollers. The issue of obesity and unprecedented rates of physical inactivity was discussed along with the concern that the baby boomer population is aging and soon will be classified as senior citizens. 10. Functional Interagency Cooperation Workshop participants consistently identified interagency cooperation and consistency as important. Better communication between agencies was discussed so that there is clear understanding of agency plans and policies, standards for trails, shared resources and interconnecting trails. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 4 Recommendations “We are under-exercised as a nation. We look instead of play. We ride instead of walk. Our existence deprives us of the minimum of physical activity essential for healthy living.” John F. Kennedy, address to National Football Foundation, New York City, December 5, 1961 Arizona State Parks 51 Arizona Trails 2005 (Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund)…to establish a facility development program based on the priorities established in the OHV Plan.” The recommendations for motorized trail use will be used by all participating agencies to guide distribution of funds administered by Arizona State Parks from the OHV Recreation Fund and the Federal Recreational Trails Program until the next plan, as well as serve as an overall direction for Arizona State Parks, land managers and OHV users in their efforts to improve the State of Arizona’s motorized trail opportunities. Mandate for Nonmotorized Trail Use Recommendations Arizona legislation A.R.S. §41-511.22 directs the Arizona State Parks Board to ‘prepare a trail systems plan that…assesses usage of trails…and recommends to federal, state, regional, local and tribal agencies and to the private sector actions which will enhance the trail systems,” and that “five percent of monies received pursuant to Section § 5-522 (Arizona Heritage Fund) shall be spent on local, regional and state trails” (A.R.S. §41-503). The recommendations for nonmotorized trail use will be used to guide distribution of funds administered by Arizona State Parks from the trails component of the Arizona Heritage Fund and Federal Recreational Trails Program until the next plan, as well as serve as overall direction for Arizona State Parks, land managers and trail users in their efforts to improve the State of Arizona’s nonmotorized trail opportunities. 54 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS MOTORIZED TRAIL USE NONMOTORIZED TRAIL USE FIRST LEVEL PRIORITY MOTORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS FIRST LEVEL PRIORITY NONMOTORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS Develop New Trails and Motorized Recreation Opportunities Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Protect Access to Trails/Keep Trails Open Protect Access to Trails/Acquire Land for Public Access Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Develop Signage and Support Facilities Education and Trail Etiquette SECOND LEVEL PRIORITY NONMOTORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS SECOND LEVEL PRIORITY MOTORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive Planning Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring Trail Information/Maps Trail Information and Maps Education and Trail Etiquette Comprehensive Planning OTHER PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Reduce Cultural and Environmental Resource Impacts (both motorized and nonmotorized) Seek Additional Funding Sources (both motorized and nonmotorized) Interagency Coordination (both motorized and nonmotorized) Develop Signage and Support Facilities (motorized) Develop New Trails (nonmotorized) Coordinated Volunteerism (nonmotorized) More Accessible Trails for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (nonmotorized) Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring (nonmotorized) Arizona State Parks 55 Arizona Trails 2005 Motorized Trail Use Recommendations Managers of motorized recreational trails and roads are encouraged to concentrate on the following actions. Trail users can also assist with many of these recommended actions. First Level Priority Recommendations for Motorized Trail Use Develop New Trails and Motorized Recreation Opportunities Issue: The demand for OHV opportunities is increasing. Land managers are behind the curve in planning for OHV demand. Many of the existing trails for recreational OHV use are not designed or constructed specifically for OHV use. Areas historically used for OHV use are often closed without providing alternate areas. Prohibiting use without providing for additional alternatives may lead to further unmanaged and unauthorized OHV use. Actions: a. Develop more managed OHV areas • Land managing agencies need to acknowledge and identify motorized trail use as a valid form of recreation on public lands b. Consistently sign designated routes and provide up to date maps to users c. Before closing an existing OHV trail or area consider adequacy of trails in the vicinity d. Seek out grants and partnerships to develop new trails e. Inventory existing routes, analyze these trails depending on environmental factors for designation or closure 56 Protect Access to Trails/Keep Trails Open Issue: Access refers to the ability of the user to get to the trailhead or area where the recreational opportunities exist. Access is being diminished to OHV trails in two distinct areas. Land managers are closing areas to OHV use that have previously been open for OHV use. These areas may have been available for OHV use although not officially designated or acknowledged by the agency as use area. In addition, the continued development on Arizona’s land encroaches on access to trails and OHV areas and can sometimes completely eliminate access. Actions: a. Plan for access and acquire easements b. Identify unprotected access points to public recreation areas. Prioritize threatened access points, list protection strategies and develop a protection action plan. c. Develop OHV opportunities for specific activities d. Consider mitigation and education before closing a trail e. Consult with trail users before closing a trail or area f. Develop better regional planning g. Educate private land owners on recreation issues Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Issue: OHV roads and trails receive increasing and often intensive use and these routes are often not originally designed for such use. This use causes deterioration and erosion of the trails. Often badly eroded trails cause users to develop unauthorized alternate routes nearby. Land managers are Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 facing a lack of financial resources and cut backs on agencyfunded crews often resulting in the closure of trails. Actions: a. Identify and prioritize reconstruction and maintenance needs of trails b. Incorporate sustainable trail design when reconstructing/ maintaining trails c. Employ grants, partnerships and volunteers to supplement trail budgets Education and Trail Etiquette Issue: Trail users who lack proper trail etiquette and environmental ethics can detract from other trail users’ recreation experience and negatively impact the environment. Uneducated OHV users create negative impacts including adding to the negative perception of OHV use and possible closure of use areas for the rest of the OHV users. Littering, excessive speed, not staying on trails, vandalism and an inability of managers to enforce regulations leads to continued user conflicts and environmental impacts. Actions: a. Increase education resources for trail etiquette and environmental education • Incorporate OHV recreation use into driver education (especially in high schools) • Incorporate trail etiquette and environmental ethics material into school and youth programs • Have agencies collaborate on education materials and programs to provide consistent messages and share resources. Educational messages should empahsize self-responsible behaviors, such as Pack it in-Pack it out. Arizona State Parks • Have regulations posted at trailheads for user reference b. Improve land manager training • Provide environmental ethics training for personnel • Include all resource specialists in OHV training programs to increase awareness of management needs c. Encourage shared use on trails • Recognize that certain trails are more appropriate for accommodating multiple use and others less so; visibly sign each trail accordingly • Promote “share the trail” and emphasize cooperation, tolerance and respect for other trail users • Make allowable trail uses known to users through signage Second Level Priority Recommendations for Motorized Trail Use Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring Issue: Trail rules and regulations are often unknown or ignored by users. Land managers do not have the staff or time to constantly monitor trails or manage a vast number of trails over large areas and cannot effectively monitor all trails. The enforcement of existing rules and regulations gives weight and importance to the rules. Actions: • • • • • Promote volunteer programs with clubs and individuals to monitor trails use and educate users regarding the rules and regulations (peer patrols) Identify enforcement contacts or complaint registers for trail users to report information Impose heavier fines for repeat offenders Seek additional funding for monitoring and enforcement Employ consistent standards and procedures among agencies 57 Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Information and Maps Issue: Trail users need information and accurate maps that inform them where trails exist. In most cases, comprehensive maps do not exist and when they do the information is hard to find. Much of the information available is out-of-date, covers a small area or single trail or is too general. Actions: • • • • • Use the Internet to post maps and information so it is widely accessible Have maps cover regional areas Have accurate information on how to get to trailheads and the condition of trails Provide GPS coordinates and other location information Have fines for OHV offenses earmarked for education Comprehensive Planning Issue: There is a lack of long-term planning for trails. Current planning efforts revolve around a single trail and do not focus on the bigger picture of regional trail planning, interconnectivity between trail systems or advance planning to secure access from encroaching development. Actions: • • • • 58 Understand the regional aspect of trails when planning specific trails Collaborate with neighboring agencies to interconnect trail systems and share resources Develop regional trail system plans (emphasize multijurisdictional planning–involve adjacent communities, landowners and governments as well as trail users) Identify major trail access points in urban and developing areas and secure use for future generations Other Priority Recommendations for Motorized Trail Use Develop Signage and Support Facilities Issue: In addition to the actual trail corridor, users require support facilities to the area’s use and activities. Well-designed support facilities increase the user’s experience and satisfaction along with protecting the resource. Actions: • • • • • Develop signage that includes route marking and access signage Develop consistent inter-agency standards for signage Develop trailheads with adequate parking, restrooms and litter control (such as individual litter bags and trash cans where appropriate) Develop staging areas for motorized use Provide bilingual signage Nonmotorized Trail Use Recommendations Managers of nonmotorized recreational trails are encouraged to concentrate on the following actions. Trail users can also assist with many of these recommended actions. First Level Priority Recommendations for Nonmotorized Trail Use Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Issue: Nonmotorized trails in the State are often eroded and deteriorated. This can be due to natural causes, overuse, improper design or lack of regular maintenance. Often badly eroded trails cause users to develop unauthorized alternate routes. Other trails are in need of tread maintenance and brush clearing. Land managers are facing a lack of financial Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 resources and cut backs on agency-funded crews. Trash and litter was identified as one of the public’s largest concerns. Actions: a. Identify and prioritize reconstruction and maintenance needs of trails b. Incorporate sustainable trail design when reconstructing/ maintaining trails • Provide incentives to developers to preserve public access to trails Develop Signage and Support Facilities Issue: In addition to the actual trail corridor, users require support facilities to the area’s use and activities. Well-designed support facilities increase the user’s experience and satisfaction along with protecting the resource. Actions: d. Employ grants, partnerships and volunteers to supplement trail budgets • e. Provide trash receptacles or other litter control means and provide education about the litter problem • • • Protect Access to Trails/Acquire Land for Public Access Issue: Access refers to the ability of the user to get to the trailhead or area where the recreational opportunities exist. The continued development of Arizona’s land encroaches on access to trails and can completely eliminate access if trails and access points are not incorporated into general plans. Actions: Second Level Priority Recommendations for Nonmotorized Trail Use a. Have more comprehensive planning for access and acquire