mtb_plan_attachments

Sport and Recreation TasmaniaDepartment of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts

Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan

Attachments

About this document The Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan is made up of four documents:

Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan: SummaryTasmanian Mountain Bike Plan: Main Report Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan: AttachmentsTasmanian Mountain Bike Plan: Marketing Strategy

This document is the Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan: Attachments

The Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan was prepared by Inspiring Place on behalf of Sport and Recreation Tasmania.

Cite as: Sport and Recreation Tasmania (2009), Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan: Attachments, Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts, Hobart.

Contact usA copy of the plan can be downloaded from the Sport and Recreation Tasmania website:www.development.tas.gov.au/sportrec/mtbplan

For more information, please contact: Sport and Recreation Tasmania GPO Box 646Hobart, Tasmania 7001Phone: 1800 252 476Email: [email protected]

Published December 2009 ISBN 978-1-921527-06-7© 2009 The Crown in Right of Tasmania, represented by Sport and Recreation Tasmania. All rights reserved.

Photographic creditsFront cover a North-South Track, Wellinton Park, Hobart. Photo: Hobart City Council and Jupe-Bergshoeff b Blue Tier, North East of Tasmania. Photo: Keith Ryan c Glenorchy Mountain Bike Park, Glenorchy. Photo: Josh McDonald, Dirt Art d LMBC 12 Hour Race, Four Springs, Northern Tasmania. Photo: Tourism Tasmania and Brad Harris e Glenorchy Mountain Bike Park, Hobart. Photo: Simon French, Dirt Art f Wildside MTB Race, Ocean Beach, West Coast of Tasmania. Photo: Nic Deka g Bridestowe Lavender Farm, North East of Tasmania. Photo: Tourism Tasmania and Enrico Caraciollo h Close-up. Photo: Keith Ryan i Maria Island, East Coast of Tasmania. Photo: Tourism Tasmania and Brad Harris

»»»»

d e f

a b c

g h i

Table of Contents

Attachment 1 MTB rider survey ................................................................................. 2

Attachment 2 Overview of MTB riding disciplines .................................................... 6

Attachment 3 Summary of MTB market segments .................................................. 9

Attachment 4 Consultation notes ............................................................................... 15

Attachment 5 IMBA Australia trail classification system and summary of international systems ................................................................................................... 29

Attachment 6 IMBA example risk management strategy ........................................ 46

Attachment 7 Summary of public submissions on draft plan ................................... 48

Attachment 1 MTB rider survey

The following attachment provides a copy of the mountain bike rider survey used

during the consultation phase of this project. The actual survey used was available for

completion online via the Sport and Recreation Tasmania website during June and

July 2009.

Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan Attachments 3

Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan Survey

A Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan is being prepared, to provide a framework for the development and promotion of mountain bike opportunities in Tasmania. This survey provides an opportunity for mountain bike riders to have input into the Plan. The information will be used to help identify the best mountain bike opportunities in Tasmania and to gain a better understanding about mountain bike riders, their expectations and needs.

Individuals who complete a survey by 5 July 2009 will go into the draw for a National Parks Annual All Parks Pass (details at end of survey)

Rider Characteristics and Preferences The following questions will help identify the characteristics and preferences of Tasmanian mountain bike riders.

1. How often do you ride a mountain bike?

Daily 2-3 times a week Once a week 2-3 times a month Once a month Once every few months Once a year

2. What type(s) of riding do you prefer / do most often?

Cross Country/All mountain Downhill Dirt Jumps Free ride/North shore Touring (off road) Trials 4X/Dual slalom Other (please state)

3. How long have you been riding mountain bikes?

Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years

Tasmanian Mountain Biking Opportunities The following questions will help identify the best rides in Tasmania, their characteristics along with development and promotion opportunities.

4. What attributes make a great mountain bike riding experience for you? (please select your top four (4) attributes – mark 4 boxes only)

Easy Access / Location Setting / Environment Loops MTB Only Technical Challenge Trail Head Facilities Signage Shared Use Physical Challenge Elevation Gain or Fall Map / trail notes Trail Flow Length of the Trail Suitable for range of skill levels Built Technical Features (jumps, berms, log rides) Other (please state)

4 Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan Attachments

5. What do you consider to be the three (3) best mountain bike riding locations in Tasmania? (select only 3):

Glenorchy MTB Park Wellington Park / South Hobart

Dial Range Tasmanian Trail

Blue Tier Dismal Swamp

Trevallyn Reserve Kate Reed Reserve

Montezuma Falls Stirling Valley

Granville Harbour Hollybank

Tahune Lilydale/Wyena

Ben Lomond Four Springs

Ravenswood Snug Tiers

Stubbs Road Clarence MTB Park / Meehan Range

The Lea Maria Island

Lilydale Dirt Jump Park Heritage Forest Dirt Jump Park

Windsor Park Dirt Jump Park Railton Dirt Jump Park

Legana Dirt Jump Park

Other (please specify)

6. List 2 trails you think offer the best opportunities for further development and promotion of mountain biking in Tasmania? (this may include currently unauthorised trails)

1.

2.

7. What development would you like to see happen at your two selected trails?

1.

2.

8. Are there any other comments you would like to make in relation to the future development and promotion of mountain biking in Tasmania?


About You The following questions will help build a profile of the mountain biking community in Tasmania.

9. What is your gender? male female

10. What is your age?

0-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85 and over

12. What town or suburb do you live in?

All Parks Annual Parks Prize

All those who complete a survey can choose to go into the draw to win one of two National Parks All Parks Annual Passes. If you wish to be in the running to win a parks pass please put your name and phone number below.

First name

Day time phone number

Privacy Note: Personal Information will be collected from you by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism for the purpose of contacting the successful winners of the Annual All Parks Pass Prize. Your personal information may be disclosed to contractors and agents of the Department of Economic Development and Tourism for approved departmental purposes or to other organisations where required to or permitted to by law. Your basic personal information may be disclosed to other public sector bodies where necessary for the efficient storage and use of information. Personal information will be managed in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 and may be accessed by the individual to whom it relates to on request to the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. You may be charged a fee for this service. Park Pass Conditions: The National Parks All Parks Annual Passes provide free entry to all Tasmanian National Parks for a one year period. Successful individuals can receive stickers for up to three cars and a boat registered at the one address. Entry is free for up to eight people per car. For more information on national parks passes visit the website: www.parks.tas.gov.au.

Questions: If you have any questions about this survey please contact John Hepper of Inspiring Place (consultant preparing the mountain bike plan) on 6231 1818.

Attachment 2 Overview of MTB riding disciplines

The following attachment provides a summary of common terminology used to

describe the different mountain biking disciplines. This information was prepared by

DirtArt, the consultants who prepared the inventory of existing trails and facilities as

part of this project.

It is important to remember that mountain biking is a relatively new sport and

recreation activity that is constantly evolving both as bike technology improves and

as trail builders develop their construction techniques. As boundaries are pushed

new styles evolve and old styles merge. The disciplines outlined below are much

more easily applied to competitive mountain biking than recreational riding which

often tends to be a combination of several disciplines outlined below. It is also worth

noting that the disciplines will often be referred to differently between countries and

regions.


Cross country

Cross country riding is essentially trail riding, which involves a broad spectrum of

terrain, including uphill and downhill sections. Cross country trails are generally a

circuit, though may be point to point. Cross country bikes are commonly lighter,

and possess a wider range of gearing. Cross country racing consists of an average

race time of one and a half to three hours, typically utilising a loop of around 20

minutes.

Downhill

Downhill mountain bike riding involves a point to point trail that is

predominantly, as the name suggests, downhill in nature. Downhill specific bikes

are typically heavier and possess more suspension travel and stronger

components. These bikes are not well suited to uphill riding. Downhill racing

typically involves a course of between two and five minutes in length, generally

relying on 200 metres or more of vertical fall. Modern cross country and all

mountain bikes are capable of riding the majority of downhill specific trails, and

the cross over between disciplines is continuing to increase with improved bicycle

technology.

All mountain

All mountain riding refers to the riding of a wide genre of terrain that blurs the

traditional division between downhill and cross country riding. All mountain

bikes are essentially a hybrid between traditional cross country and downhill

bikes, possessing a mid-range of suspension travel, and lightweight yet strong

components. All mountain bicycle sales are showing exponential growth

throughout Australia, fast establishing this discipline of riding as one of the most

popular forms of recreational mountain bike riding.

Head to head

Head to head riding is generally conducted in two forms: dual slalom, and

mountain cross (otherwise known as four cross). Dual slalom involves two

parallel courses, incorporating a variety of jumps and banked corners. Mountain

cross trails are wider, being built to accommodate four riders at a time, and

generally incorporate larger jumps and obstacles. At present, mountain cross

racing is more popular than dual slalom, and is the current head to head racing

format used in the Australian National and World Cup Series.


Dirt jumping

Dirt jumping involves a variety of jumps, dirt rollers, and banked turns. Dirt

jumping can be competitive, but is generally social in nature. At present, dirt

jumping is seeing a large surge in popularity in Australia. Dirt jumping facilities are

equally popular with BMX (bicycle motor cross) riders. Dirt jumping bikes

generally have front suspension only, though some have a short travel rear

suspension system. These bikes are strong and lightweight, possessing a much

smaller frame to allow for a range of aerial tricks. Many dirt jumping bikes do not

have gears, relying on a single-speed arrangement similar to that used traditionally

on BMX bikes.

Other disciplines

The above is a general overview of the more common mountain bike disciplines,

yet there are a many other less common disciplines in mountain biking; these

include disciplines such as trials riding. North shore or freeriding has not been

differentiated from the disciplines above as these riding experiences are often

present on many common mountain bike trails. In Australia the terrain these

riders seek is often referred to as ‘technical trail features’.

Attachment 3 Summary of MTB market segments

The following attachment is an extract from the Mountain Bike Tourism Market

Profile for Tasmania, 2008. This project was initiated by Tourism Tasmania and

completed by the consultants who prepared the Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan.


Interstate and international markets

Mountain bikes tourists, whilst sharing some similarities with general cycling or nature-based tourists, they have quite specific requirements and expectations.