trail easements b. Coordinate trail access needs with users/stakeholders c. Have ASCOT and/or other groups host conferences that educate the trails and planning community on how to address access issues d. Permanently secure access to public trails, trailheads and other access points • Enact city and county ordinances and codes to preserve public access to recreation Arizona State Parks Develop signage that includes route marking and access signage Develop inter-agency universal standards for signage Provide bilingual signage Develop trailheads with adequate parking, restrooms, drinking water and litter control (such as providing individual litter bags or trash cans where appropriate) Comprehensive Planning Issue: There is a lack of long-term planning for trails. Current planning efforts usually revolve around a single trail and do not focus on the bigger picture of regional trail planning, interconnectivity between trail systems or advance planning to secure access from encroaching development. Actions: • • • Prioritize the regional aspect of trails when planning specific trails Collaborate with neighboring agencies to interconnect trail systems and share resources Develop regional trail system plans (emphasize multijurisdictional planning–involve adjacent communities, landowners and governments as well as trail users) 59 Arizona Trails 2005 • • Identify major trail access points in urban and developing areas and secure use for future generations Have a trails presence on related planning boards and committees such as the Transportation Board and the Growing Smarter Council Trail Information/Maps Issue: Trail users need information and accurate maps that inform them where trails exist. In most cases, comprehensive maps do not exist and when they do the information is hard to find. Much of the information available is out-of-date, covers a small area or single trail or is too general. Actions: • • • • • Use the Internet to post maps and information so it is widely accessible Have maps cover regional areas Have accurate information on how to get to trailheads and the condition of trails Provide GPS coordinates and other location information Incorporate maps into the library system Education and Trail Etiquette Issue: Trail users who lack proper trail etiquette and environmental ethics can deter from other trail users’ recreation experience and negatively impact the environment. Littering, excessive speed, not staying on trails, vandalism and an inability of managers to enforce regulations leads to continued user conflicts and environmental impacts. • programs to provide consistent messages Educational messages should empahsize self-responsible behaviors, such as Pack it in-Pack it out. Have rules and regulations posted at trailheads for users b. Encourage shared use on trails • Recognize that certain trails are more appropriate for accommodating multiple use and others less so; visibly sign each trail accordingly • Promote “share the trail” and emphasize cooperation, tolerance and respect for other trail users • Make allowable trail uses known to users through signage Other Priority Recommendations for Nonmotorized Trail Use Coordinated Volunteerism Issue: Volunteers can be a valuable supplement to an agency’s labor force. Trail users are often willing volunteers to help build and maintain trails along with monitoring or educating users. Land managers lack the time to effectively coordinate, manage and train volunteers to use them to their potential. Actions: • • • Provide volunteer trainings for trail design and maintenance techniques Enlist a volunteer to be the liaison between the agency and volunteers and to coordinate trail projects Recognize and support the need to allocate staff time to volunteer coordination Seek grants and partnerships to support volunteers Actions: • a. Increase education resources for trail etiquette and environmental education • Incorporate trail etiquette and environmental ethics material into school and youth programs • Have agencies collaborate on education materials and Develop New Trails Issue: There is demand for new trail opportunities in areas experiencing high growth rates. Also, as the types of activities change and new ones emerge, trails that provide for a specific type of activity may be needed. 60 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Actions: • • • Develop trail opportunities for specific activities (i.e., single-track trails for mountain bikes, competitive events, geo-caching) where appropriate Develop and promote trail networks or long distance trail opportunities Develop more close-to-home trail opportunities Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring Issue: Trail rules and regulations are often unknown or ignored by users. Land managers do not have the staff or time to constantly monitor trails or manage a vast number of trails over large areas and cannot effectively monitor all trails. The enforcement of existing rules and regulations gives weight and importance to the rules. Actions: • • • Promote volunteer programs with clubs and individuals to monitor trail use and educate users about the regulations Identify enforcement contacts or complaint registers for trail users to report information Impose heavier fines for repeat offenders More Accessible Trails for Individuals with Physical Disabilities Issue: The need for trail experiences for people of differing physical abilities is becoming prevalent. Trails should be available to all users including the first time user, wheelchairs users and families with strollers. “Baby boomers” will soon be classified as senior citizens and the rising obesity rate in America brings new issues when designing trails for all populations. Arizona State Parks Actions: • • • Offer trails of differing difficulty levels that still incorporate the natural setting and experience Incorporate standards for barrier-free access to trails as specified in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Evaluate trails regarding their standards and conditions to accommodate various abilities (i.e., the Universal Trail Assessment Process) Other Priority Recommendations for both Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Use Seek Additional Funding Sources Lack of funding for trails emerged as a priority. More funds are needed for personnel, volunteer programs, trail maintenance and development, planning and support facilities. Managers and users often perceive funding as an issue they have no control over and can do little about. Actions: • • • Research and apply for grants and other funding sources Encourage volunteerism Provide relevant information regarding the importance and benefits of trails to decision-makers and elected officials Interagency Coordination Issue: Interagency cooperation and consistency was a common theme throughout the public input process. Better communication between agencies is important to ensure a clear understanding of agency plans and policies. Interagency coordination would allow for shared resources 61 Arizona Trails 2005 and interconnecting of trails and systems. There is a need to standardize trail rules, regulations and enforcement. Actions: • Include relevant agencies, organizations and users in all planning efforts Reduce Cultural and Environmental Resource Impacts Issue: A balance needs to exist between resource protection while maintaining access to recreational opportunities. Trails that are not properly designed and managed can impact natural, cultural and archaeological resources. Actions: • • • 62 Provide environmental educational information to users Consider impacts to the natural and cultural resources, wildlife and sensitive areas when planning and designing trails Understand that wildlife viewing and visiting archaeological and historical sites are the top reasons for recreational trail use and plan accordingly Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 5 Accomplishments and Trends Over The Past Five Years “To learn something new, take the path you took yesterday.” John Burroughs, American essayist and naturalist, 1837-1921 Arizona State Parks 63 Arizona Trails 2005 Chapter 5: Accomplishments and Trends Over the Past Five Years There have been significant accomplishments in trail advocacy, trail information and trail improvements in Arizona over the past five years. Substantial progress was made on the longdistance Arizona Trail and the Great Western Trail. There were also numerous successful trail partnerships made since 2000. This chapter highlights some of the accomplishments of the past five years. This chapter also demonstrates how Arizona State Parks has distributed trail funds according to the priority recommendations of the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN. In addition, the Trails 2005: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users Survey followed the wellreceived ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN and incorporated many of the same questions. This allows for trend analysis and comparison through the years. It also summarizes the differences and similarities of the findings of the two plans. Accomplishments of the Off-Highway Vehicle Program “Nature Rules. Stay on the trails.” Education Campaign In June 2001, Arizona State Parks, represented by Cooley Advertising and Public Relations, launched an OHV educational campaign known as “Nature Rules. Stay on the trails.” This multi-media statewide campaign was in response to one of the top priority recommendations in the TRAILS 2000 PLAN, “Promote Trail Etiquette and Environmental Arizona State Parks Ethics.” Arizona State Parks staff and Cooley PR developed a marketing plan and educational ads for television, radio and print media after conferring with partner agencies and OHV organizations regarding the campaign direction and message content. The purpose of the campaign was to educate OHV users toward responsible use and respectful recreational attitudes and behaviors. The primary targets for this campaign were adults (≥18 years of age) who own and use a recreational off-highway vehicle, and specifically males 18-44 years of age. The campaign was further supported by use of outdoor mediums such as billboards, brochures and trail signage, a comprehensive website accessed on the State Parks’ homepage, extensive public relations efforts, and a quarterly newsletter, TrailScape, to facilitate open discussions among OHV clubs about key issues. Booths were staffed at many special events. The second year of the campaign built upon the successes of the first year and expanded the campaign in new directions. Through new TV, radio and print ads, the second year addressed the consequences when OHV recreationists do not stay on designated trails (i.e., area/trail closures, environmental damage, personal injuries, vehicular repairs). New billboard ads were placed along major highways and in four Cactus League baseball stadiums in Phoenix. The second year also included a series of hands-on four-wheel drive training clinics for new and intermediate four-wheel drive owners and a week-long OHV Management Workshop to bring together land managers and OHV groups to discuss specific issues and establish a common direction for the future. 65 Arizona Trails 2005 This educational effort was to be a long-term campaign designed to not only make people more aware of responsible OHV use, but also to change behaviors. Evaluations of the campaign demonstrated successful results, but due to the Legislative sweep of the OHV Recreation Fund, the program was only funded for two years. On a positive note, many of the ads are still in use statewide as public service announcements. Partnerships As a result of the last planning process for TRAILS 2000, State Parks modified how Arizona’s two motorized trail fund sources administered by State Parks were allocated. The federal partners said they needed to undertake a public involvement process to revise their land management plans to incorporate OHV recreational use management strategies. Both federal and state agencies expressed the need to conduct inventories of OHV routes and implement a determination process of which routes were environmentally and culturally sound. State Parks entered into partnership agreements with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and State Land Department to conduct these planning and inventory projects, also requiring them to complete on-the-ground projects such as signing designated routes, improving access and staging areas and creating new trail maps. Three years of the State OHV Recreation Fund were allocated to these efforts, but due to the Legislative sweep of the fund, State Parks was required to cancel the agreements in the second year and turn over any unspent monies to the General Fund. Unfortunately, less than two years of the agreement scopes of work were accomplished. In addition, loss of the OHV Recreation Fund terminated not only State Parks’ OHV Program and staff, but also a substantial part of the Game and Fish Department’s and State Land Department’s OHV management efforts. 