A brief summary of identified mountain bike market segments for Tasmania is provided in the following table:

MTB sub-markets

Independent mountain biker (destination mountain biker)

Event mountain biker Guided adventure seeker

Event spectators Independent adventure seeker

MTB as trip motivator

Primary Primary Primary or secondary Primary or secondary Secondary

General characteristics

Primarily male, aged between 20–40

Have a tertiary level of education and mid to high incomes (e.g. higher than $50 K)

Mountain bike regularly (e.g. once a week - 2-3 times per week)

Likely to own more than one bike valued at over $1000

Travel with own bike

Primarily male, aged between 30-49

Likely to own more than one bike valued at over $1000

Have a tertiary level of education and mid to high incomes

Travel with own bikes

Willing to pay for quality experience

Interstate competitors attracted to Tasmania for high profile or exceptional events only (due to cost and time constraints)

May have some MTB experience

Will hire a bike and other gear

Likely to be interested in half to full day tour, or mountain biking as part of a broader tour program

Will likely spend the rest of their tour sight seeing

May include families

Mainly intrastate and interstate market

Attracted to high profile events (e.g. national or state level competition)

Family and friends will support recreational competitors

Other activities and attractions may also be a motivator for attending event (e.g. activities for children)

May MTB/cycle recreationally

Have chosen to holiday in Tasmania for other reasons (e.g. other nature-based activities or visiting friends or relatives)

May include the touring market (camper vans)

May have own bike, or may hire a bike

Require easy access to trail information (e.g. internet or map/brochure), and more likely to visit Visitor Information Centre


MTB sub-markets


Event mountain biker Guided adventure seeker Event spectators Independent adventure seeker



General characteristics (continued)

Generally have high fitness and technical ability

Are seeking adventure, skill and physical challenge in exceptional natural landscapes

Motivated by the technical quality of trails – in particular the amount of singletrack (e.g. narrow, rough and winding with features), and exploring new areas is important

Frequently ride trails rated ‘difficult’ or ‘advanced’

Seeking non-crowded, natural destinations

Majority likely to fit into the ‘all mountain’ category (cross country and down hill elements)

Frequently ride trails rated ‘difficult’ or ‘advanced’

May be converted to participate in a supported mountain bike tour program (e.g. pre-arranged accommodation, with bike specific facilities and gear transport)

May stay in the state to sight see, visit friends and relatives and take part in another activity post competition

See above Often seeking quality accommodation and dining

Often stay on after the event has finished to sight see, visit friends and relatives or take part in other activities

More likely to ride easy or moderate trails (e.g. higher amount of ‘double track’ - fire trail, dirt road)

May be converted to participate in a guided MTB day trip

Includes families


MTB sub-markets





General characteristics (continued)

Require good quality base facilities (e.g. trail signage, maps and trail notes, access to bike shops, accommodation and dining)

Generally rely on web-based information, or word of mouth

Willing to pay for a quality mountain bike experience

May compete in events

May be converted to participate in a supported mountain bike tour program (e.g. pre-arranged accommodation, with bike specific facilities and gear transport, rather than guided tours)

See above See above See Above See above

Likely proportion of the market

Likely to be the main MTB segment for Tasmania.

Significant market segment, but likely limited by distance and travel cost from interstate/international origins.

Small proportion of the market.

Small overall proportion of the market.

Small proportion of the market.


MTB sub-markets





Case studies See above Wildside Case Study (2008):

87% were men

41% of competitor were in the 30-39 age group, 23% 40-49 and 12% 23-29 age group

the majority of competitors had a high annual income (majority over 50 K), 23% $50-$70K, 19% $70-$90K, 15% $90-$120K

26% of competitors were from Victoria, 13% NSW, 2% international and 40% Tasmania

Generally seeking comfortable accommodation

Ben Lomond Descent Visitor Profile Case Study

Primarily young professional couples from Victoria or NSW

High disposable income

Fly in for short weekend break

Pre-book tour online

Generally sight see or undertake other activities on the other day

Generally have some MTB experience, but most below the level of a ‘mountain biker’

See above See above


MTB sub-markets


Event mountain biker Guided adventure seeker Even spectators Independent adventure seeker


Primary Primary Secondary or secondary Primary or secondary Secondary

Wildside Case Study (Cont).

Motivated to travel to Tasmania to compete due to diversity of the Tasmanian environment, including wetter climate (water features)

Launceston MTB Events (mid 2006 to mid 20071

Ben Lomond Descent (Cont.)

Small amount of international visitors to date (generally spend part of their time in Australia).

)

The events attracted a total of 630 participants throughout 2006/07

Only 13.5% of participants were women

The average age was 35

The majority of participants were Tasmanian, with some representation from other Australian states.

1 The data included above is based on participation in a number of enduro races, the Tasmanian Cross Country Race Series, Summer Twilights and social rides. It is likely that the same people participated in a number of the events, and therefore the data are representative only.

Attachment 4 Consultation notes

The following attachment is record of the notes taken by the consultants

preparing the Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan during the forums held during the

consultation phase of the project. A total of six forums were held (three land

manager forums and three community forums), with the venue and number of

people in attendance noted in the attachment below.


Burnie land managers forum (nine people) Vision for Tasmanian mountain biking within the next five to ten years:

• an iconic (or Epic) ride • recognition of the mountain bike potential of Tasmania – to be known as a riding

destination • an ideal place to live in you are a mountain biker • health and wellbeing for the local community – culture of bike riding • better links with national competitions • strong relationships with Victorian mountain biking community • signature events • infrastructure/maintenance infrastructure – active management of the experience • higher quality mountain bike participation data • greater land manager/community acceptance/recognition of MTB – documented in

policy • clarify land managers position, and communicate to riders • clarify detail in relation to risk (perception still high – land managers want zero risk –

Civil Liability Act offers some protection – land managers reacting to public perception • community-based organisations for MTB (particularly lacking in the North-west) • develop state authority/peak body for MTB – representative group – web-based

coordination • greater supply of business opportunities/support services • need to consider the differences between ‘enthusiasts’ and ‘participants’ • all new trail developments to consider the opportunities for MTB pre-construction,

rather than trying to retrofit • better information about trails • bike shops as primary advocates and information sources • innovation and sustainability

Point of difference:

• diversity within a compact landmass – varied terrain • proximity to riding locations • environment/climate/landscape • nature-based and adventure tourism rep. • at the beginning stage of the MTB development process, with the opportunity to

build innovative and high quality infrastructure/experiences • venues access is free • diverse trail types – diverse riding types • Mt Wellington in itself is a point of difference • proximity of urban areas to ‘wilderness’ areas • Tasmania – recognised in the market for all types of reasons – the brand – starting to

move into the adventure market • Tarkine has the potential to become an iconic area for the north-west

Comments on the inventory:

• Dooleys Track – walking only access • Oldina Forest Area – cross country, heavily used by local riders (Wynyard) • Fernglade Reserve – limited opportunities • Paloona Dam – downhill – locally constructed • Upper Natone Reserve • Mt Ramsey Track – recognized in the Tarkine Plan (CCA) as a MTB specific track –

to be further developed as a loop by the Waratah-Wynyard Council (FT/PWS tenure)

• Wolfram mine track


Opportunities:

• Montezuma Falls Track / Sterling Valley Track – point of difference for the west coast • there is limited opportunities on the north-west for local riders – Stubbs Road

primary location, but recently closed • other opportunities around Waratah – Magnet Mine • need for other opportunities around Cradle Mt – lack of alternative activities for

visitors – softer trail options – some areas identified in the Local Area Plan (some private land) – discussion re the possibility of mountain bike access from the Cradle Visitor Centre to Dove Lake via the existing boardwalk

• Tarkine Road Project • Cradle Coast Track Strategy • link stages of the Wildside – Cradle through to Strahan – eventual Epic status • Savage River Pipeline in the Tarkine (ends at mine) – unknown detail of track

Issues:

• lack of funding – for development and maintenance • Forestry Tasmania note no real issues associated with MTB access to forest reserves

(illegal trail construction not a significant issue throughout the north-west – not a lot of evidence of damage) – MTB not Forestry Tasmania’s core business – not going to spend a lot of money on trails for a small return

• not huge demand for MTB trails expressed by the north-west community • Dismal Swamp trails only just opened – the family is the most popular to date –

advanced track lower use • need to keep in mind who the bulk of the tourism market is – softer market (‘softer’

gravity trails are proving popular in other areas) • Stubbs Road: littering, cutting of trees to build jumps and obstacles – not generally

promoted (local knowledge) • many local trails throughout the state are informal – not managed – lack of

management doesn’t encourage a sense of responsibility of riders • long-term maintenance of all trails is a problem for PWS – under-resourced – funding

to be reduced over the next few years • need to improve MTB trail construction standards – safety and long-term

sustainability – trail building workshops – issues associated with volunteer trail construction

• illegal trail construction is a significant issue in some areas • unclear process through which land managers can deal with MTB community – better

organisation in region • events will play a key role in raising the profile of Tasmania as an MTB destination • need to be clear about the target market, and how best to reach them – on-line


Ulverstone mountain bike rider forum (30 people) Vision for Tasmanian mountain biking within the next five to ten years:

“In five years time mountain biking in Tasmania will be great because...”

• accessible MTB park for young people in the area, that can be ridden to • more people participating in MTB • better promotion of the opportunities, particularly through local bike shops • better facilities • multi-use trails, and more existing trails open to bikes • greater involvement from local councils • improved information – pamphlets, guide, booklet • more dirt jumps, and upgrade skate park with more bike friendly range of elements • “where people will want to bring their bikes for a holiday”

Tasmania’s point of difference:

• ease of access – proximity to people live • the natural beauty and history of Tasmania • Glenorchy MTB Park is considered to be a stand out MTB facility in Tasmania


• Stubbs Road Area: private land, front section of the property recently subdivided, resulting in the informal access ways off Stubbs Road being blocked. Alternative access is intended to be formalised over the next few months, and the area re-opened to riders.

• Paloona Dam Area: two to three downhill specific trails (approximately four minute runs) constructed by local riders. Sealed road to the top of the runs, providing easy car shuttles. State Forest and Hydro Tasmania managed land – access has not been formalised. Need to take better care of the area (e.g. remove rubbish).

• Forth Area: private property. • Dial Range: many of the good riding trails are currently walking only, but no user

conflict occurring between riders and walkers. Good singletrack, providing all day riding opportunities. Keddies Creek track is particular suitable for MTB, but is walking only. Wet over winter, and not a lot of opportunity for downhill, given access difficulties (not easy to develop a shuttle access route). Trail bikes are an issue (there is a motorcross park in the area, but riders are regularly seen in other parts of the reserve). Mount Lauren Loop noted as priority.

• Ulverstone Old Tip Site: site on Creeks Road, large, un-used area with potential to be developed into a MTB park.

• Fern Glade Reserve, Burnie: Limited cross country opportunities. Some trails built by hand by local riders.

• Kelcey Tier (Devonport/Spreyton area): some cross country riding opportunities, including fire trails and some purpose built trails. Managed by Council.

• Narantawpu National Park: Too sandy in summer, but packs down in winter – rarely come across walkers in winter. MTB prohibited on walking tracks within the Park. Opportunities in the nearby Asbestos and Dazzler Ranges (primarily on fire/access tracks).

• Dismal Swamp/Tarkine Adventure Centre: cross country trails – lack of flow/technical riding, and can be muddy. The short-comings of the more difficult trail are largely a response to environmental issues (e.g. needing to avoid impact on mature trees and threatened species), constraints on the land tenure (e.g. proximity to national park boundaries), and lack of surface finishing (e.g. trails need better hard-packing). Some sections are considered to need realigning to achieve better flow.

• West Coast Tracks: ‘remoteness’ – have to travel significant distance to access from most population centres in Tasmania (all day trip or overnight). The Montezuma Falls Track is a good ride (rainforest, history, waterfall etc), but would be better if it could be ridden as a loop, without having to ride on the sealed road, or car shuttle.


Can be very muddy, particularly in winter. The Granville Harbour Track is also good – open, hard-surfaced track, without mud.

Opportunities:

• opening up more trails in the Dial Range area to for MTB • formalise access to Stubbs Road – opportunity for a management committee/formal

agreement • terrain park • address issues associated with the uncertainty of investing in infrastructure on private

land, or public land that is not secure in the shorter-term (e.g. trails that may be destroyed by forest practices)

• MTB park, incorporating bmx, dirt jump and skills elements • developing a MTB club/organisation for the north-west, or a local group affiliated

with the LMBC – trail advocacy and point of contact for riders and land managers • more downhill trails developed at Paloona, to provide opportunities for local

riders/kids (no point of contact for riders to communicate with the landowner regarding upgrading and development of the area)

• better communication about the MTB opportunities in the area – via internet (e.g. pedalbite.com), and through local bike shops – visitors regularly ask for information at bike shops about MTB trails in the local area – bike shop staff need information resources – many local trails are not authorised for MTB use, so can’t direct people to them (off-road touring and cross country most common riding types asked about) – currently directed to Dismal Swamp, Dial Range, and Stubbs Road (when open to public)

• potential for Waratah to be ride location

Issues:

• lack of consistent trail grading, signage and cautions in the northwest • lack of a central ‘hub’/web-site for MTB information for the state • need to ensure that there are appropriate facilities associated with MTB parks/trails

(e.g. toilets, rubbish bins) • lack of connections between long-distance trails • lack of up to date information about the Tasmanian Trail – book not in print

anymore • lack of MTB trails in the north-west in the inventory – reflection of the in

organisation of the MTB community in the north-west? • there are opportunities for developing new areas in the northwest if

funding/access/rider organisation were improved • lack of public transport to riding locations (e.g. bikes on buses) – important for young

people

Highest priorities:

1. multi-purpose BMX/MTB park (e.g. dirt jumps) – including downhill trails 2. downhill trail/s in the local area (with shuttle access) 3. facilities at bike parks (e.g. bins, toilets, etc) 4. clearer responsibility for land managers and co-ordination 5. consistent approach to trail signage and classification 6. web-based MTB information source – single web-site for Tasmania 7. improved organisation of local riders – MTB club in the region or affiliation with LMBC (sub-organisation) 8. MTB as a contribution to healthy lifestyle, particularly for young people in the region.


Launceston land managers forum (nine people)

Vision for Tasmanian mountain biking within the next five to ten years:

• better physical linkages between trails – including across tenure boundaries • strong ‘brand’ – MTB strong feature for Tasmania – strong identity • better information (e.g. booklet) • formal agreements for access in place – access to a range of riding opportunities • higher status for MTB/adventure events – as a ‘hook’ to attract

interstate/international riders (‘bragable experiences’) • principal of sustainability – consistent standard of trail development and maintenance

regardless of land tenure – including consistent rider code of conduct regardless of setting

• better commercial opportunities (e.g. bike hire, tours etc) • improved signage and education • consistent classification system applied across the state


• proximity to urban areas • diversity of landscape in a small land area • exclusivity of Tasmania – not crowded • small land manager community – easier to achieve interagency

cooperation/partnerships (e.g. know each other by name) • other existing tourism and adventure activities in Tasmania • ‘real’ mountains • liveable cities • weather – cooler climate, seasonal climate


• Mt Arthur – link to Hollybank, but not currently as popular – trails lost as a result of logging in the area

• Blue Tier – multi-use area – trail/quad bike damage on trails – Blue Tier Descent Trail

• Four Springs: Gunns land – has been used for MTB events (access available only for events). Trails are not located in the Forest Reserve (nearby private land). Currently no access, due to logging in the area.

• Ben Lomond: some singletrack in reserve area on lower slopes, that is used for events (people do ride the trails outside of events). King and Queen of the Mountain race, multi-sport event, and MTB! Tasmania guided tours. Further potential for develop in the area (e.g. using existing village infrastructure). Accessible MTB experience.

• Meander Dam: potential area, tying into the cycle tourism strategy of the Meander Valley Council – four promoted cycle tours – ‘Great Heritage Ride’ is a MTB/hybrid bike tour, incorporating Liffey Falls – will use podcasts and on-line information available via Google Maps – potential to tie into other trail opportunities in the Great Western Tiers area.

New ideas:

• potential for linking Mt Arthur, Hollybank, Lilydale and Mt Barrow (e.g. ‘skyline traverse). There are varying existing opportunities/existing trails.


Issues:

• funding: Forestry Tasmania – the vision for Hollybank – not the core business, and therefore require external funding to develop specific MTB trails – access to fire/access roads in state forest does not require any work – need a shift in policy direction internally, or improved success at accessing external funding

• conflict with other users (e.g. walkers, horse riders, trail bikes), and associated safety concerns

• dealing with the ‘rat-bag’ element – recognise will always be there • trail bike riders – lack of opportunities – claim that more effort is being put into MTB

infrastructure • development of illegal trails and elements/jumps • ongoing funding for maintenance of trails • liability – dealing with the perception and realities of risk • need to better communicate the economic value of trails to Government for funding • Phytophthora cinnamomi and spread of weeds will be an ingoing management issue,

perhaps exacerbated by MTB access (e.g. wheels can pick up and transport significant amount of dirt, and can travel further in day than walkers)

• the government budget for the Trails Tasmania program cannot be used directly to fund other state government agencies

• engaging with the cycling community – better communication and ownership – community to assist to make things happen

Marketing:

• increase marketing – increase trail use – will lead to a need for additional management resources to maintain a high standard of infrastructure – funding for on-ground works should match the status and marketing effort


Launceston mountain bike rider forum (45 people) Tasmania’s point of difference:

• raw and remote (e.g. areas such as Granville Harbour) • small population – low number of trail users • natural environment and temperate climate • variety of terrain • proximity of riding areas • lack of regulation – in comparison to some areas – ability to explore (self-discovery)


• Wyena/Lilydale: access for club events • dirt jump park at Lilydale Recreation Ground • Weld Hill: Blue Tier Area (not part of the Blue Tier forest reserve – on other side of

the highway – part of the Blue Dragon MTB event) • Four Springs: private land (Gunns) – need permission outside of LMBC events • Kate Reed and Trevallyn: considered to have to best potential for further MTB

development within the immediate Launceston area (Trevallyn considered to be a safer place to visit as a result of increased use by mountain bikers over the years – higher level of passive surveillance

• Hollybank: potential for cross country trail development – was popular as a cross country riding area in the past – close to the City, and has good support infrastructure (e.g. toilets, picnic facilities, parking)

• Ben Lomond: only fire/access roads are used by riders within the national park area • Ravenswood – developed by LMBC members (private land owned by club member) –

4km of cross-country race track – access only for club events – other public land behind Ravenswood is also ridden – connection to Lilydale (Prosser’s Forest)

• Windsor Park Dirt Jump Park: plans to rejuvenate facility

Existing trails/riding areas – upgrade priority:

• Hollybank: already plan completed, but lack of funding to implement - ~15km of trail already flagged, and environmental studies complete – skill park part of the plan

• Greens Beach: ride to Bakers Beach (via Badgers Beach) – Badgers Head Track can be realigned to better cater for MTB

• Kate Reed Reserve – illegal trail construction is a significant issue – too many – ruining the reputation of MTB riders among other reserve users

• Four Springs: Gunns land – happy for access, but are not willing to commit any funding to trail development/upgrade – logging is issue in area

Potential new trails/riding locations:

• Huntsman Valley (Meander Forest Reserve/Great Western Tiers area) – Forestry Tasmania have been approached by local enthusiasts – plan is to build (gravity?) trails from scratch, and create a MTB destination – contribute to local economy – close to Launceston – potential for shuttles – include skills area – MTB park model

• Humbug Point (east coast) • Three Notch Track (extension of the trails in the Blue Tier area – Frome Road) –

costing prepared for Forestry Tasmania for upgrade • Gladstone area • area behind Grindelwald (owned by Gunns?) • off-road touring route from Launceston to Herrick – passing through small towns in

the north-east • Savage River Pipeline – off-road touring route from Port Latta


Other issues:

• lack of information (e.g. maps, brochures) – Blue Tier area has a map and trail signage • lack of formalised or authorised trails – can’t advertise unauthorised trails – need to

formalise access, enabling promotion • need package of information for Tasmania MTB • illegal trail development • need for Government agencies to get behind MTB development – ‘top-down’ rather

than ‘bottom-up’ • need to ensure that what is promised in marketing is delivered on the ground - not

over-formalising experiences, but maintaining element of adventure and exploration • improved access to public land, including sorting out issues/perceived issues with

public liability and risk (Civil Liability Act) • consistent classification of trails • riders to lead by example • implement education for riders – code of conduct • improved conditions for use of private land - public liability and risk managed • “we could set a precedent for MTB riding in National Parks” – set Tasmania apart

from the rest of Australia


Hobart land managers forum (22 people) Vision for Tasmanian mountain biking within the next five to ten years:

• network of MTB destinations with links between destinations • riders from other places wanting to come to Tasmania (as bushwalkers do) • improved linkages to inner-city suburbs • good state and regional coordination (managers and riders) • reduction in unauthorised trail construction • missing linkages identified in planning schemes – to make sure that opportunities are

lost as a result of development • centralised information source (e.g. website) • development of the ‘great’ ride concepts • ensure that other values (e.g. environmental and cultural) are not lost as a result of

MTB development or access • maintaining good will of community groups (e.g. working with environmental

volunteer groups, to ensure that their hard work is not impacted on) • statewide education about MTB trail construction techniques, code of rider conduct

etc • standardisation of grading and signage system • improved information sources for locals and visitors • better relationships between land managers and riders • higher level of national and international recognition as a mountain bike destination –

with high quality experiences and support from state tourism industries (e.g. bike friendly services)