66 Grants The Arizona State Parks Board awards competitive grants to eligible entities to support motorized trail projects across the State. The grants are recommended to the Arizona State Parks Board by the Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Group (OHVAG). A task force representing all land management agencies and trail user types was formed to develop criteria based on the needs identified in the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN for rating motorized grant applications for the next five years. Following are the criterion developed by the task force and the number of projects funded from FY 1999 to FY 2003 that include elements that address that criterion. Table 21: OHV Recreation Fund and RTP Motorized Portion Grant Project Summary FYs 1999-2003 MOTORIZED TRAIL PROJECTS Grant Rating Criterion # of Project Elements* Preserve existing motorized trails/areas Renovate trails/areas Protect access (acquisition) Promote trail etiquette and environmental ethics Develop new trails/areas Partnership/Donations Reduce environmental/cultural impacts Provide information/maps Enhance support facilities 9 9 1 10 6 5 12 14 14 *A total of 15 grant projects with multiple elements were funded from FY 1999 to FY 2003 for $3,856,800 A change to the OHV grant program occurred as the result of public comment and response to the OHV community in Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona. Previously, nonprofit organizations were not eligible to apply for motorized grant funds unless as a third party to a governmental agency. In January 2003, the Arizona State Parks Board approved to allow nonprofit entities be eligible for grants funded by the Recreational Trails Program (motorized portion). Off-Highway Vehicle Economic Impact Study Arizona State Parks conducted a yearlong OHV Economic Study with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State University (ASU) in 2003. The study showed that people who enjoy OHV recreation spend a considerable amount of money buying vehicles, equipment, insurance, repairs and other related expenses. They also spend money in local communities close to areas they recreate in for gasoline, food and lodging. (See Appendix F for more details). Economic Importance of OHV Recreation in Arizona • Creates a statewide economic impact of $4.25 billion • Contributes $3.1 billion to local economies through OHV-related retail sales • Adds $187 million to annual state tax revenues • Provides $1.1 billion in household income (salaries/ wages) for AZ residents Supports 36,951 full-time and part-time jobs in Arizona • Arizona State Parks Other Activities in the Motorized Trail Community Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement for CrossCounty Travel by OHVs In Spring 2003, the U.S. Forest Service announced a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and proposed plan amendment which discloses the potential environmental consequences of managing motorized, wheeled cross-county travel on lands of five national forests–Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott and Tonto National Forests–in Arizona. The Forest Service is proposing to limit/restrict motorized wheeled cross-country travel on lands administered by the agency in Arizona. The purpose of the proposal is to avoid future impacts to public resources likely to result from the increasing use of OHVs on these lands and to provide direction for subsequent site-specific planning for motorized opportunities. Specifically, the Forest Service is proposing a new rule (36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 – Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use) to identify appropriate uses of off-highway vehicles in the National Forest System. The Forest Service acknowledges that motor vehicle use is an appropriate way to recreate in the National Forests, access hunting and fishing opportunities, sightsee, and otherwise enjoy recreational experiences on National Forest System lands. The establishment and clear identification of a transportation and use system for motor vehicles on each National Forest will enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural resource values through more effective management 67 Arizona Trails 2005 of motor vehicle use; enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National Forest System lands; address needs for access to National Forest System lands; and preserve areas of opportunity on each National Forest for nonmotorized travel and experiences. As demand for a greater variety of recreation uses increases, managing an appropriate balance between motor vehicle use and nonmotorized recreational activities has become an important priority. A designated system of trails and areas for motorized use established with public involvement would enhance public enjoyment of the National Forests, while maintaining other important values and uses on National Forest System lands. The proposed rule defines an OHV as a motor vehicle that is designed or retrofitted primarily for recreational use off-road, including minibikes, amphibious vehicles, snowmobiles, offhighway motorcycles, go-carts, motorized trail bikes, and dune buggies. Under the rule each Forest would identify roads, trails, and areas that are appropriate for OHV use and include them on the Forest Transportation Atlas. OHV use would be restricted to identified (designated) roads, trails and areas. The criteria for designating trails and areas would include consideration of effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflicts between 68 motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible official would consider: (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors; and (6) Consistency with trail management objectives. The rule requires public involvement in the designation process. Bureau of Land Management Establishes a National Management Strategy on Motorized OHV Use In an effort to accommodate growing OHV use on the public lands while protecting natural resources, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its National Management Strategy in January 2001. The strategy offers general guidance to land managers and recommends numerous actions aimed at creating a local framework for reviewing and resolving motorized OHV issues. BLM also has a current workplan that outlines priorities for recreation and visitor services with goals, objectives, milestones and actions. Arizona BLM is in the process of establishing a designated travel network. This will be accomplished through its land use planning efforts currently in progress. Southwest Motorized Access Work Group The Southwest Motorized Access Work Group was established in 2004 through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by participating state and federal agencies in New Mexico and Arizona. The group had met informally for several years before formalizing as an interagency group. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Purpose: Consistency in management of off-highway vehicle use is needed by federal and state agencies and tribes to establish effective, uniform, and understandable guidelines for the public. Consistent management is key to the success of management on public, state and tribal lands and other areas of mutual interest. Accomplishments of the Nonmotorized Trail Program Mission: This work group will focus on identifying inconsistencies in off highway vehicle management and will recommend ways to standardize management on public, state and tribal lands and other areas of mutual interest. Arizona’s State Trails System is invaluable, offering a diversity of quality nonmotorized trails that inspire people to experience the State’s magnificent outdoor environment and cultural history. This work group will work to develop mutual trust, effective communication, and to cooperatively identify solutions to inconsistent off-highway vehicle protocols and regulations in order to provide a common message to the public. Objectives: Identify and become more knowledgeable with tribal, state and federal off-highway vehicle protocols, procedures, and regulations. Increase commitment and followup by federal and state agencies and tribes to effectively address off-highway vehicle issues. Develop consistency and coordination in: • laws and enforcement • vehicle “legality” • inventory, assessment and monitoring methodology • designation process for routes • signage for routes • information (including mapping and brochures) and education Arizona State Parks Arizona State Trails System New Vision Statement The Arizona State Trails System is a partial inventory of Arizona’s nonmotorized trails. The State Trails System is a listing of existing and proposed nonmotorized trails in Arizona that have been formally nominated by land managing agencies and accepted by the Arizona State Parks Board, based on established eligibility criteria. Since 1999, 75 trails have been accepted into the State Trails System bringing the total number of trails in the System to 638. The fourth edition of the Arizona State Trails Guide was developed in 2003. The guide includes all existing trails in the State Trails System and provides a trail description, map, elevation profile and contact information for each trail. The Guide has been widely popular around the State. The Arizona State Committee on Trails (ASCOT) and other volunteers work each year to monitor the trails in Arizona. By monitoring, ASCOT aids the State in assuring the trails in the State Trails System are safe and maintain the quality of the System. 69 Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona State Committee on Trails Hosted Workshops Arizona State Parks and the Arizona State Committee on Trails hosted four workshops in the past five years to bring together the trails community to learn and discuss current trail issues. The program was well received and a second two-year cycle will continue in a revised format putting another $1.5 million in trail maintenance projects with another 23 agencies in 2004 (see Table 22). The first workshop ‘Regional Trails Planning’ was held in Spring 2000 and focused on partnerships, funds available and programming steps involved in regional planning for trails. The second workshop “Trail Funding” was held in spring of 2001 to highlight the various sources of funding for trail related projects. Table 22: Nonmotorized Recreational Trails Program Trail Maintenance Partners FYs 2002-2004* The third workshop “Trail Management in Lean Times” was held in January 2003 and focused on differing opportunities and aspects of trail management in a time of decreasing budgets. The fourth workshop “Trails for All People” was held in February 2004 and focused on the increasing need to make trails physically accessible for all populations. Recreational Trails Program Trail Maintenance The nonmotorized portion of the Recreational Trails Program monies was dedicated solely to maintenance of existing trails starting in 2001. The need for maintenance on existing trails in Arizona encompassed the top two priority recommendations of the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN. Money for trail maintenance is not available through many sources including agency budgets and grants. For the first two-year cycle of the RTP Nonmotorized Trail Maintenance Program, Arizona State Parks partnered with 22 agencies across the State (see Table 22). 70 Partnering Entity Cities/towns Counties State Federal Tribal Totals # of Projects 11 5 3 24 2 45 RTP Project Amount (estimated**) $366,134 $282,354 $84,253 $1,417,311 $32,187 $2,182,239 * Federal Recreational Trails Program Source: Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) from the FHWA. ** All projects have not yet been completed so the amount is estimated until expenditures are finalized. Arizona Trails Heritage Fund A task force representing all land management agencies and trail user types was formed to develop criteria based on the needs identified in the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN for rating Trails Heritage Fund grant applications for the next five years. Following are the criterion developed by the task force and the number of projects funded from FY 1999 to FY 2004 that include elements that address that criterion. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 23: Trails Heritage Fund Grant Project Summary FYs 1999-2003 NONMOTORIZED TRAIL PROJECTS Grant Rating Criterion # of Project Elements* Renovate trails Keep trails clean/clear Promote trail etiquette/environmental ethics Protect access (acquisition) Promote partnership/volunteerism Develop new trail opportunities Reduce environmental/cultural impacts Provide information/maps Enhance support facilities 27 48 25 7 9 24 34 37 35 *A total of 48 grant projects with multiple elements were funded from FY 1999 to FY 2004 for $2,489,747 Arizona Trail The Arizona Trail will eventually be an 800-mile nonmotorized trail that traverses the State from Mexico to Utah. The Arizona Trail is intended to be a primitive, long distance trail that highlights the State’s topographic, biologic, historic and cultural diversity. The crossstate trail now has approximately 700 miles developed. Roughly 200 miles were completed since the last plan. Arizona State Parks Trail Construction and Maintenance Trainings Arizona State Parks partnered with the Arizona Trail Association to host a series of trail construction and maintenance trainings. There is a need to train both agency personnel and trail volunteers in sustainable trail design and maintenance techniques. Land managers, trail partners and volunteers should utilize the resources of the National Trails Training Partnership (NTTP) whose mission is to improve opportunities for training for the nationwide trails community. Visit the website at www.nttp.net for more information and a calendar of events. National Trails Day National Trails Day, founded by the American Hiking Society, is held annually on the first Saturday in June. Arizona remains strong in its commitment to National Trails Day. For the past four years, Arizona has lead the way by incorporating the health community into the National Trails Day theme. Arizona averages around 50 events each year. Visit www.nationaltrails day.org for more information regarding National Trails Day. Trend Analysis of ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN and the Arizona Trails 2005 Plan The Arizona Trails 2005 Plan employed many of the same topics and questions in the phone and mail surveys as were used in the TRAILS 2000 surveys enabling State Parks staff to gain trend analysis within the trails communities over the past five years. Overall, it seems that many of the same needs, issues and preferences that were priorities the past five years will remain priorities for the next five years. 