• range of different trails/experiences (e.g. including off-road touring) • improved facilities for younger riders – within riding distance of where they live


• diversity of environment • access to natural areas close to urban areas – proximity of venues • ‘real’ mountains • small towns close together throughout the state – facilitate MTB touring – supported

riding • number of smaller islands with differing settings/landscapes • variable climate • brand ‘Tasmania’ – MTB fits well with the existing brand – “sense of discovery”


• Queens Domain: popular with local riders, but not promoted – network of informal ‘footpads’

• Waverly Flora Park: range of issues (e.g. environmental, user conflicts), illegal trail construction occurring – MTB issue currently under consideration by Clarence City Council

• Ridgeway Park area – has potential for MTB opportunities • Urban rivulet tracks throughout the city – linkages to more natural areas from

suburbs – shared use • Radfords Track is considered to be a cross country track, rather than a downhill

track – safety/user conflict issue associated with MTB use of this shared use track

Issues:

• illegal trail construction: occurring primarily in peri-urban areas – HCC has a clear policy to close illegal trails and rehabilitate (have closed approximately12 in the last five years) – impending closures/issues are advertised via on-ground signage and amnesty period – try to promote dialogue with riders – formalising illegal trails considered to set a poor example, is sometimes at odds with planning


scheme/legislative requirements, and can result in insurance issues (closures have resulted in a catalyst for the development of the new advocacy group – recognition from both sides that the situation in the Hobart area is unsustainable)

• riders need to better understand/ appreciate other land management issues • illegal trails can undermine the work of other community groups • difficulties of managing different users • existing PWS framework – legislative constraints associated with the different

reserve classes • educate riders – challenging perceptions • natural values issues • lack of funding – need funding model to support long-term maintenance – involving

private industry/multi-agencies – partnerships • volunteers – aid with maintenance and construction of trails • need for parallel investment in marketing and development • drinking water catchment values in some areas (e.g. Wellington Park) • cross-tenure issues – how coordinate – development of reference group? • Phytophthora cinnamomi and spread of weeds • increase in injuries in Maria Island since bike access allowed • mountain biking is still developing as an activity – new styles of riding and bike

technology • dealing with conflicting users on designated MTB trails (e.g. high rider speeds, where

expecting to have right of way) • supply – demand lag

Priorities: existing locations:

• Meehan Skyline traverse – can be ridden – link to Clarence Bike Park? • extension to the Hobart Inner City Bike Track – via rail – potential to connect all the

way through to Launceston • make better use of fire trails – improve linkages • Pipeline Track – from Wellington Falls to the City (lower section not promoted for

bikes – alternative routes (e.g. in the area of Gentle Annie Falls and steps below Fern Tree) need re-routing for better bike access

• Tinderbox Skyline – potential for development/formalised access • Snug Tiers – popular and potential for development • promote southern sections of the Tasmanian Trail • proposed regional trail from Hobart to Dover (Huonville, Kaoota etc) • trails identified by the Derwent Estuary Program

New trails/locations:

• tender to be released for major recreational event for Wellington Park • potential for downhill trail/s within the recreation zone of Wellington Park • opportunities to develop downhill trails in areas around the state where there is

existing road access • good network of cross country singletrack (e.g. linking lower slopes of Mt Wellington

– Lenah Valley – below Main Fire Trail) • general promotion of cycling trails (e.g. Richmond wine trail) • Maydena Activity Hub – Eagle’s Eyrie – gravity-oriented trails with shuttle access –

potential for cross country network in valley using some existing sections of trail • extension of the North-South Track – potential to develop a loop through the lower

slopes • Mountain River Track • Maria Island - potential – particularly as a MTB touring destination

Other issues:

• need research to justify resource allocation • importance of events


• ongoing management - funding – responsibility • potential of motorised-pedal bikes – likely to become more popular (more aligned

with sustainable transport) • importance of land managers working together from early stages – whole of

government approach – delegate responsibility for trails facilitation to one agency • opportunities presented by the upcoming election • opportunities to link in with the Regional Planning Project – regional strategies to

feed into new planning schemes


Hobart mountain bike riders forum (95 people) Tasmania’s point of difference:

• proximity to population centres • ability to ride in undeveloped environment • un-crowded trails • good variety of landscapes/terrain • good network of trails • can already link sections of trails to make longer rides – day rides • ride in beautiful areas – non-degraded areas • natural trails and features – not highly groomed • friendly mountain bike community • a lot of quality retails for bike equipment • weather/climate – all year riding opportunities • ‘real’ mountains - tough going • existing websites for local riders to get information/communicate • trails in remote locations • supportive land managers • huge potential – but not currently resourced


North-South Track: too short, have to drive to access, isolated, two-way and multi-use arrangement results in user conflict/safety issues (should be one way with no walkers – Junction Cabin walking track is located above), opportunities to link to the west, sets a precedent for MTB trails in Tasmania – proves that this sort of trail building can be sustainable and that we have the skills locally Radfords Track: dangerous as a shared use trail due to speed of riders and blind corners, drains are considered dangerous for riders, need to educate walkers/better alert them to the presence of riders - lack of signage Pipeline Track: Council have indicated that bike access is permitted on the lower sections (e.g. Ridgeway section) – current no signage stating this – need to re-route section around the steep steps below Fern Tree, and in the Gentle Annie Falls area The Luge (America Ridge): ‘upper luge’ – section of trail between Middle and Main fire trail - potential for development? Alum Cliffs (Kingston): should be open to MTB, potential link to Westringa (loop), recent work on the trail has improved sites lines – suitable for shared use S56 – currently closed

Other areas:

• tramway from Kaoota to Margate (via Snug Tiers?) • Rivulet (Cascades) • Adamsfield area/Saw Back Range • Montrose • Bicentennial Park (skyline) • sections of the Tasmanian Trail – Meadowbank area, Old Mt Roland Loop was good

when open, Tahune MTB course • Ridgeway – Kingston (“horse farm”) • Bruny Island tracks – Cape Queen Elizabeth • Tip Top track (South Hobart – recently closed) • Mt Nelson Signal Station • Newtown Falls Track (Lenah Valley)


• Kellevie – private land used for events • Old Drops Track (off Bracken Lane) • Shag Bay • Conningham area • Tinderbox • Caves Drive (Summerleas Rd area)

Priorities:

• upgrading existing trails and riding areas • open trails must be signed – to avoid tension with other trail users – better

relationship • better signage • some way to do maintenance on Cascade’s land (volunteers) – legitimisation of trails

(management not interested in mountain biking – further potential for development – important to talk to

• a peak mountain biking body – responsibility to liaise with land managers and inform re public liability – state-wide body – the Hobart Trail Alliance is in the early stages of development

• clarify the true risk of liability • legitimise key trail builders and support ongoing management – trails builders should

be protected from liability • downhill trails that are accessible (e.g. able to drive to start of the trail) • increasing XC opportunities by linking up areas – particularly within Wellington Park • off-road bike access to the North-South Track from the bottom of the mountain • further development at MTB parks • one fold-out bike map (for the region?), including all ride types, important to have a

hardcopy • consistent approach to signage and trail grading - important for tourists, trail

descriptions • upgrading downhill trails in Wellington Park • education of trail builders – sustainable and better designed trails

New areas:

• Maydena Activity Hub • proposed Big Bend – is it possible to supplement some sections of singletrack with

upgraded sections of fire trails – progress to a better trail over time – route may be used for festivals/events – Mountain Festival

• potential for the development/formalisation of a network of singletrack behind West Hobart

• improve the shuttle access to the top of the downhill trail at Glenorchy MTB Park (new permit)

• better access to downhill trail at Clarence MTB Park (currently have to push bike up) • encourage shuttles from the City to the mountain areas to carry bike racks • improve support infrastructure – ‘trail centre’ • promote the health and wellbeing benefits associated with mountain biking/cycling • a MTB park in the South Hobart area – current tip area (due to close in 2012) • further development within Wellington Park – currently underutilised – scope to

development trails in the recreation zone • need for guidelines on how to build MTB trails • improved accessibility • extend the east-west trail (Main Fire Trail) – to Glenorchy • potential for MTB trails in National Parks and the WHA • use of transmission easements on Mt Wellington • promote rider responsibility - self-policing

Attachment 5 IMBA Australia trail classification system and summary of international systems

The following attachment provides an outline of the draft IMBA Australia Trail Classification System

which is the proposed system to be adopted in Tasmania. This document is currently being reviewed

by IMBA Australia and has been revised after input from Sport and Recreation Tasmania as a result of

this project. The attachment also provides a summary of the major international classification systems

and notes the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The following attachment also contains a proposed method to translate the use of IMBA symbols into

the signage for shared use trail systems. This information is taken from the Trevallyn and Kate Reed

Nature Recreation Areas Track Strategy Implementation Plan 2009.


IMBA - Australia

Trail Difficulty Rating System

DRAFT 2009


Background and History

The development and formal acceptance of an Australian Mountain Bike Trail Difficulty Rating System (TDRS) was borne out of a number of identified needs. These include:

• Requests from land managers for a formal and “approved” Australian trail classification standard, as a risk mitigation strategy.

• The need to further clarify aspects of the existing IMBA TDRS to account for additional trail characteristics such as exposure, suitability and a range of gradients or widths.

Development of the IMBA Australia TDRS

A panel of people involved in the building and management of trails was formed by MTBA, with the task of leading the development of version 1 of the TDRS at the 5th Biennial National Tracks and Trails conference in March 2008. This panel comprised of the following people: Rod Annear WA, Nick Bowman SA, Reece Guihot ACT, Chris Maierhofer QLD, Gillian Duncan, President MTBA

Using the original IMBA TDRS as the basis for the revised version, the following enhancements have been made:

1. Two versions of the TDRS have been developed; One version for the land manager, which includes quantitative measures against criteria such as trail gradient and width; and a second version for users, replacing quantitative measures with descriptions (e.g. describe slope rather than define as a % gradient)

2. TDRS (both versions) include a general description for the types of features a user might expect to encounter for a given classification.

3. Guidance around the types of bikes suitable for the trail, and the fitness level and experience required of the rider, have been included in the TDRS.

4. Changes to some of the criteria to replace exact numbers with ranges, specifically around the average trail grade (recommended by Joey Klein, IMBA Trail Specialist).

Trail Difficulty Rating System The IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating System is a basic method used to categorise the relative technical difficulty of recreational trails. The IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating System can:

• Help trail users make informed decisions • Encourage visitors to use trails that match their skill level • Manage risk and minimise injuries • Improve the outdoor experience for a wide variety of visitors • Aid in the planning of trails and trail systems

This system was adapted from the international Trail Marking System used at ski areas throughout the world. Many trail networks use this type of system, most notably resort-based mountain biking trail networks. The system best applies to mountain bikers, but is also applicable to other visitors such as hikers and equestrians. These criteria should be combined with personal judgement and trail-user input to reach the final rating.


Trail Rating Guidelines

Rate Technical Challenge only

The system focuses on rating the technical challenge of trails, not the physical exertion. It is not practical to rate both types of difficulty with one system. Consider for, example smooth, wide trails that is 20 kilometres long. The technical challenge of the trail is easy, yet the distance would make the physical exertion difficult. The solution is to independently rate technical challenge and indicate the physical exertion by posting the trail length, and possibly even elevation change.

Collect Trail Measurements

Use the accompanying table and collect trail measurements for each criterion. There is no prescribed method for tallying a “score” for each trail. Evaluate the trail against the table and combine with judgement to reach the final rating. It is unlikely that any particular trail will measure at the same difficulty level for every criterion. For example, a certain trail may rate as a green circle in three criteria, but a blue square in two different criteria.

Include Difficulty and Trail Length on Signs and Maps

Trail length is not a criterion of the system. Instead, trail length should be posted on signs in addition to the difficulty symbol. A sign displaying both length and difficulty provides lots of information, yet it is simple to create and easy to understand. Likewise, elevation change is not a criterion. The amount of climbing on a trail is more an indicator of physical exertion than technical difficulty. Mountainous regions may consider including the amount of climbing on trail signs.

Use Good Judgment

It is acknowledged that there is some subjectivity in evaluating the difficulty of trails, however the aspiration is to achieve consistency in difficulty ratings across the state. Rating a trail is not 100 percent objective. It’s best to combine tangible data with subjective judgment to reach the final rating. For example, a trail may have a wide range of tread surfaces - most of the trail is easy, but some sections are more difficult. How would you rate it? Use your personal experience to consider all elements and select a rating that best matches the style of trail.

Consider Other Trail Qualities

Don't forget to consider trail qualities beyond the objective criteria. A wide variety of features could contribute to a trail's difficulty. For example, exposure - the feeling of empty space next to and below the trail tread - provides an added psychological challenge beyond the steepness or roughness of the trail. A 10cm rock seems like a boulder when a 15metre drop looms on your side! Other qualities to think about are corridor clearance and turn radius.


Use Common Sense and Seek Input

No rating system can be totally objective or valid for every situation. This system is a tool to be combined with common sense. Look at trails with a discerning eye, and seek input from trail users before selecting the rating. Remember, a diverse trail network with a variety of trail styles is a great way to ensure happy visitors. Provide both easy and difficult trails to spread visitors and meet a range of needs. By indicating the length and difficulty of trails with a clear signage system, visitors will be able to locate their preferred type of trail easily.


Criteria to Consider

Tread Width

The average width of the active tread or beaten path of the trail, where 95% of riders travel.

Tread Surface

The material and stability of the tread surface is a determining factor in the difficulty of travel on the trail. Some descriptive terms include: hardened (paved or surfaced), firm, stable, variable, widely variable, loose and unpredictable.

Trail Grade (maximum and average)

Maximum grade is defined as the steepest section of trail that is more than approximately 3 meters in length and is measured in percent with a clinometer. Average grade is the steepness of the trail over its entire length. Average grade can be calculated by taking the total elevation gain of the trail, divided by the total distance, multiplied by 100 to equal a percent grade.

Natural Obstacles and Technical Trail Features

Objects that add challenge by impeding travel. Examples include: rocks, roots, logs, holes, ledges, drop-offs, etc. The height of each obstacle is measured from the tread surface to the top of the obstacle. If the obstacle is uneven in height, measure to the point over which it is most easily ridden. Technical Trail Features are objects that have been introduced to the trail to add technical challenge. Examples include: rocks, logs, elevated bridges, teeter-totters, jumps, drop-offs, etc. Both the height and the width of the technical trail feature are measured.


Trail Difficulty Rating System - User Guide Very easy

White Circle

Easy

Green Circle

Intermediate

Blue Square

Difficult

Single Black Diamond

Extreme

Double Black Diamond Description Likely to be a fire road or

wide single track with a gentle gradient, smooth surface and free of obstacles. Frequent encounters are likely with other cyclists, walkers, runners and horse riders.

Likely to be a combination of fire road or wide single track with a gentle gradient, smooth surface and relatively free of unavoidable obstacles. Short sections may exceed these criteria. Frequent encounters are likely with walkers, runners, horse riders and other cyclists.

Likely to be a single trail with moderate gradients, variable surface and obstacles.

Likely to be a challenging single trail with steep gradients, variable surface and many obstacles.

Extremely difficult trails will incorporate very steep gradients, highly variable surface and unavoidable, severe obstacles.

Suitable for Beginner/ novice cyclists. Basic bike skills required. Suitable for most bikes.

Beginner/ novice mountain bikers. Basic mountain bike skills required. Suitable for off-road bikes.

Skilled mountain bikers. Suitable for mountain bikes.

Experienced mountain bikers with good skills. Suitable for better quality mountain bikes.

Highly experienced mountain bikers with excellent skills. Suitable for quality mountain bikes.

Fitness Level Most people in good health. Most people in good health. A good standard of fitness. Higher level of fitness. Higher level of fitness. Trail Width Two riders can ride side by

side. Shoulder width or greater. Handlebar width or greater. Can be less than handlebar

width. Can be less than handlebar width.

Trail Surface and obstacles

Hardened with no challenging features on the trail.

Mostly firm and stable. Trail may have obstacles such as logs, roots and rocks.

Possible sections of rocky or loose tread. Trail will have obstacles such as logs, roots and rocks.

Variable and challenging. Unavoidable obstacles such as logs, roots, rocks drop-offs or constructed obstacles.

Widely variable and unpredictable. Expect large, committing and unavoidable obstacles.

Trail Gradient Climbs and descents are mostly shallow.

Climbs and descents are mostly shallow., but trail may include some moderately steep sections.

Mostly moderate gradients but may include steep sections.

Contains steeper descents or climbs.

Expect prolonged steep, loose and rocky descents or climbs.


Trail Difficulty Rating System Land Managers Guide Very easy

White Circle

Easy

Green Circle

Intermediate

Blue Square

Difficult

Single Black Diamond

Extreme

Double Black Diamond Description Likely to be a fire road or

wide single track with a gentle gradient, smooth surface and free of obstacles. Frequent encounters are likely with other cyclists, walkers, runners and horse riders.

Likely to be a combination of fire road or wide single track with a gentle gradient, smooth surface and relatively free of obstacles. Short sections may exceed these criteria. Frequent encounters are likely with other cyclists, walkers, runners and horse riders.

Likely to be a single trail with moderate gradients, variable surface and obstacles. Dual use or preferred use Optional lines desirable

Likely to be a challenging single trail with steep gradients, variable surface and many obstacles. Single use and direction Optional lines XC, DH or trials

Extremely difficult trails will incorporate very steep gradients, highly variable surface and unavoidable, severe obstacles. Single use and direction Optional lines XC, DH or trials

Trail Width 2100mm plus or minus 900mm

900mm plus or minus 300mm for tread or bridges.

600mm plus or minus 300mm for tread or bridges.

300mm plus or minus 150mm for tread and bridges. Structures can vary.

150mm plus or minus 100mm for tread or bridges. Structures can vary.

Trail Surface Hardened or smooth. Mostly firm and stable. Possible sections of rocky or loose tread.

Variable and challenging.

Widely variable and unpredictable.

Average Trail Grade

Climbs and descents are mostly shallow. Less than 5% average.

Climbs and descents are mostly shallow, but may include some moderately steep sections. 7% or less average.

Mostly moderate gradients but may include steep sections. 10% or less average.

Contains steeper descents or climbs. 20% or less average.

Expect prolonged steep, loose and rocky descents or climbs. 20% or greater average

Maximum Trail Grade

Max 10%

Max 15%

Max 20% or greater

Max 20% or greater

Max 40% or greater

Level of Trail Exposure

Firm and level fall zone to either side of trail corridor

Exposure to either side of trail corridor includes downward slopes of up to 10%

Exposure to either side of trail corridor includes downward slopes of up to 20%

Exposure to either side of trail corridor includes steep downward slopes or freefall

Exposure to either side of trail corridor includes steep downward slopes or freefall


Natural Obstacles and Technical Trail Features (TTFs)

No obstacles. Unavoidable obstacles to 50mm (2”) high, such as logs, roots and rocks. Avoidable, rollable obstacles may be present. Unavoidable bridges 900mm wide. Short sections may exceed criteria.

Unavoidable, rollable obstacles to 200mm (8”) high, such as logs, roots and rocks. Avoidable obstacles to 600mm may be present. Unavoidable bridges 600mm wide. Width of deck is half the height. Short sections may exceed criteria.

Unavoidable obstacles to 380mm (15”) high, such as logs, roots, rocks, drop-offs or constructed obstacles. Avoidable obstacles to 1200mm may be present. Unavoidable bridges 600mm wide. Width of deck is half the height. Short sections may exceed criteria.

Large, committing and unavoidable obstacles to 380mm (15”) high. Avoidable obstacles to1200mm may be present. Unavoidable bridges 600mm or narrower. Width of bridges is unpredictable. Short sections may exceed criteria.


Glossary of Terms Fall zone: The area on either side of or below a technical trail feature that provides a clears landing for a rider who has failed to negotiate an obstacle. Gradient: The amount of elevation change between two points over a given distance expressed as a percentage (metre change in elevation for every 100 horizontal metres, commonly known as “rise over run”). A trail that rises 7 vertical meters in 100 horizontal metres has a 7% gradient. Unavoidable obstacles: Rollable: Single trail: A trail so narrow that users must generally travel in single file. Slope: The natural (or man-made) pitch of the land, as shown on contour map. Generally refers to the hill, not the trail, as “trail slope” is called gradient. Trail corridor: The full dimensions of the trail, including the area on either side of the tread and the space overhead, that needs to be cleared of brush and obstacles. Trail ceiling: ?? Tread: The actual surface portion of a trail upon which 95% of users travel.