71 Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Designation Preference Comparison of the two plans’ survey results show that motorized and nonmotorized users are going in divergent directions in their trail designation preferences (see Table 24). Table 24: Preference of Trail Designation Trail Designation Single activity Multiple activities but motorized and nonmotorized separated Multiple activities but motorized and nonmotorized activities combined Trail Management Needs Trail management needs remain consistent with five years ago. The focus of most responses deal with maintenance of trails and the area around trails (see Table 25). Table 25: Most Important Trail Management Needs Motorized Users Motorized Users 2005 2000 1. Keep area clean of trash/ 1. Keep trail clean of litter/ litter trash 2. Enforce existing rules and 2. Mitigate or repair damage regulations 3. Maintain existing trails 4. Repair damage to trails 5. Develop new trails 72 3. Maintain existing trails 4. Enforce rules and regulations 5. Renovate deteriorated trails Motorized users show a substantial increase in preferring trails accommodating multiple activities with motorized and nonmotorized uses combined. Nonmotorized users are increasing in the preference of trails accommodating multiple activities with motorized and nonmotorized uses separated or for a single use. Motorized Motorized Nonmotorized Nonmotorized 2005 2000 2005 2000 17.2% 14.0% 30.5% 24.0% 34.8% 69.0% 68.0% 55.8% 40.4% 17.0% 8.0% 5.7% Enforcement of rules and regulations was a top priority for both motorized and nonmotorized in both surveys. Nonmotorized Users 2005 1. Keep area clean of trash/ litter Nonmotorized Users 2000 1. Maintain existing trails 2. Maintain existing trails 2. Keep trail clean of litter/ trash 3. Repair damage to trails 4. Enforce existing rules and regulations 3. Mitigate or repair damage 4. Enforce rules and regulations 5. Develop support facilities 5. Renovate deteriorated trails Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Preference of Trail Location For location of trail activity done the most, motorized users are increasingly reporting either rural areas or remote areas since the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN. This may be a result of closures in or near urban areas and/or development. For nonmotorized users the location of trail activity done the most has stayed constant. Table 26: Location for Trail Activity Done the Most Motorized Motorized Location–Done Most 2005 2000 In a city or town 5.4% 11.0% Nonmotorized 2005 26.0% Nonmotorized 2000 35.0% Just outside a city or town 12.4% 22.0% 33.0% 32.0% Rural areas Remote areas 25.7% 56.4% 23.0% 44.0% 22.0% 18.0% 21.0% 13.0% For location of trail activity enjoyed the most, motorized preference shows a substantial increase in remote areas from ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN. Nonmotorized users show an increase in their preference to recreate in rural or remote areas. Table 27: Location for Trail Activity Enjoyed the Most Motorized Motorized Location–Enjoyed Most 2005 2000 In a city or town 0.2% 8.0% Just outside a city or town 6.0% 16.0% Rural areas 25.0% 22.0% Remote areas 70.9% 54.0% Arizona State Parks Nonmotorized 2005 8.0% 18.5% 35.4% 38.0% Nonmotorized 2000 18.0% 27.0% 24.0% 30.0% GWT 73 Arizona Trails 2005 Importance of Support Facilities The need for support facilities such as trash cans, drinking water, restrooms and parking space remains consistent as the most important. For motorized users, they are rating motorized staging areas as of more importance than five years ago. Table 28: Most Important Support Facilities Rank– Motorized Users Motorized Users Support 2005 2000 Facilities 1. Trash cans Trash cans/Dumpsters 2. Trail signs Drinking water 3. Restrooms Restrooms 4. Drinking water Trail signs 5. Motorized staging areas Picnic facilities Comparison of Priority Recommendations TR Nonmotorized Users 2005 Trash cans Trail signs Drinking water Restrooms Parking space 2005 Nonmotorized Users 2000 Drinking water Trash cans/Restrooms Trail signs Shade structures/ Ramadas Parking space The priority recommendations from the two plans show clear themes that remain consistent among the years (see Tables 29, 30 and 31) and can show land managers areas on which issues and actions to concentrate their efforts. For nonmotorized trail users, trail maintenance and renovation, protecting access to trails, planning for future use of trails and education remain top priorities. Topics that have increased in importance include developing signage and support facilities and providing trail information and maps to users. For motorized trail users, the themes are preserving existing trails and OHV areas and keeping them open, planning and developing new opportunities and education of users. Topics that have increased in importance for motorized users are the enforcement of existing rules and regulations and providing trail information and maps to users. Coordinated volunteerism became a priority issue for the first time. Aspects of volunteerism were included in the recommended actions of the ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN, but the issue emerged in a different form for the Arizona Trails 2005 Plan. 74 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Table 29: Comparison of Motorized Priority Recommendations for Arizona Trails 2005 & ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 Plans Arizona Trails 2005 Plan ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN First Level Priority MOTORIZED Recommendations Priority MOTORIZED Recommendations Develop New Trails and Motorized Recreation Opportunities Protect Access to Trails/Keep Trails Open Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Education and Trail Etiquette 1. Preserve Existing Trails and OHV Areas 2. Renovate Eroded or Deteriorated Trails Second Level Priority Motorized Recommendations 3. Protect Access to Trails and OHV Areas Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring Trail Information and Maps 4. Promote Trail Etiquette and Environmental Ethics Comprehensive Planning 5. Plan for and Develop New OHV Opportunities Table 30: Comparison of Nonmotorized Priority Recommendations for Arizona Trails 2005 & ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 Plans Arizona Trails 2005 Plan ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN First Level Priority NONMOTORIZED Recommendations Priority NONMOTORIZED Recommendations Renovation and Maintenance of Existing Trails Protect Access to Trails/Acquire Land for Public Access Develop Signage and Support Facilities 1. Renovate Eroded or Deteriorated Trails Second Level Priority Nonmotorized Recommendations 3. Promote Trail Etiquette and Environmental Ethics Comprehensive Planning Trail Information/Maps Education and Trail Etiquette Arizona State Parks 2. Keep Existing Trails Clean and Clear 4. Protect Access to Trails 5. Incorporate Trails Into Local and Regional Planning 75 Arizona Trails 2005 Table 31: Comparison of Other Priority Recommendations for Both Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Use for Arizona Trails 2005 & ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 Plans Arizona Trails 2005 Plan ARIZONA TRAILS 2000 PLAN Other Priority Recommendations Other Recommendations Reduce Cultural and Environmental Resource Impacts (both motorized and nonmotorized) Seek Additional Funding Sources (both motorized and nonmotorized) Interagency Coordination (both motorized and nonmotorized) Develop Signage and Support Facilities (motorized) Develop New Trails (nonmotorized) Coordinated Volunteerism (nonmotorized) More Accessible Trails for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (nonmotorized) Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations/Monitoring (nonmotorized) Promote Interagency Coordination and Consistency (motorized trail use) Address User Conflicts and Safety Issues (nonmotorized trail use) Develop New Trail Opportunities (nonmotorized trail use) Reduce Environmental and Cultural Resource Impacts (both motorized and nonmotorized trail use) Provide Current Trail Information and Detailed Maps (both motorized and nonmotorized trail use) Enhance Support Facilities (both motorized and nonmotorized trail use) Improve User/Manager Communication (both motorized and nonmotorized trail use) Seek Additional Funding Sources (both motorized and nonmotorized trail use) 76 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Appendices “The thing to remember when traveling is that the trail is the thing, not the end of the trail. Travel too fast and you will miss all you are traveling for.” Louis L’Amour, Western writer, 1908-1988 Arizona State Parks 77 Arizona Trails 2005 References Arizona Revised Statutes, § 5-552; § 28-1176; § 41-511.03; § 41-511.04; § 41-511.22. Arizona State Legislature, Phoenix, AZ. Arizona State Land Department, 2003. State Land Department Fact Sheet. Phoenix, AZ. Arizona State Parks, 1994. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Arizona Outdoor Recreation Demand–A Youth Perspective. Phoenix AZ. _____, 1999. ARIZONA TRAILS 2000: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users (General Public Report; Target Group Report). Phoenix, AZ. _____, 1999. ARIZONA TRAILS 2000: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ. _____, 2003. Trails 2005: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users (General Public Report; Target Group Report). Phoenix, AZ. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: J. Wiley. Federal Register, July 15, 2004. Proposed Rules for Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. USDA Forest Service. 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. Available www.fs.fed.us/ Freye, K., Andereck, K. L., Vogt, C. A., & Valentine, K. (1998). Trails 2000: Results of the Arizona trail users study. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ 78 Go For Green. The Social, Health and Heritage Benefits of Trails. [On-line]. Available: www.lin.ca/lin/resource/html/ sp0038.pdf. Motorcycle Industry Council, 2003. Motorcycle Sales Rev Up for 11th Straight Year. [On-line]. Available: www.motorcycles.org/PR/2003_PR_11yr_Increase.htm National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE): 2000-2002. The Interagency National Survey Consortium, Coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends Research Group, Athens, GA and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Silberman, Jonathan, PhD. 2003. The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation, Arizona State University West, School of Management, Phoenix AZ. Trails and Greenways, 2004. Benefits of Trails and Greenways [On-line]. Available: www.trailsandgreenways.org/resources/ benefits/resonbenefits.asp United States Census Bureau, 2000. State and County QuickFacts - Arizona. [On-line]. Available: http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html White, D., Yoshioka, C. and Racki, A., 2003. Trails 2005: A Study of Arizona’s Motorized and Nonmotorized Trail Users. Prepared for Arizona State Parks. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 APPENDIX A: Summary of Arizona Trails 2005 Surveys–General Public and Target Group Gender and Age of Survey Respondents General Public Gender/Age Motorized Nonmotorized Users Users Male 54.0 35.1 Female 46.0 64.9 Mean Age 51.9 46.0 Target Group Motorized Nonmotorized Users Users 82.0 64.4 18.0 35.6 54.9 54.0 Overall Satisfaction with Trails in Arizona General Public Motorized Nonmotorized Satisfaction users users Not at all satisfied 4.6 0.2 Slightly satisfied 6.0 6.2 Satisfied 72.7 58.8 Very satisfied 15.3 35.1 Extremely satisfied 1.4 3.4 Total 100 100 Target Group Motorized Nonmotorized users users 4.0 1.0 36.0 21.4 44.0 48.1 16.0 24.3 0.0 5.2 100 100 Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with recreation trails in Arizona? Seasonal Use of Trails Season Spring Summer Fall Winter General Public Motorized Nonmotorized users users 86.2 85.5 65.7 54.7 92.5 85.0 63.9 64.4 Q: During which seasons do you use recreation trails in Arizona? Note: Respondents could check all that apply so columns do not sum to 100%. Arizona State Parks Target Group Motorized Nonmotorized users users 98.1 97.2 80.8 79.5 98.1 98.1 90.4 89.8 79 Arizona Trails 2005 Group Size When Using Trails General Public Group size Alone 1 other person 2 – 3 other people 4 – 5 other people 6 – 10 other people more than 10 other people Total Target Group Nonmotorized users Valid percent 6.2 37.5 38.3 13.2 2.8 2.0 100 Motorized users 1.6 32.4 50.9 11.6 2.6 0.8 100 Motorized Nonmotorized users users Valid percent 7.8 13.2 19.6 38.7 35.3 30.2 13.7 8.0 13.7 5.7 9.8 4.2 100 100 Q: How many people are normally with you when you use trails in Arizona? Trail Designation Preference General Public Target Group Motorized users Nonmotorized users Motorized users Nonmotorized users Single activity 17.2 30.5 6.0 18.6 Multiple activities, with motorized and nonmotorized uses combined Multiple activities, but with motorized and nonmotorized uses separated 40.4 5.7 52.0 6.7 34.8 55.8 36.0 70.0 Not sure 7.7 8.0 6.0 4.8 Total 100 100 100 100 Trail type Q: Do you think trails should be used for a single activity or for multiple activities? 