Appendix

Drawings of cross section of easier, more difficult, very difficult and extremely difficult trails. Show tread, corridor, ceiling, slope, gradient, fall zone. Yet to be completed


Classification system Summary Advantages Disadvantages

IMBA Trail Rating Difficulty System – IMBA USA (and IMBA Australia revised system)

• Originally adapted from the International Trail Marking System developed for ski resorts, in particular Whistler, Canada (adapted from the Whistler Trail Standards)

• Rates the technical difficulty of a trail, rather than the physical exertion (e.g. based on the most difficult sections, rather than length)

• Includes five levels of difficulty:

o Easiest (white circle)

o Easy (green circle)

o More Difficult (blue square)

o Very Difficult (black diamond)

o Extremely Difficult (double black diamond)

• Classification is based on four objective and measurable criteria:

o Tread width

o Tread surface

o Trail grade (maximum and average)

o Natural obstacles and technical trail features

• Simple system

• Can be incorporated into existing reserve/trail signage 1

• Relatively well-known among mountain bikers in Tasmania, elsewhere in Australia and internationally (e.g. most MTB clubs in Tasmania are affiliated with Mountain Bike Australia/IMBA Australia and as a result endorse the IMBA system)

• Already implemented in a basic sense at some locations within the state (e.g. North-south Shared Track on Mt Wellington and at Dismal Swamp/Tarkine Adventure Centre), and is recommended as the system to be used within Trevallyn and Kate Reed Reserves in Launceston

• The measurable classification criteria provide for some objectivity when assessing the difficulty of a trail, and therefore some consistency in application is possible

• Recently adapted by IMBA Australia (although the draft has not been officially endorsed)

• There is a ‘gap’ between trails classified as ‘More Difficult’, and those rated ‘Very Difficult’, which doesn’t seem to adequately convey a ‘moderate’ level (e.g. the ‘More Difficult’ rating seems to encompass a broad skill-level range in it’s application) – the intent of the difficulty level heading are not clear

• Potential duplication of the easier categories – ‘white circle’ and ‘green circle’ (there is a lot of overlap in the criteria of these categories)

• Not universally applied in Australia or internationally, and can be a wide range in variability in application (e.g. a black diamond trail at one location, may be the equivalent of a green at an other location) – IMBA note that variability in application is considered acceptable, but there should be consistency locally

• The inconsistent application is considered to contradict the purpose of a trail classification ‘standard’.


Classification System Summary Advantages Disadvantages

IMBA Trail Rating Difficulty System (and IMBA Australia revised system)

• Outlines type, width and height of technical trail features

• Widely adopted in Australia and internationally as the classification system for mountain bike specific trails

IMBA Australia have recently drafted the Draft IMBA Australia Trail Rating Difficulty System 2008, which outlines changes/additions to better align the IMBA USA system to Australian conditions. Whilst this document in still in draft form, some of the recommended changes include:

• The development of two different versions of the standard - one for land managers (with quantitative measurements) and one for riders (using descriptions rather than measurements)

• Alterations to some of the criteria, including the inclusion of ranges rather than exact numbers, the types of bikes and level of fitness most suitable, and rider experience level required.

• Specifically applicable to mountain bikers, but also provides a useful guide for other trail users (walkers and horse riders) when accompanied by suitable descriptions

• The descriptive version of the standard will provide a useful guide for riders, and may be incorporated into trailhead information

• Is a step towards consistency in trail construction standards and classification for mountain biking in Australia, using a system that will be recognisable to international visitors.

See above



Whistler Trail Standards: Environmental and Technical Trail Features 2003

• Developed specifically for Whistler, in BC, Canada

• Basis of the IMBA Trail Rating Difficulty System, with five difficulty levels (e.g. ‘Easiest’ (white circle), ‘Easy’ (green circle), ‘More Difficult’ (blue square), ‘ More Difficult’ (black diamond), ‘Expert Unlimited’ (double black diamond))

• Outlines five non-motorised trail types, based on tread type and level of development (e.g. 2.3m width double trail, to 30-50cm wide wilderness trail)

• Outlines an ‘ecosystem’ approach to trail development and management, based on the six ‘land use directions’ (land classifications) identified for the Whistler Valley, each of which have a different level of environmental protection

• Includes a ‘compatibility matrix’, relating the land use directions to trail types and mountain bike difficulty, forming the basis for mountain bike trail access and development

• Trail difficulty levels are based on measurable criteria, similar to the IMBA system (e.g. grade, curve radius type of technical features, trail width)

• Provides guidance relating to the safe and sustainable construction of technical trail features and fall zone guidelines

• Provides guidance relating to appropriate trail placement, signage and ongoing management.

• Considers trail type in relation to the characteristics of the landscape, based on land management policy and legislation (of relevance to Whistler)

• Aligns trail type and level of difficulty with environmental / cultural values, with appropriate protected area categories

• Provides an example of mountain bike specific trail policy, which may be of value when considering a consistent approach to trail access and development within protected areas in Tasmania

• Broadly consistent with the version adopted by IMBA USA

• The document provides a comprehensive approach to sustainable trail development and management

• Provides guidance relating to the construction standards of technical trail features, placement and ongoing maintenance.

• Specific to Whistler Valley/BC Canada, particularly in relation to the land use directions

• As for the IMBA system outlined above.



Forestry Commission Scotland mountain bike cross country trails and bike park signage (IMBA UK)

• This system is based on the rating system for cross country skiing routes in Scotland

• Classification system includes four levels of singletrack grade, and two non-singletrack grade, based broadly on the International Trail Marking System

• Singletrack grades are:

o Easy (green circle)

o Moderate (blue square)

o Difficult (red triangle)

o Severe (black diamond)

• Non singletrack grades are:

o Bike park (orange symbol)

o Forest road and similar

o Descriptive and more subjective system compared to IMBA/Whistler (e.g. is not based on measureable criteria such as suggested trail widths, grades or height of technical trail features)

The criteria associated with each level of difficulty are broadly consistent with, although not the same, as the IMBA USA standard.

• Simply and easy to use

• Includes recommended criteria for each difficulty level (e.g. who the trail is suitable for, trail type, gradient, surface and width, acceptable hazards, and targets for trail length and amount of climbing), although generally in less detail than the IMBA standard

• Broadly consistent with the origin and intent of the IMBA system (e.g. similar colours and symbols)

• Used extensively throughout the UK

• The ‘red triangle’ or ‘difficult’ category provides a better graduation between the moderate and ‘expert’ categories

• Only one easy category, avoiding duplication as seen in the IMBA USA standard.

• Potential for a higher degree of inconsistency in application, due to less detailed criteria, than that of the IMBA USA system

• Some consider the fewer difficulty levels an over-simplification.



Wellington Park Bike Strategy grading system (Wellington Park Bike Strategy 2000/2005)

• Basic trail classification system using four grades:

o Easy (green)

o Moderate (blue)

o Difficult (orange/red)

o Extreme (black)

• Uses coloured bike symbols, rather than separate symbols for each grade (although the IMBA black diamond and double black diamond symbols are used to denote advanced technical trail features or steep descents)

• The first three grades are consistent with walking grades (e.g. are the same colour)

• Is most closely aligned with the IMBA UK system.

• Very simple and easy to understand – the system is used for both walking and mountain biking.

• Trail difficulty ratings are not substantiated with measurable criteria, which could result in a higher level of inconsistency in application when applied across the state (unless based broadly on those set out in the IMBA system)

• Not universally utilised

• Could be said to be over-simplified.

European MTB difficulty rating systems

• Brief review of promotional material for various riding locations throughout Europe indicates that systems similar to the international ski trail system are used, particularly in resort locations, and are therefore broadly consistent with the intent of the IMBA system.

- -


The following table has been modified from the Trevallyn Nature Recreation Area

and Kate Reed Nature Recreation Area Draft Track Strategy Implementation Plan

2009. It provides a comparison of the most commonly used trail classification

system for the activities of walking, horse riding and mountain bike riding. The

table highlights the similarities between the different trail classification systems, as

summarised in the difficulty description variation column.

The Trevallyn Nature Recreation Area and Kate Reed Nature Recreation Area Draft

Track Strategy Implementation Plan 2009 recommends that the coloured symbols

of the IMBA Trail Classification System be used, in conjunction with trail user

pictograms, to communicate the type of user permitted and the level of difficulty

of shared use trails.


IMBA Australia PWS Walking

Track Classification Australian Standard AS 2156

Horse SA

Difficulty description variations

Very Easy

White Circle

W1

(Wheelchair standard nature trail)

Class 1 Easiest / Wheelchair standard

Easy

Green Circle

W2

(Standard nature trail)

Class 2 Class 1 Easy

Intermediate

Blue Square

T1

(Track Grade 1)

Class 3 Class 2 Easy

Intermediate

Blue Square

T2

(Track Grade 2)

Class 4 Class 2 More Difficult/ Moderate / Intermediate

Difficult

Black Diamond

T3

(Track Grade 3)

Class 5 Class 3 Difficult

Difficult

Black Diamond

T4

(Track Grade 4)

Class 6 Class 3 Very Difficult / Severe / Advanced

Extreme

Double Black Diamond

R

(Route)

Extremely Difficult

Attachment 6 International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) example risk management strategy

The following attachment provides example used by IMBA to illustrate the different

elements and stages of developing a risk management strategy. This may provide a

useful guide for those organisations or individuals unfamiliar with developing a risk

management strategy.


IMBA Risk Program Topics Elements

1. Create a Risk Management Team and Designate a Leader

Develop a team responsible for the development, implementation and documentation of the risk management program, with a designated team leader.

2. Write a Risk Management Statement

Demonstrate the commitment of your organisation to risk management by writing and implementing an official statement, which declares your position on safety and risk.

3. Establish a Trail Design and Construction Policy

It is important to develop or adopt an agreed set of guidelines relating to trail design and policy, as the basis for ensuring that trails are constructed to an acceptable standard.

4. Implement a Trail Difficulty Rating System

Post clear signs that indicate the relative technical difficulty of each trail to encourage visitors to use trails that match their skill level and minimise injury.

5. Develop an Effective Signage Program

Signs play an important role in managing risk. Consider using warning signs to mark unexpected hazards. Signs can also be used to communicate trail difficulty, trail rules, and special features of the area, as well as encourage responsible riding.

6. Institute Visitor Rule and Regulations (Code of Conduct)

Assemble and review trail user rules and regulations. Add or modify safety regulations if required. Endeavour to communicate rules and regulations in a positive way (e.g. through the use of universal pictograms) rather than negative messages.

7. Develop an Emergency Plan An action plan for emergencies is an often over-looked component of trail management. Trail managers are responsible for a minimum level of care (e.g. providing visitors with emergency contact information).

8. Eliminate Unreasonable Hazards (Focus on Man made Structures)

Although this step is really part of routine trail maintenance, don’t postpone this vital task during the often-lengthy risk management planning process. Evaluate your trail system now and eliminate unreasonable hazards or post warnings.

9. Establish a Trail Inspection and Maintenance Policy

Many negligence law suits are related to faulty trail maintenance rather than improper trail design or construction. It is vital to adhere to a written maintenance plan.

10. Maintain the Trail System Consistent with the Policy

Ensure that the trail system meets the intent of your policies. It isn’t necessary to correct all issues immediately, but you should develop a long-term, and prioritised plan for the work.

11. Create a Record Keeping System

Documenting all facets of your risk management program is vital in order to defeat allegations of negligence. Well-organised and up to date records (e.g. maintenance log), may deter lawsuits from being filed in the first place.

12. Develop an Incident Reporting and Analysis System

By tracking accidents that occur on your trail system, you’ll be better equipped to improve your risk management systems. Identifying and addressing hazards, improving emergency services, and providing a higher level of care can result from accident tracking.

13. Deploy a Trail Patrol From trail inspection hazard identification to accident reporting and on-the-fly maintenance, a volunteer patrol is the perfect way to accomplish many risk management duties.

14. Purchase or Review an Insurance Policy

Trail managers and volunteer groups should obtain insurance policies that protect them from liability claims resulting from their trail management activities. A risk management specialist will be able to assist with identifying other possible risk transference strategies.

15. Recruit Outside Advisors Enhance your team by adding a risk management consultant or professional recreation manager with risk management expertise. Even a once-off consultation can expose risk you may have missed.

16. Perform a Periodic Review of the Program

Keep your plan up to date – your trail system will evolve, you insurance policy will change, and your trail work priorities will change.

Sourced and adapted from http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/risk_management_plan.html. Accessed on 17 July 2009.

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_issues/risk_management_plan.html�

Attachment 7 Summary of public submissions on draft plan

The following attachment provides a summary of the submissions received during the

public exhibition of the Draft Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan 2009. The draft plan was

available on the SRT website in September 2009 with the four week period for public

comments ending in October 2009.

A total of 28 submissions were received:

11 from Tasmania individuals

four from interstate individuals

seven from Tasmanian state government agencies and local

councils

five from community/non-governmental organisations

one from a national/international organisation (IMBA Australia).

It should be noted that the summary column of the table picks up on the key

points of the submissions, and is not a verbatim record of submission contents in

their entirety. The attachment also notes the response from the consultants and

steering committee to each submission and identifies the changes that were made

to the final plan in response to each submission.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 1. • Indicates that would like to see more MTB trails and information in Tasmania

• Suggests that Wales is a good model of MTB infrastructure/service development • Suggests that the key requirements are ‘lots’ of marker, mapped and legal singletracks,

with a mix of difficulties • Need a centralised source of information, linked to local attractions, accommodation

and town information, to allow for independent trip planning, including activities for the rest of the family

• The Plan is considered to cover the suggestions. The comments further reinforce a number of the recommendations and observations made in the Plan.

• No action required.

2. • Notes minor text alterations to the section referring to the Great Western Tiers/Meander Valley be made to the Plan. The text should read: Great Western Tiers/Meander Valley The Meander Valley Council has received funding for development of theGreat Western Tiers Tourist Cycling Trails under the state Tourism PromotionalPlan (2006). The Plan includes development of trail and supportinginfrastructure, interpretation and supporting collateral and signage and acommunity education program to develop a cycle friendly community. Theinfrastructure includes a range of themed trails for touring bike riders.Stage 3 of the Great Western Tiers Cycling Strategy seeks to identify opportunities for MTB trails to be developed in Meander Valley in partnership with land owners and MTB user groups.At the Launceston forum, some MTB riders indicated they are considering thepotential to develop downhill trails in the Huntsman Valley and have beenworking with Forestry Tasmania on the proposal.

• Agree to add suggested text to final Plan. • Alterations made.

3. • States that MTB riding is destroying remaining bushland areas in Queensland • Suggests that MTB riding should be restricted to specialised ‘already degraded’ venues

(e.g. quarries and farms) • Queries why the steering committee for this project does not include ecologists,

biologists and other relevant scientists • States the MTB riding is an ‘adrenaline junkie’s high impact destructive sport’ • States that the Plan is a ‘social and environmental disgrace’ • Suggests that the Plan does not consider the people who want a peaceful and passive

nature experience

• The Plan communicates the importance of sustainable trail development, outlines some of the existing and potential environmental and social issues, and provides recommendations relating to best practice environmental management.

• The steering committee includes representatives with significant experience in protected area, adventure recreation management (e.g. PWS, WPMT, FT), and people with environmental science qualifications.



No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 4. • Queries whether there are plans to utilise disused railways for MTB

• Makes specific reference to railways in the northeast (e.g. between Launceston and Scottsdale, and to Herrick)

• Agree to include the reference the potential opportunities associated with rail trails. Rail trails provide opportunities for a range of trail users, including horse riders, walkers as well as of road touring cyclists and mountain bike riders, particularly novice cross country riders and families. Use of decommissioned railways also makes good use of existing infrastructure. They can also act as non-motorised, safe linkages between towns and settlements, and may connect sections of other off-road trails.

• Indicate the potential value of re-use of railways for off-road cycling generally, including mountain bike riding, particularly novice cross country riders and families.

5. • Supports to direction of the Plan • Tasmania in a strong position to become an iconic MTB destination Makes a number of specific recommendations: 1. Ensure a dedicated Tassie MTB website gets up and running soon (a step up from

Pedalbite) that allows budding riders to co-ordinate IMBA track building workshops that includes land managers to liase with on possible track locations. So we are in a position to get in and get our hands dirty and build realign some world class tracks all over the state with the help from Green corps etc.

2. Encourage schools to participate in Outdoor Ed. MTB skill development through; bike skill sessions, funding grant opportunities, reduced rates in races for students e.g. Winter challenge, Kellevie 6 hr, Wildside, Bluedragon, MTB seminars for interested teachers on trail building and MTB skill development, list of graded trails with maps to take students on.

3. An Australia wide grading system for trails that can be used for MTB trails in Tassie (similar to skiing). Starting to be incorporated at Glenorchy MTB Park.

4. High level of priority continues to be indicated to local and state governments and local councils to get this plan completed and up and running. If not land managers will be faced with greater numbers of fragmented poorly designed tracks on government and private land areas.

• The Plan is considered to cover the elements of the recommendations.

• The comments reinforce some of the recommendations made in the Plan (e.g. need for a centralised website school participation and skill development, need for consistent trail grading system and increased funding).


6. • Supports the Plan, and notes that MTB considered a fringe sport in Australia in the past • Economic benefits can result from increased tourism revenue • Supports the ‘wild’ ride concept, and ‘epic’ trails, and indicates that these trails would

motivate a specific visit • Suggests incorporating references to substantiate MTB impact (e.g. erosion impacts in

comparison to other trail users)

• Agree to add references relating to impact studies and research. References will act to substantiate claims made about the environmental impacts of MTB in comparison to other trail users.

• Include references to known impact assessment references.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 7. • Notes that would have liked to bring MTB to Tasmania on previous occasions, but

was unsure about facilities and opportunities • Suggests that a well-publicised network of trails would bring riders to Tasmania • Suggests development of ‘epic’ trails (50-100km), shorter circuits and bike parks

associated with public transport or serviced by tour operators • Provision of singletrack is essential

• The Plan is considered to cover the comments. • The comments reinforce some of the recommendations

made in the Plan.


8. • Supports the Plan – in particular the potential to develop Tasmania as a MTB destination of an international standard

• No response required. • No action required.

9. • Congratulates that the Plan recognises the recreational, health, economic and tourism benefits of MTB in Tasmania

• Notes that there are a lot of downhill riders in the northwest, many of these riders travel to Hobart for downhill ride days, and that downhill is often the entry into the broader sport of MTB

• More downhill trails are needed in the northwest • Dial Range is considered to have the most potential for further development in the

northwest (central location, not likely to be impacted by logging, close to transport and facilities, variety of elevation and terrain)

• Stubbs Road is too small and privately owned • Paloona is noted as being likely to be logged within the next 10 years

• The Plan recognises the Dial Range as a potential mountain bike development area, however, following the feedback received about the draft Plan, the Plan should be updated to reflect the rider preference in the North West for the development of the Dial Range as a MTB hub.

• Further MTB development/access within the Dial Range area will need to be considered with reference to the current reservation status and associated natural and cultural values of the land. This will require a feasibility planning process to determine whether further MTB development is appropriate.

• It should be noted that Regional Trail Hubs do not have to be in one consolidated area – there are opportunities to have separate facilities/trail areas within a broader regional setting (e.g. Paloona could be the focus for DH, whilst Stubbs Road may be the main XC venue).

• Note the preference of riders in the North West for further development for MTB opportunities in the Dial Range area.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken

10. • Congratulates the Government on recognising the potential value of MTB to the state

• Sees the potential for the northwest and west coast to become an ‘iconic’ riding destination, including ability to ‘take advantage’ of the interstate and international riders who visit the region for the Wildside MTB Race

• Notes that, although the MTB community in the northwest is fractured, this should not be taken to mean there is a lack of riders

• Riders in the northwest are currently in the process of forming a club • Emphasises that Stubbs Road is privately owned, and therefore should not be

relied upon as the primary riding location (and source of singletrack) in the northwest

• Sees trail development as the priority – everything else will follow

• Ensure that the comments made are reflected in the Plan. • Update the Plan to reflect the MTB club situation in the northwest.

11. • Feedback is from the newly formed committee to start a MTB club on the northwest coast and presents a case for a world-class MTB park and facilities in the Dial Range

• Submission refers to need (e.g. lack of existing MTB areas, reduce travel, promote healthy lifestyle), appropriateness of the site (e. terrain, location, support infrastructure, tenure) and willingness of riders and volunteers to care and maintain such park facilities

• Number of other specific points are listed in support of the Dial Range including: • Central location • Cater for different disciplines • Cater for all abilities • Need for purpose built gravity track • Walking track (Penguin to Cradle Mt) could cater for adventure seekers • Central location for schools • Scope for organising more events, junior development programs, catering for

less experienced riders • Economic benefits to region • Reduce illegal development and construction of trails • Support of Local Council

• See response for submission 9 above. • Agree with the advantages listed in relation to the

potential MTB development in the Dial Range area. However, the appropriateness and type of MTB development, and areas of access will be subject to consideration of the reserve status, and the natural and cultural values.

• There is likely to be a number of issues associated with encouraging MTB access to the Penguin to /cradle Trail (e.g. risk and safety issues associated with bikes and walkers on narrow trail sections, and management implications – the trail is already under-resourced and managed primarily by volunteers).