80 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Trail Activity Participation General Public Motorized users Participation Valid percent Target Group Nonmotorized users Mean number of days Valid percent Mean number of days Motorized users Valid percent Mean number of days Nonmotorized users Valid percent Mean number of days Nonmotorized Trail Activities: Jogging/running Trail hiking (day hiking) Walking (excluding trail hiking) Backpacking Mountain biking (natural terrain) Bicycling Horseback riding In-line skating Canoeing/Kayaking (using “water trails”) Cross-country skiing or snowshoeing Hiking with stock (horses, mules, llamas, etc.) Orienteering/Geocaching (using map, compass, GPS) Visiting historical/archaeological sites Wildlife viewing/Birding 4.1 53.5 42.9 5.1 4.1 12.4 4.1 0.9 7.8 0.9 0.9 8.8 43.3 43.3 11.9 14.6 30.9 3.7 4.2 8.4 6.4 0.2 3.1 0.6 2.4 6.0 6.9 17.2 15.8 75.5 67.1 20.7 14.3 13.7 13.5 5.0 9.3 5.3 0.7 1.6 52.1 40.0 23.1 16.4 39.5 4.4 10.9 16.3 8.3 4.8 5.3 1.1 2.5 2.3 5.8 17.1 7.7 48.1 42.3 11.5 11.5 7.7 15.4 0.0 9.6 1.9 0.0 19.2 44.2 32.7 21.5 21.7 76.7 15.8 14.7 78.0 21.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 3.0 19.6 15.4 43.6 14.9 75.3 56.7 27.7 24.7 25.6 20.5 4.2 19.1 16.7 2.8 9.3 47.4 40.5 68.0 37.0 66.3 9.4 39.4 28.4 70.0 12.6 7.3 6.3 23.9 13.5 8.8 27.7 16.6 5.0 42.4 0.5 10.6 40.1 0.9 55.0 49.8 21.2 10.2 31.0 0.7 12.0 8.9 2.6 22.3 15.2 5.5 0.4 4.7 2.7 2.5 15.5 1.1 11.7 19.2 3.4 0.6 5.2 0.5 2.2 5.0 0.1 7.5 10.9 36.5 9.6 38.5 1.9 17.3 50.0 21.2 53.8 40.4 25.5 15.9 30.6 1.0 53.6 17.3 70 38.7 30.0 2.3 0.5 5.1 0.5 12.6 19.5 0.5 20.9 20.9 11.8 5.0 7.6 17.7 9.4 4.0 15.8 12.4 Motorized Trail Activities: Motorized trail biking/dirt biking Dune buggy or sand rail driving ATV (all-terrain vehicle) riding Snowmobiling High clearance two-wheel driving Driving to visit historical/archaeological sites Competitive events Four-wheel driving Driving to sightsee or view wildlife/Birding Q: This question has two parts. First check each trail activity that you enjoy. Arizona State Parks Then, fill in the approximate number of days you participated in that activity during the past 12 months in Arizona. 81 Arizona Trails 2005 Preferred Settings for Trail Activities General Public Trail location In a city or town Just outside a city or town In a rural area In a remote area Total Target Group Motorized users Nonmotorized users Done Done Enjoy Enjoy most most the most the most often often Valid percent 5.4 0.0 26.0 8.0 12.4 6.0 33.7 18.5 25.7 25.7 22.2 35.4 56.4 56.4 18.1 38.0 100 100 100 100 Motorized users Nonmotorized users Done Done Enjoy Enjoy most most the most the most often often Valid percent 7.8 2.0 22.1 3.4 3.8 0.0 24.5 13.2 27.5 14.0 24.5 17.6 60.8 80.4 28.8 65.9 100 100 100 100 Q. Which of the following settings best describes the location for the trail activity that you do most often and that you enjoy the most? Miles Traveled for Trail Use General Public Number of miles traveled for the trail activity… You do most often You enjoy the most Motorized users 51.0 62.5 Q: Approximately how many miles (one-way) do you travel from your home for the purpose of using a trail? 82 Target Group Nonmotorized users Motorized users Five percent trimmed mean 23.4 37.8 46.1 65.7 Nonmotorized users 18.4 58.7 Note: 5% percent trimmed mean is the arithmetic mean calculated when the largest 5% and the smallest 5% of the cases eliminated. Eliminating extreme cases results in a better estimate of central tendency, especially when extreme outliers are present (e.g., respondents claiming to travel 999 miles one-way to use a trail). Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Preferred Level of Trail Difficulty Preferred level of trail difficulty Easy Moderate Hard Challenging Total General Public Nonmotorized Motorized users users Done Enjoy Done Enjoy most the most the most often most often 12.2 62.0 21.0 4.9 100 9.3 68.6 15.2 16.9 100 12.2 62.0 21.0 4.9 100 9.3 68.6 15.2 16.9 100 Target Group Nonmotorized Motorized users users Done Enjoy Done Enjoy most the most the most often most often 3.9 52.9 21.6 21.6 100 1.9 40.4 26.9 30.8 100 7.7 66.0 18.2 8.1 100 4.8 58.9 22.0 14.4 100 Q: Which of the following best describes the trail difficulty that you prefer for activities that you do most often and that you enjoy the most? Perceptions of Trend in Public Access to Trails Trend in Public Access Access is declining; fewer trails are open for my preferred activities Access is about the same Access is improving; more trails are open for my preferred activities Not sure Total General Public Motorized Nonmotorized users users Target Group Motorized Nonmotorized users users 48.3 18.7 82.7 30.8 19.5 34.5 13.5 35.5 8.8 13.0 3.8 22.3 23.4 100 33.8 100 0.0 100 11.4 100 Q: What is your opinion about the trend in public access to recreation trails in the past five years in Arizona (i.e., the public’s right to use trails)? Arizona State Parks 83 Arizona Trails 2005 Satisfaction with Public Access to Trails in Regions of Arizona General Public Target Group Nonmotorized users Region Region Region enjoyed used enjoyed most most most Valid percent Motorized users Satisfaction with Public Access Region used most Nonmotorized users Region Region Region enjoyed used enjoyed most most most Valid percent Motorized users Region used most Not at all satisfied 7.8 7.3 0.6 0.7 38.0 34.7 47.8 19.8 Slightly satisfied 18.0 17.0 8.9 10.0 14.0 10.2 24.9 17.4 Satisfied 47.5 50.0 55.7 58.7 20.0 32.7 18.7 44.9 Very satisfied 21.7 19.9 27.2 21.8 24.0 18.4 3.8 2.9 Extremely satisfied 5.1 5.8 7.1 8.8 4.0 4.1 4.8 15.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Q : Overall, how satisfied are you with public access (i.e., your ability to use trails) in Arizona? 84 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Environmental Concerns General Public Motorized users Target Group Nonmotorized users Environmental Concerns Motorized user Nonmotorized users Mean (out of 5) Erosion of trails 2.69 2.53 2.39 2.92 Litter 3.20 2.92 2.90 3.03 Trash dumping 2.92 2.57 3.10 2.73 Vandalism 2.60 2.31 2.54 2.50 Water pollution 2.17 2.27 1.78 2.26 Dust in the air 2.27 2.18 1.65 2.07 Human waste 1.86 1.73 1.67 1.87 Fire rings/charcoal 2.01 1.86 1.73 2.09 Erosion of stream banks 2.00 2.18 1.98 2.36 Trampling of vegetation 2.20 2.42 2.06 2.66 Air quality 1.79 2.14 1.54 2.16 Damage to soils 1.85 2.12 1.80 2.48 Damage to historical or archaeological sites 2.58 2.40 2.17 2.77 Vehicle emissions 2.07 2.40 1.38 2.38 Q 18: To what extent do you think each of the following environmental concerns is a problem on trails in the region of the state you enjoy the most? Arizona State Parks 85 Arizona Trails 2005 Social Concerns on Trails General Public Motorized users Target Group Nonmotorized users Social concerns Motorized users Nonmotorized users Mean (out of 5) Lack of trail ethics 2.48 2.48 2.67 2.70 Too many people 2.23 2.23 2.35 2.47 Recreational livestock 1.42 1.42 1.40 1.80 Damage to/loss of personal property 1.63 1.63 1.59 1.60 Conflict between users 1.66 1.66 2.13 2.45 Unskilled people 2.08 2.08 2.40 2.20 Uncontrolled dogs 2.07 2.07 1.75 2.28 Unregulated OHV use 2.25 2.25 1.92 3.51 Personal safety 1.89 1.89 1.75 1.86 Target shooting 2.05 2.05 2.37 2.42 Vehicle noise 1.85 1.85 1.67 2.45 Noise disturbance 1.86 1.86 1.60 2.45 Residential/commercial development 2.85 2.85 3.06 3.39 Q 20: To what extent do you think each of the following social concerns is a problem on trails in the region of the state you enjoy the most? 86 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Importance and Satisfaction with Trail Management Priorities General Public Motorized users Trail Management Priorities Importance Satisfaction Target Group Nonmotorized users Importance Satisfaction Motorized users Nonmotorized users Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean (out of 5) Acquire new land for trails 3.53 2.74 3.21 3.03 3.92 2.62 3.72 2.87 Acquire new land for public access to trails 3.49 2.79 3.30 2.95 3.96 2.47 3.89 2.63 Develop new trails 3.63 2.74 3.33 3.05 4.40 2.06 3.62 1.81 Develop support facilities 3.51 2.94 3.52 2.90 3.27 2.78 3.25 2.89 Enforce existing rules/regulations 3.95 3.75 3.76 2.99 2.62 2.62 3.75 2.66 Keep area clean of litter/trash 4.37 2.70 4.21 2.95 4.02 2.58 4.02 2.68 Maintain existing trials 3.93 3.05 4.15 3.25 4.08 2.70 4.18 2.79 Repair damage to trails 3.82 2.90 4.05 3.15 3.66 2.78 4.04 2.82 Provide educational programs 3.22 2.98 3.17 3.12 3.64 2.55 3.11 2.98 Provide landscaping along trails and in support areas 2.24 3.22 2.54 3.25 1.82 3.40 2.12 3.26 Provide law enforcement/safety 3.41 2.61 3.32 2.98 3.04 2.84 3.20 2.85 Q: This question has two parts and asks about priorities for trail management in your favorite region of Arizona. First indicate how important each of the priorities is to you. Then, indicate your level of satisfaction with the current conditions. Arizona State Parks 87 Arizona Trails 2005 Importance and Satisfaction with Trail Support Facilities General Public Motorized users Trail Support Facilities Importance Satisfaction Target Group Nonmotorized users Importance Motorized users Nonmotorized users Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean (out of 5) Backcountry camping sites 3.04 3.00 3.00 3.20 2.85 3.46 3.05 3.26 Developed campgrounds 3.03 3.03 2.94 3.18 2.49 3.41 2.77 3.20 Drinking water 3.31 2.76 3.82 2.87 2.49 3.13 3.24 3.01 Equestrian staging area 1.76 3.18 1.91 3.32 1.96 3.39 2.15 3.22 Group camping areas 2.55 2.93 2.57 3.25 2.31 3.29 2.33 3.25 Parking spaces 2.77 2.97 3.24 3.02 2.63 3.16 3.18 2.97 Picnic facilities 3.08 3.05 3.06 3.19 2.24 3.36 2.52 3.23 Restrooms 3.46 2.78 3.74 2.93 2.49 3.11 3.07 3.02 RV dump station 2.45 3.08 2.18 3.24 2.06 3.02 1.78 3.43 Ramadas 2.99 2.79 3.02 3.09 2.08 3.07 2.46 3.14 Showers 2.28 3.15 2.35 3.08 1.76 3.22 1.89 3.27 Motorized staging areas 3.13 2.89 1.93 3.16 3.24 2.52 1.71 3.33 Trail signs 3.95 2.82 3.90 2.96 3.69 2.32 4.03 2.61 Trash cans 4.14 2.69 4.04 2.94 3.57 2.41 3.63 2.76 Q: This question has two parts and asks about priorities for trail support facilities in your favorite region of Arizona. First indicate how important each of the facilities is to you. Then, indicate your level of satisfaction with the current conditions. 88 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Importance of Trail Issues General Public Motorized users Target Group Nonmotorized users Trail Issues Motorized users Nonmotorized users Mean (out of 5) Closure of trails 3.92 3.92 4.58 3.81 Inadequate trail maintenance 3.22 3.22 3.10 3.60 Urban development 3.80 3.80 3.73 4.15 Lack of directional signage 3.42 3.42 2.73 3.39 Lack of funding for trails 3.70 3.70 4.22 4.30 Lack of support for my use 3.59 3.59 4.02 3.07 Lack of regional planning 3.19 3.19 3.69 3.54 Not enough information 2.97 2.97 2.98 2.67 Lack of planning for future trails 3.43 3.43 3.84 3.56 Not enough trails accessible to people with disabilities 2.99 2.81 2.78 2.60 Lack of trails near home 2.56 2.55 2.52 2.72 Lack of signage along trails 3.16 3.19 2.86 3.21 Not enough facilities near trails 3.06 2.98 2.46 2.64 New development doesn’t include trails 3.36 3.29 3.33 3.74 Poor conditions of access roads to trailheads 2.95 3.09 2.48 2.81 Q : This question has two parts and asks your opinion about a variety of trail issues. First, indicate how important each of the issues is to you. Then, list your top three priorities. Arizona State Parks 89 Arizona Trails 2005 APPENDIX B Regional Focus Group Workshops– Top 5 Priorities FLAGSTAFF Motorized Trail Users 1. Maintenance of existing trails 2. More long distance loop trails 3. Access to existing routes 4. Need more interconnectivity of trails 5. Need more support facilities Nonmotorized Trail User 1. Separate uses (motorized and nonmotorized) 2. Eliminate or reduce use fees 3. Acquire more land for trails and easements 4. More funds for planning efforts 5. Need more volunteer coordination efforts and funding for volunteer PINETOP-LAKESIDE No Motorized Trail Users Present Nonmotorized Trail User 1. Unregulated OHV use 2. More maps and trail information 3. Separate uses on the trail 4. Trails etiquette and ethics, user education 5. More ADA accessible trails Land Managers 1. Maintenance of existing trails 2. Long term planning for trails 3. Better and proper signage 4. More maps and trail information 5. More volunteer programs Note: These workshops were regional in nature, the city/town listed refers to the meeting location for that general region. Land Managers 1. Build more OHV trails 2. Money for planning efforts, project specific planning, NEPA planning 3. Money for trail easements 4. Volunteer coordination 5. Address cultural and natural resource protection 90 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 TUCSON Motorized Trail Users 1. Keep trails open 2. Education of users 3. Rehabilitate resource damage of use areas 4. Open more use areas and trails 5. Money for trail maintenance Nonmotorized Trail User 1. Develop more trails 2. Save access from development 3. Support facilities 4. More interconnectivity and linkages 5. Enforcement of existing rules and regulations Land Managers 1. Urban trail system development 2. Protection from development 3. Better interagency communication 4. Funding should go to priority needs of the state 5. Proper trail design, sustainability Arizona State Parks LAKE HAVASU CITY Motorized Trail Users 1. User education, trail etiquette and ethics 2. Protection of natural and cultural resources 3. Litter, trash dumping 4. More interagency and private partnerships 5. - Monitoring and enforcement of use types - Keep existing trails/roads open Nonmotorized Trail Users 1. More nonmotorized trails in the area 2. More maps and trail information 3. Support facilities 4. More connector trails and linkages 5. Acquire easements and right of ways–State Trust land Land Managers 1. More partnering between agencies 2. Funds for planning–master planning, NEPA planning, trail assessments 3. Maintenance of existing trails (both motorized and nonmotorized) 4. Managed volunteer efforts 5. Construction of new trails 91 Arizona Trails 2005 PHOENIX No Motorized Trail Users Present Nonmotorized Trail User 1. Proper trail design education and standards 2. Managed volunteerism 3. Monitoring of trails/Enforcement of rules 4. Maintenance 5. Reduce user conflicts Land Managers 1. Maintenance of existing trails 2. Support facilities, specifically signage 3. Cultural and natural resource protection 4. Protect Access 5. Money for planning, better and more comprehensive planning APPENDIX C Arizona State Trails System Summary Arizona’s State Trails System is invaluable, offering a diversity of quality nonmotorized trails that inspire people to experience the State’s magnificent outdoor environment and cultural history. Arizona State Parks manages the Arizona State Trails System as mandated by legislation A.R.S. § 41-511.23. The State Trails System: “ 1. Identifies on a statewide basis the general location and extent of significant trail routes, areas and complimentary facilities,” and “2. Assesses the physical condition of the systems.” The statute also states “…trail systems means coordinated systems of trails for this state.” Rather than identify trails and assess their condition once every five years (in conjunction with the state trails plan), Arizona State Parks, with the help of the Arizona State Committee on Trails and other volunteers, regularly updates the State Trails System. The State Trails System was established to recognize and promote nonmotorized trails of special interest or significance to Arizona’s residents and visitors. This system consists of nonmotorized trails that are managed mostly by partners of Arizona State Parks. Trails include both land and water (canoe/ kayak) trails. Partners include all agencies that manage public 92 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 lands in Arizona such as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, state, tribes, cities, towns and counties. The Guide is intended to be used by outdoor recreation enthusiasts as an introduction to trails found in the State Trails System. Trails within the State Trails System are classified as Urban, Recreation, Interpretive, Cross-Sate and/or Historic. For trails, both existing and proposed, to be included in the State Trails System, they must go through the nomination process. This process begins when the trail landowner submits trail nominations for review by Arizona State Parks staff and the State Trails System subcommittee of the Arizona State Committee on Trails. Recommendations are forwarded to the Arizona State Parks Board for review and final approval. The fourth edition of the State Trails Guide was published in 2004 and can be purchased through Arizona State Parks. Upon approval, trails become part of the State Trails System. These trails are then eligible to receive Arizona Heritage Fund trail grants and, when construction is completed, are published in the Arizona State Trails Guide, unless specifically requested to be unpublished by the land manager. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund Summary It should be noted that this is by no means a comprehensive inventory of trails found in Arizona; it only includes those trails nominated and accepted into the State Trails System. The State Trails Guide published by Arizona State Parks is divided into four regional publications that contain information such as trail ethics and safety guidelines, general trail location maps, trail managing agency, trail access information, trail highlights, recommended season of use, recommended trail activities and additional contact information regarding the trail. Arizona State Parks As of April 2004, the State Trails System consists of 638 trails, the State Trails Guide Fourth Edition includes 549 trails. APPENDIX D The Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund, A.R.S. § 28-1176, is allocated fifty-five one hundredths of one percent (0.55%) of the total license tax on motor fuel (A.R.S. § 28-5167) received by the State of Arizona into the Highway User Revenue Fund. The OHV Recreation Fund is then distributed to the following agencies on a monthly basis. OHV RECREATION FUND 70% Arizona State Parks Board Staffing/Program Administration: 18% OHV Facility Development, Partnership Agreements, Grants Program: 82% 30% Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Law Enforcement and Information/Education: 100% 93 Arizona Trails 2005 APPENDIX E Establishing Legislation and Amendments Arizona Revised Statutes TITLE 28, CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 20. OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES § 28-1176. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund A. An Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund is established. The fund consists of: 1. Monies appropriated by the legislature. 2. Monies deposited pursuant to § 28-5617. 3. Federal grants and private gifts. 4. Matching monies from federal, state, local or private entities. B. Monies in the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund are appropriated to the Arizona State Parks Board solely for the purposes provided in this Article. Interest earned on monies in the fund shall be credited to the fund. Monies in the OffHighway Vehicle Recreation Fund are exempt from the provisions of § 35-190 relating to lapsing of appropriation. C. The Arizona Game and Fish Department shall spend thirty percent of the monies in the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund for an informational and educational program on offhighway vehicle recreation and law enforcement activities relating to this Article and for off-highway vehicle law enforcement pursuant to Title 17, Chapter 4, Article 3.1 94 D. On or before December 31 of each year, the Arizona Game and Fish Department shall submit an annual report to the president of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairmen of the Senate and House of Representatives committees on transportation or their successor committees. The annual report shall include information on: 1. The amount of monies spent or encumbered in the fund during the preceding fiscal year for the purposes of law enforcement activities. 2. The amount of monies spent from the fund during the preceding fiscal year for employee services. 3. The number of full-time employees employed in the preceding fiscal year in connection with law enforcement activities. E. The Arizona State Parks Board shall spend seventy percent of the monies in the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund for the following purposes: 1. No more than eighteen percent to fund staff support to plan and administer the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund. 2. To establish a facility development program based on the priorities established in the off-highway vehicle plan. 3. To establish a matching fund program for funding off highway related law enforcement, informational and environmental education programs, mitigation of environmental damage, facility development, land acquisition and construction of off-highway vehicle related facilities. F. The allocation of the monies in the matching fund program prescribed in Subsection E, Paragraph 3 of this Section and the percentages allocated to each of the purposes prescribed in the program shall be determined by an off-highway vehicle Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 plan prepared by the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission and approved by the State Parks Board. G. Monies in the matching fund program established under Subsection E, Paragraph 3 of this Section shall be distributed in an amount determined by the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission to a qualified state or federal agency, city, town, county or tribal government. The Arizona State Parks Board may require additional matching monies that may be direct monies or in-kind services from these entities before the distribution pursuant to this Subsection. H. Agencies receiving monies under this Section shall use the monies: 1. To designate, construct, maintain and manage offhighway vehicle recreation facilities, off-highway vehicle use areas and off-highway vehicle trails within land under the jurisdiction of the particular agency. 2. For enforcement of off-highway vehicle laws. 3. For mitigation of damages to land. 4. For off-highway vehicle related environmental education. I. The Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission shall examine applications for eligible projects and determine the amount of funding, if any, for each project. J. The Arizona State Parks Board shall annually report to the Legislature the expenditures made for the projects in conjunction with the report required by § 41-511.12. The annual report shall include the amount of monies spent or encumbered during the preceding fiscal year for the purposes described in Subsection E of this Section. Arizona State Parks Amended by Laws 1998, Ch. 20, § 1. 1Section 17-451 et seq. Added by Laws 1989, Ch. 204, § 2. Amended by Laws 1997, Ch. 58, § 18. TITLE 28, CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND PENALTIES § 28-101. Definitions In this Title, unless the context otherwise requires: . . . 15.”Department” means the Department of Transportation acting directly or through its duly authorized officers and agents. TITLE 28, CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 20. OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES § 28-1171. Definitions In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Highway” means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the federal government, the department, a city, a town or a county if any part of the way is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. 2. “Off-highway recreation facility” includes off-highway vehicle use areas and trails specifically developed and designated for use by off-highway vehicles. 3. “Off-highway vehicle”: (a) Means a motorized vehicle when operated off of highways on land, water, snow, ice or other natural terrain or on a combination of land, water, snow, ice or other natural terrain. 95 Arizona Trails 2005 (b) Includes a two-wheel, three-wheel or four-wheel vehicle, motorcycle, four-wheel drive vehicle, dune buggy, amphibious vehicle, ground effects or air cushion vehicle and any other means of land transportation deriving motive power from a source other than muscle or wind. (c) Does not include a vehicle that is either: (i) Designed primarily for travel on, over or in the water. (ii) Used in installation, inspection, maintenance, repair or related activities involving facilities for the provision of utility or railroad service. 4. “Off-highway vehicle trail” means a multiple use corridor that is all of the following: (a) Open to recreational travel by an off-highway vehicle. (b) Not normally suitable for travel by conventional twowheel drive vehicles. (c) Opened by the managing authority of the property that the trail traverses for the specific designated purpose of recreational off-highway vehicle use. 5. “Off-highway vehicle use area” means the entire area of a parcel of land, except for camping and approved buffer areas, that is managed specifically for off-highway vehicle use through the development or designation of off-highway vehicle trails. § 28-1172. Applicability; private and Indian lands This Article applies to all lands in this state except private land and Indian land. § 28-1174. Operation restrictions; violation; classification A. It is unlawful for a person to drive an off-highway vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property. B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. C. In addition to or in lieu of the fine prescribed by this section, a judge may order the person to perform at least eight but not more than twenty-four hours of community service or to complete an approved safety course, or both. § 28-1175. Instruction course; fee A. The Department shall conduct or approve an educational course of instruction in off-highway vehicle safety and environmental ethics. The course shall include instruction on off-highway vehicle uses that limit air pollution and harm to natural terrain, vegetation and animals. Successful completion of the course requires successful passage of a written examination. B. Any governmental agency, corporation or other individual that conducts a training and educational course that is approved by the department may collect a fee that is reasonable and commensurate for the training and that does not exceed fifty dollars. § 28-1173. Enforcement All peace officers of this state and counties, cities or towns and other duly authorized state and federal employees shall enforce this Article. 96 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 CHAPTER 16 § 28-5617. Transfer; Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund Fifty-five one hundredths of one percent of the total license taxes on motor vehicle fuel shall be transferred from the monies collected pursuant to § 28-3606 to the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund established by § 28-1176 on a monthly basis. Added by Laws 1995, Ch. 132, § 3, eff. Oct. 1, 1997. Amended by Laws 1996, Ch. 76, § 222, eff. Oct. 1, 1997. Historical and Statutory Notes Source: A.R.S. former § 28-1502.03. Laws 1991, Ch. 267, § 2. TITLE 41, CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 1. ARIZONA STATE PARKS BOARD HERITAGE FUND Article 1 was added by initiative measure approved by electors at the November 6, 1990 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on November 26, 1990. § 41-501. Definitions; Heritage Fund In this Article: . . . 2. “Trails” are those trails for nonmotorized use nominated for inclusion in the state trails system, including urban, cross-state, recreation, interpretive or historic trails. § 41-502. Establishment of fund TITLE 41, CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 1. ARIZONA STATE PARKS BOARD § 41-511.04. Duties; Board; partnership fund; state historic preservation officer Text of section amended by Laws 1998, Ch. 20; and Ch 242, effective July 1, 1999. A. The Board shall: . . . 20. Maintain a statewide off-highway vehicle recreational plan which shall be updated at least once every six years and shall be used by all participating agencies to guide distribution and expenditure of monies under § 28-1176. Arizona State Parks A. The Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund is established in the office of the State Treasurer consisting of monies deposited from the State Lottery Fund pursuant to § 5522 and interest earned on those monies. B. The fund shall be administered by the Arizona State Parks Board and is not subject to appropriation. Expenditures from the fund are not subject to additional approval notwithstanding any provision of § 41-511.05, § 41-511.11 or any other statutory provision to the contrary. Monies received pursuant to § 5-522 shall be deposited directly with the Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund. On notice from the Arizona State Parks Board, the State Treasurer shall invest monies in the fund as provided in § 35-311. The State Treasurer shall credit monies earned from those investments to the fund. 97 Arizona Trails 2005 C. The Board shall not use its rights of eminent domain under § 41-511.06 to acquire property to be paid for with monies from the Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund. D. All monies in the Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund shall be spent by the Arizona State Parks Board only for the purposes and in the percentages set forth in this Article. In no event shall any monies in the fund revert to the state general fund and monies in the fund are exempt from the provisions of § 35-190, relating to lapsing of appropriations. § 41-503. Expenditures from fund; purpose and amounts A. Monies in the fund for local, regional and state trails, parks, outdoor recreation and open space shall consist of: 1. Five per cent of monies received pursuant to § 5-522 shall be spent on local, regional and state trails. 2. Thirty-five per cent of monies received pursuant to § 5522 shall be spent on local, regional or state parks, for outdoor recreation and open space. B. Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund monies allocated pursuant to Subsection A, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Section shall be spent in accordance with § 41-511.25 and shall be available as matching funds. C. No entity receiving funds under Subsections A and B of this Section shall receive more than twenty percent of the monies available in any fiscal year. 98 D. Monies received pursuant to § 5-522 shall be spent as follows: 1. Seventeen percent on acquisition of natural areas. 2. Four percent of monies on maintenance, operation and management of natural areas administered by the Arizona State Parks Board. 3. Seventeen percent of monies on local, regional and state historic preservation projects. Monies provided under this Paragraph shall be administered by the Arizona State Parks Board through the State Historic Preservation Officer. 4. Seventeen percent of monies on state park acquisition or development. 5. Five percent on environmental education. E. All monies earned as interest on monies received pursuant to § 5-522 shall be spent only in the percentages and for the purposes described in Subsections A through D of this Section or for costs of administering the Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund in such amounts as determined by the Arizona State Parks Board. F. On or before December 31 each year the Board shall submit its annual report to the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and the chairmen of the senate and house of representatives committees on natural resources and agriculture, or their successor committees. The annual report shall include information on: 1. The amount of monies spent or encumbered in the fund during the preceding fiscal year and a summary of the projects, activities and expenditures relating to: (a) Local, regional and state trails. (b) Local, regional or state parks for outdoor recreation and open space. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 (c) Natural areas, including acquisition and maintenance, operation and management of natural areas. (d) Local, regional and state hisotric preservation projects. (e) State Parks acquisition and development. (f) Environmental education. 2. The number and location of parcels of property acquired during the preceding fiscal year. 3. For personal and real properties acquired with fund monies during the preceding fiscal year, the amount of property tax revenue paid to this state and political subdivisions of this state during the last full tax year prior to acquisition. 4. The amount of money spent from the fund during the preceding fiscal year for employee personal services. 5. The number of full-time employees employed in the preceding fiscal year in connection with property acquisition, including survey, appraisal and other related activities. Historical and Statutory Notes Proposition 200, based on an initiative measure, providing for annual funding from State Lottery revenues for the State Parks Board and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Heritage Fund, was approved by the electors at the November 6, 1990 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on November 26, 1990. Section 1 of Proposition 200 (1990) provided: Declaration of policy A. The people of Arizona believe it is in the best interest of the general economy and welfare of Arizona and its citizens to set aside adequate state funds on an annual basis to preserve, protect and enhance Arizona’s natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, biological diversity, scenic wonder and environment and provide new opportunities for outdoor recreation in Arizona. Arizona State Parks B. It is the intention and desire of the people of Arizona in enacting this statute by initiative that the funds provided hereby are in addition to and separate from other funds that are now and shall be annually appropriated by the Legislature. ARTICLE 1.1 ARIZONA STATE PARKS BOARD § 41-511.04. Duties; Board; partnership fund; state historic preservation officer Text of section amended by Laws 1998, Ch. 20; Ch. 242, effective July 1, 1999. A. The Board shall: . . . 2. Manage, develop and operate state parks, monuments or trails established or acquired pursuant to law, or previously granted to the state for park or recreation purposes, except those falling under the jurisdiction of other state agencies as established by law. 3. Investigate lands owned by the state to determine in cooperation with the agency that manages the land which tracts should be set aside and dedicated for use as state parks, monuments or trails. 4. Investigate federally owned lands to determine their desirability for use as state parks, monuments or trails and negotiate with the federal agency having jursidiction over such lands for the transfer of title to the Arizona State Parks Board. 5. Investigate privately owned lands to determine their desirability for use as state parks, monuments or trails and negotiate with private owners for the transfer of title to the Arizona State Parks Board. 6. Enter into agreements with the United States, other states or local governmental units, private societies or persons for the development and protection of state parks, monuments or trails. 99 Arizona Trails 2005 . . 15. Prepare, maintain and update a comprehensive plan for the development of the outdoor recreation resources of this state. 16. Initiate and carry out studies to determine the recreational needs of this state and the counties, cities and towns. 17. Coordinate recreational plans and developments of federal, state, county, city, town and private agencies. . . . 20. Maintain a statewide off-highway vehicle recreational plan which shall be updated at least once every six years and shall be used by all participating agencies to guide distribution and expenditure of monies under § 28-1176. separate account of the State Parks fund established by §41511.11 and may be allocated by the Board for special trail project priorities established annually by the Board. D. Monies deposited in the State Parks fund account shall be used for providing state monies up to an amount equal to the amount of cash, materials and labor from any other source for the planning, acquisition, maintenance or operation of the trail and for administrative expenses of not more than twenty percent of total account monies. E. For purposes of this Section, “trail systems” means coordinated systems of trails in this state. § 41-511.22. Trail systems plan; deposit of monies; definition A. The Board shall prepare a trail systems plan that: 1. Identifies on a statewide basis the general location and extent of significant trail routes, areas and complementary facilities. 2. Assesses the physical condition of the systems. 3. Assesses usage of trails. 4. Describes specific policies, standards and criteria to be followed in adopting, developing, operating and maintaining trails in the systems. 5. Recommends to federal, state, regional, local and tribal agencies and to the private sector actions which will enhance the trail systems. B. The plan shall be revised at least once every five years. C. Monies from gifts, grants and other donations received by the Board for the trail systems plan shall be deposited in a 100 RECREATION LIABILITY STATUTE § 33-1551. Duty of owner, lessee or occupant of premises to recreational or educational users; liability; definitions A. A public or private owner, easement holder, lessee or occupant of premises is not liable to a recreational or educational user except upon a showing that the owner, easement holder, lessee or occupant was guilty of wilful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct which was a direct cause of the injury to the recreational or educational user. B. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists for maintaining an attractive nuisance, except with respect to dams, channels, canals and lateral ditches used for flood control, agricultural, industrial, metallurgical or municipal purposes. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 C. As used in this section: 1. “Educational user” means a person to whom permission has been granted or implied without the payment of an admission fee or any other consideration to enter upon premises to participate in an educational program, including but not limited to, the viewing of historical, natural, archaeological or scientific sights. A nominal fee that is charged by a public entity or a nonprofit corporation to offset the cost of providing the educational or recreational premises and associated services does not constitute an admission fee or any other consideration as prescribed by this section. fee or any other consideration as provided in this section. A nominal fee that is charged by a public entity or a nonprofit corporation to offset the cost of providing the educational or recreational premises and associated services does not constitute an admission fee or any other consideration as prescribed by this section. 2. “Grossly negligent” means a knowing or reckless indifference to the health and safety of others. 3. “Premises” means agricultural, range, open space, park, flood control, mining, forest or railroad lands, and any other similar lands, wherever located, which are available to a recreational or educational user, including, but not limited to, paved or unpaved multi-use trails and special purpose roads or trails not open to automotive use by the public and any building, improvement, fixture, water conveyance system, body of water, channel, canal or lateral, road, trail or structure on such lands. 4. “Recreational user” means a person to whom permission has been granted or implied without the payment of an admission fee or any other consideration to travel across or to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, ride, exercise, swim or engage in similar pursuits. The purchase of a state hunting, trapping or fishing license is not the payment of an admission Arizona State Parks 101 Arizona Trails 2005 APPENDIX F Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation to Arizona Whether you enjoy exploring Arizona’s backcountry driving your truck, dirt bike or quad, or you prefer using your own muscle power to hike the trails, the following information may surprise you. Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreationists • 21% of Arizonans, or 1.1 million people, consider themselves OHV enthusiasts • The average OHV household in Arizona spends 25.4 days per year participating in OHV recreational activities, which equates to 13,983,356 OHV Recreation Days annually • 72% of OHV users are satisfied with their overall OHV recreation experience and are willing to pay $82 to $120 more to enjoy the same experience • OHV recreationists have a positive economic impact to Arizona’s economy of $4.25 billion annually People who enjoy off-highway vehicle recreation spend a lot of money buying vehicles, tow trailers, equipment, insurance, repairs and other related purchases. They also spend money in local communities while on recreational trips for items such as gasoline, food, lodging and souvenirs, just like other tourists. In 2002, the Arizona State Parks Board conducted a yearlong economic study of recreational OHV use in Arizona in partnership with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State University (ASU) as part of the State’s OHV Recreation Program. The results show that OHV recreation is a substantial contributor to Arizona’s economy. 102 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF OHV RECREATION IN ARIZONA • • Creates a statewide economic impact of $4.25 billion (multiplier effect*) Contributes $3.1 billion to local economies through OHV-related retail sales • Adds $187 million to annual state tax revenues • Provides $1.1 billion in household income (salaries/ wages) for AZ residents Supports 36,951 full-time and part-time jobs in Arizona • *Multiplier Effect: Sum of OHV expenditures, secondary effects generated by local re-expenditures of money, and induced impact from salaries paid by directly and indirectly impacted industries. OHV Ecomnomic Impact Study ASU Survey Research Laboratory conducted the telephone and mail surveys of Arizona households. ASU West School of Management used the survey findings to complete the economic impact analysis using the IMPLAN input-output model. Completed surveys included 15,000 telephone surveys and 1,269 mail questionnaires from randomly selected Arizona households. Survey respondents were asked questions regarding their expenditures for off-highway vehicles, tow trailers, equipment, insurance, repairs and other OHV related purchases. They were also asked about OHV recreational trip expenditures for items such as gasoline, food, lodging, souvenirs, special event fees, emergency vehicle repairs and medical injuries. Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 The number of OHV households was determined by positive phone survey responses to three specific questions: 1) do you own an OHV; 2) do you drive it off-highway; and 3) do you use it for recreation. Totals for vehicle and equipment purchases were factored (reduced) by the percentage owners said vehicles were used for OHV recreation, not total vehicle cost. The economic model (IMPLAN) used to generate the direct/indirect estimates is more conservative than other frequently used models. Expenditures by OHV visitors to Arizona were not included. Economic Impact of OHV Recreation in Arizona and its 15 Counties ($ in millions) Vehicles/Equipment Purchases for OHV Use Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona Arizona State Parks $46.5 $70.8 $108.9 $53.4 $19.9 $6.4 $24.6 $1,127.9 $132.1 $66.3 $251.9 $95.1 $6.5 $112.4 $90.4 $2,213.4 Trip Expenditures for OHV Recreation $47.6 $27.7 $106.4 $67.1 $12.4 $5.3 $19.5 $230.2 $49.9 $48.7 $71.7 $40.2 $20.8 $70.6 $24.1 $842.3 The study findings show the total economic impact to Arizona from recreational OHV use is more than $4 billion a year. OHV recreation activities provide an economic contribution to the State and its 15 counties mainly through direct expenditures for motorized vehicles, tow trailers, related equipment, accessories, insurance and maintenance costs ($2.2 billion). Additionally, an economic benefit is generated when OHV recreationists spend money in local communities close to areas they recreate in for items such as gasoline, food, lodging and souvenirs ($842 million). These direct purchases provide indirect benefits by helping to pay for many people’s salaries and wages ($1 billion), and contributing to local and state tax revenues ($187 million). Specific information regarding these elements is available for Arizona and its 15 counties. Total Multiplier Effect* $101.9 $116.1 $258.3 $137.6 $37.5 $12.0 $49.7 $1,787.1 $219.5 $128.5 $403.5 $152.7 $32.8 $222.7 $136.5 $4,252.0 Indirect Impacts (salaries, wages) $12.8 $19.6 $51.7 $22.3 $6.2 $0.8 $8.3 $428.9 $40.7 $20.1 $84.3 $24.2 $6.9 $43.9 $25.1 $1,080.0 State Tax Revenues $2.9 $4.5 $10.5 $4.2 $1.4 $0.1 $1.9 $78.5 $9.2 $3.3 $17.7 $5.9 $1.3 $9.2 $5.5 $187.0 # Jobs Created 842 1,009 2,580 1,322 348 50 459 13,113 1,929 1,099 3,307 1,099 399 2,067 1,094 36,951 103 Arizona Trails 2005 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities During OHV Recreation Trips Interestingly, many OHV recreationists do not list an obvious OHV activity as the main reason for their last OHV trip. They participate in a wide variety of recreation activities while they are on an OHV trip. When asked what recreation activities they participated in during their last OHV recreation trip and what one activity was the main reason for going, survey respondents said: Recreation Activity Participated in during last trip Driving backroads Sightseeing Hiking or walking Picnicking Camping Trail riding-ATVs Hill climbing Photography Driving in open areas Wildlife/bird watching Visiting historic/archaeologic sites Fishing Hunting Trail riding-motorized dirt bikes Target shooting Rock crawling (with an OHV) Swimming Boating Rock climbing Backpacking Mountain biking Horseback riding River running Entered competitive events Snowmobiling 75% 52% 40% 37% 31% 27% 24% 23% 21% 20% 17% 17% 13% 11% 11% 9% 8% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 104 Recreation Activity Sightseeing Driving backroads Camping Trail riding-ATVs Hunting Fishing Hiking or walking Picnicking Visiting historic/archaeologic sites Trail riding-motorized dirt bikes Driving in open areas Wildlife/bird watching Hill climbing Photography Target shooting Rock crawling (with an OHV) Swimming Boating Rock climbing Backpacking Mountain biking Horseback riding River running Entered competitive events Snowmobiling Main Reason for trip 14% 11% 11% 11% 9% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Evaluation of Survey Respondents’ Last Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Trip The following chart shows the “Top Ten” objectives–out of 37 objectives–that were rated by survey respondents as the most important to them (first bar) as it related to their last OHV recreation trip. The second bar in the chart shows the respondents’ level of satisfaction with each objective. The findings yielded some surprisingly results, especially regarding respondents’ low level of satisfaction with respect for the environment, private property and other users. 100% 93% 88% 90% 91% Importance 91% 87% Satisfaction 87% 83% 81% 82% 81% 79% 80% 79% 73% 70% 64% 59% 60% 55% 50% 42% 39% 40% 43% 40% 30% 20% 10% tie En jo y cl A os e cc to es s ho to m O e H fa V ci li ar iti tiv ac V H O in n te of te pa Pa rti ci s ea s es s ea V H O of es s in nl ea Cl En jo y cl os ce ss ac sy Ea ar m fa of to en e ss na tu ot or tf ec sp Re ily d an ra ru he pr e at iv pr or tf ec Re sp ll er op nm ro vi en or tf ec Re sp se rs t en y ut ea /b ry ne ce ls ra tu na y En jo ty 0% Arizona State Parks 105 Arizona Trails 2005 OHV Recreationists and OHV Recreation Days The following table includes: 1) the percentage of households in each county that are OHV users; 2) the percent of total AZ OHV recreation days that occur in that county; 3) the number of OHV recreation days spent yearly in that county by those OHV households living in that county; 4) the number of OHV recreation days spent in that county by those traveling there from other counties; and 5) the total number of OHV recreation days spent by Arizonans. One OHV Recreation Day = One household spending at least part of a day participating in an OHV recreational activity. County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma % County Households are OHV Recreationists1 % AZ OHV Days that occur in County2 34% 24% 35% 36% 34% 48% 34% 19% 26% 36% 17% 22% 19% 27% 23% 7.3% 3.5% 16.2% 10.3% 1.7% 0.7% 2.8% 17.1% 6.4% 6.1% 6.8% 4.9% 3.3% 9.8% 3.0% Arizona 21% Total OHV Recreation Days in Arizona by Arizonans Total OHV Recreation Days out of state by Arizonans Total OHV Recreation Days of Arizonans 106 100% 12,224,707 + 1,758,649* 13,983,356 Arizona OHV households also take OHV recreation trips to adjacent states and countries.* Out of State OHV Location California Mexico Nevada New Mexico Utah Total OHV Days Spent by County Residents3 153,125 180,697 390,421 228,071 66,020 32,787 191,319 1,856,560 604,266 438,831 535,245 197,918 35,152 416,824 172,552 (17%) (42%) (20%) (18%) (31%) (37%) (55%) (89%) (77%) (59%) (64%) (33%) (9%) (35%) (48%) 5,499,797 Average OHV Days/Year 11.3 10.1 5.1 7.5 8.2 OHV Days Spent by Others Traveling4 743,354 254,437 1,583,874 1,034,536 143,692 56,139 153,231 230,334 175,845 305,799 301,549 402,102 371,918 778,918 189,319 (83%) (58%) (80%) (82%) (69%) (63%) (45%) (11%) (23%) (41%) (36%) (67%) (91%) (65%) (52%) 6,724,910 Total OHV Days 520,895 555,709 103,372 356,840 221,833 1,758,649* Total OHV Days5 896,479 435,134 1,974,295 1,262,608 209,711 88,926 344,550 2,086,893 780,111 744,630 836,802 600,020 406,935 1,195,742 361,871 12,224,707 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Type of Vehicle(s) Used on last OHV Recreation Trip Many households take more than one type of vehicle on their OHV recreation trips. Some vehicles are used primarily to tow smaller ATVs and dirt bikes; sometimes the larger vehicle is the primary recreation vehicle. Survey respondents said they used the following vehicles on their last trip: Four-Wheel Drive Pickup Truck 48% All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 35% Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV)/Jeep 33% Trail Motorcycle/Dirt Bike 11% Dune Buggy/Sand Rail 7% Two-Wheel Drive Pickup Truck 6% Snowmobile 1% Net Economic Value of OHV Recreation in Arizona The net economic value, or consumer surplus, reported here is the appropriate measure of economic value of the benefit to individuals from participation in recreation and is useful in cost-benefit analyses, damage assessments, and project evaluations involving off-highway vehicles used for recreation. Net economic value is measured as participants’ “willingness to pay” above what they actually spend to participate. This is a hypothetical question. Assume that recreation using an OHV became more expensive due to an increase in gas prices or something else. The total estimated trip expenses for your travel party are listed in the previous question. Now think about your portion of the trip expenditures. What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay to experience your last recreation trip using an OHV in addition to your portion of the trip expenditures as listed above? For example, if the trip expenditures above were $500, there were 5 people in your travel party, and your portion of the expenditures was $100, how much money above $100 would you be willing to pay to experience the recreation trip? Study findings show that OHV recreation by Arizona residents produces a high value of net economic value to the users, ranging from $120 to $82 per trip depending on the type of vehicle used. Vehicles that tend to be more focused on OHV recreation or do not have multiple purposes (ATV and Motorcycle/Dune Buggy/Dirt Bike) have substantially higher net economic values per trip, $120 and $106, than those vehicles that have multiple purposes (4-Wheel Drive Truck at $89 and SUV at $82). As part of the 2003 Off-Highway Vehicle Economic Impact Survey, respondents were asked to report their total trip expenditures to participate in their most recent recreation trip during which an OHV was used. After reporting trip expenditures, respondents were asked the following question. Arizona State Parks 107 Arizona Trails 2005 Estimated Willingness To Pay (WTP) Above Trip Expenditures to Experience OHV Recreation VEHICLE TYPE WTP /OHV TRIP WTP /OHV DAY Pooled Sample-all vehicles $ 90.81 $ 51.05 All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) $ 106.2 $ 51.36 4-Wheel Drive Truck $ 89.42 $ 46.81 Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) $ 82.10 $ 49.26 Motorcycle or Dune Buggy $ 120.38 $ 56.75 These dollar estimates are an indicator of the value that participants place on their OHV recreation experience. Off-highway vehicle recreation may be an economically competitive use for public recreation lands. Devotees of offhighway vehicle recreation in Arizona receive substantial net economic benefits per trip and per day. These net economic benefits should be considered in the controversy over use of public recreation lands by off-highway vehicles. Strengths of this study include the breadth of information that was gathered on Arizona residents using an off-highway vehicle for recreation, and the large number of respondents randomly selected. 108 Arizona State Parks Arizona Trails 2005 Arizona State Parks 109 Arizona Trails 2005 110 Arizona State Parks