• See Action for submission 9 above.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 12. • Submission presents a case for the Panama Forest and North East railway line to

become a MTB trail. • Panama Forest is accessible from Launceston (40kms), Bridport (25kms), Scottsdale

(26kms) and Lilydale (15kms) • Dry Schlerophyll forest with old logging tracks and plantations • Suitable climate for outdoor pursuits • Launceston MTB Club have downhill course bordering the Panama Forest • Forestry roads link Panama Forest to Mount Arthur • Potential to utilise North East railway to connect from Launceston and Scottsdale • Possibility of creating a riding circuit from Lilydale to Wyena, back through Panama

Forest, Lone Star Ridge Road and Doaks Road to Lilydale (features might include Lilydale Falls, Denison Gorge and 1km rail tunnel)

• Map provided along with information on British Columbia MTB railway line MTB tracks

• Consultants have limited knowledge of this area. • Steering Committee expressed general support for the potential

use and/or MTB development of trails in this area, particularly if connected to other existing facilities in the area, if it can be demonstrated that MTB use will not conflict with other land management priorities.

• No change required. The Plan refers to other areas to be explored for MTB potential. This area is considered to be in this category.

13. • The draft Plan overstates the supply of XC trails – suggests that management and development of XC trails should be a priority, as XC riders are the predominant MTB rider group

• Emphasises the importance of singletrack • States that the majority of XC opportunities in the state, particularly the singletrack

opportunities are illegal or unauthorised, and therefore there is a significant gap in supply of authorised singletrack

• Emphasises the importance of catering for local riders above MTB tourism - and suggests that the initial focus of MTB development should be on addressing regional and local trail planning and maintenance issues

• Notes that it will be difficult to maintain volunteer numbers and enthusiasm if volunteers simply feel like a work force, with little input into decision making

Broadly agrees with majority of recommendations in the Plan: • Suggest that it is premature to select and develop marketing plans for the Iconic and

Epic rides at this stage – should be addressing regional and local rider needs and issues

• Agree that XC riders are the predominant group and will check that this is reflected in the Plan – however there was a consistent view expressed by riders at the forums and in the survey that there are also limited DH specific trails. It is not intended that the Plan focus on one discipline over others, but consider all different styles of riding and assess the supply and demand and any gaps in provision for each.

• Agree that many of the existing XC opportunities are currently unauthorised and fire trail/access road based, rather than singletrack, or trails designed specifically for MTB. The plan identifies the importance of XC singletrack, and notes the limited supply of legal, formally authorised singletrack opportunities.

• Agree that opportunities for regional and local riders should be a priority. This should be reflected in the Action Plan. It should also be noted that good quality MTB trail and facility developments for local/regional riders will also cater for MTB visitors, and compliment higher profile trails

• Edit the text in the gaps/supply section (page 25) and summary (page ii) to provide further clarity relating to the needs of the different riding disciplines (e.g. two separate comments, rather than grouping the two disciplines together)

• Ensure that the need to support existing MTB events is noted in the Plan.

• Include the words cross country or acronym XC before reference to singletrack to emphasise the style of riding this type of track primarily caters for.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 13 Continued from submission 13 above.

• Strongly support recommendations in the Innovative Trail Design and Construction section – however the issues associated with poor trail construction, location and maintenance should be dealt with at the local level first

• Suggests that tourism opportunities should not drive the seeking of, or allocation of funding to the exclusion of local needs

• Supports the recognition of the need for land managers and trail users to work in partnership

• Suggests that we should resolve or stabilise problems with existing MTB events before we pursue too many big ideas

• Strongly supports the recommendation for the development of a centralised MTB website

• Welcome the recommendation to further develop, promote and distribute a rider code of conduct

• Agree that volunteers involved in MTB trail and facility development are generally riders themselves, some of which will have valuable knowledge about the needs of riders, as well as practical knowledge. In addition to engendering a sense of ownership, volunteers are a valuable source of knowledge, and can contribute in a positive way to the decision-making

• Agree. Successful existing MTB events should be supported prior to the development of new events. The Plan also discusses the need to ensure that new events don’t directly compete, but rather compliment, existing events

• See above.

14. • Indicates that the draft Plan misses the major problem with MTB in Tasmania – the absence of a large number of high quality trails suitable for MTB

• Suggests that the Plan provides limited guidance for addressing the above issue • Suggests that a ‘top down’, ‘government heavy’ approach will not generate a large

number of trails – notes that the active management in Wellington Park has not been successful (e.g. cites issues, such as isolation, inadequacy and high cost associated with the North South Track and Radfords Track)

• Suggests that grass roots groups need to be fostered and empowered in trail advocacy, creation and maintenance to facilitate trail development at a lower cost

• IMBA Epic, signage and trailhead infrastructure supported, but suggests are pointless at this stage, given that the trail network does not yet exist

• Suggests that separating DH from other forms of riding is unhelpful – if trails are well-designed they can be enjoyed by both XC and DH riders (only extreme DH trails cannot be enjoyed by XC riders)

• Suggests that ‘DH’ trails should incorporate a well-graded and interesting climb to open up possibilities to range of users

• The draft Plan does discuss the general lack of MTB infrastructure in the State (e.g. specifically designed MTB trails and facilities, including singletrack)

• The Plan presents a prioritised strategic direction for increasing the suite of MTB opportunities in the State

• The Plan promotes balanced partnerships between riders and volunteers and land managers and other relevant agencies/organisations. A strictly ‘bottom-up’ approach, driven entirely buy riders is not likely to result in a sustainable outcomes.

• The Plan recognises the need for the development of quality base MTB infrastructure

• Ensure that the Plan notes the capacity of some DH trails, or trails that go down hill, to cater for both XC and DH disciplines.

• Note that DH specific (competition) trails are not generally suitable for up-hill travel , and should be designated single direction use.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 14 Continued from submission 14 above. • Agree that many DH, or trails that go down hill can be enjoyed

by both XC and DH riders (these are sometimes known as ‘all mountain’ trails’, and many riders cross over between the disciplines), and could better incorporate well-graded climbs to cater for a broader range of users. Trails that have been designed specifically for fast DH riding are not suitable for uphill travel, due to safety risks. Alternative off-road access may be provided to the DH trailhead, in conjunction with sealed road access, to provide access to XC riders – forming circuits.

• DH competition trails can be quite specific to that style of riding, however, and may not be as comfortable for XC riders with lighter bikes etc

• See above.

15. • General support for the Plan – indicates that the Plan is well organised and informative

Notes some grammar issues: • Action Plan – no ‘J3’ • Pg 115- 2nd paragraph 5th line there is an ‘of’ instead of an ‘off’

• No response required. • Edit grammar in final Plan.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 16. • Questions practical application of the proposed MTB Hierarchy – particularly Regional

Trail Hubs and MTB Adventure Centres –indicates that these should be reversed • Suggests that it is difficult to contemplate towns and locations remote from the core

population centres could sustain trail and infrastructure of a higher quality than the Regional Trail Hubs

• Supports the idea of developing MTB Adventure Centres MTB experience, but does not believe that Adventure Centres can have a higher quality of trails and facilities than the Regional Trail Hubs

• Suggests that the 4WD trails on the Central Plateau should be included as an area for MTB development

• Notes that most land managers still regard MTB as an issue rather than an opportunity – and that dedicated MTB trails are likely to be developed only in response to consistent pressure

• Recognises the potential merit of the proposed Big Bend to Tolosa trail, but suggests that we could get better value for trail facilities elsewhere (e.g. high trail building costs due to difficult terrain - need to be built to very high standard to ensure sustainability) – suggests connections across Mt Wellington via Cathedral Rock

• Suggests it is difficult to justify a DH only track from Big Bend – may need to be a trail that goes DH, and suggests it would need to be a trail that can be ridden in both directions, and perhaps even multi-use to justify expense

• Suggests that the existing Big Bend/Knights Creek Fire Trail could be improved as a basis for the proposed linkage

• The proposed concept will not solve the issue surrounding the provision of an ‘everyday’ DH trail – the proposed trail would be too long for many riders, or for after work/after school, or for multiple runs in a day

• The proposed Big Bend trail would not replace the popular Radfords/Huon Road/Cascades ‘desire line’ (this route, although unauthorised in parts, has good shuttle access and parking at both ends)

• Suggests that a sustainable DH route should be established in Wellington Park (from the Springs), using the momentum of the above route, and solving the Radfords Track issues

• The feasibility of a DH trail within the Park should be the priority, rather than the big bend specifically

• Section 5.2.1 gives the rational for the trail hierarchy. The proposed trail hierarchy is a conceptual framework from which to consider the range of MTB trail/facility opportunities – it does not imply priority in relation to funding allocation. Funding should be based on demonstrated need/opportunity. Different trail projects will attract different funding and management partners and this may not be determined by the hierarchy but government policy, identified need, partnership support etc.

• It is likely that local/regional trail developments will be initiated before other opportunities within the hierarchy, given that there is a high demonstrated need, and the identified Regional Trail Hubs already have some level of development.

• The Big Bend trail concept is intended to be an ‘all mountain’ trail, suitable for both XC and DH riders (it will go primarily down hill), but is not intended to be constructed as a DH specific (competition) trail.

• Agree. Other DH opportunities within Wellington Park, particularly in the area below the Springs, should be explored.

• There may be other areas suitable for MTB riding in the future but the Central Plateau was not identified strongly in the forums or surveys. There has been some concern expressed from the land manager, regarding increased MTB access/development in the Central Plateau area.

• Edit description of the Big Bend concept to incorporate ‘all mountain’ reference, rather than DH, to provide clarity about the intent of the proposal.

• Refer to the broader area of Wellington Park as a location for an Iconic Wild Ride


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 17. • Comments that it is important for land managers and riders to appreciate

the natural values of a place before constructing trails • There needs to be an emphasis on assessing natural values, and what

threats MTB riding may pose – flora and fauna • There are other potential impacts to the environment in addition to

erosion, including wildlife disturbance, spread of weeds and disease • Cites environmental issues associated with MTB trail development in

Trevallyn and Kate Reed Reserves (e.g. loss of wildlife habitat) • Suggests that MTB could have a significant impact on the spread of

Phytophthora and weeds via tyres • Indicates that the LMBC have commissioned a flora survey along a section

of trail that they intend to work on – suggests this could be a model for future works

• Suggests that local field naturalists should also be consulted, as consultants don’t always see everything

• The Plan is a higher-level strategic document, and therefore cannot deal in detail with specific environmental and other issues in detail. Such issues will be addressed via the planning and design processes (e.g. as required by local government planning processes, PWS RAA processes, feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments and detailed trail plans), or as required for any change of activity or proposed development on public land

• The Plan recognises the importance responding to the natural and cultural values of a location, and recommends that the appropriate environmental assessments and investigations are conducted prior to trail or MTB facilities develops or upgrades.

• Agree with the cited range of potential environmental issues that can result from MTB access to natural areas – the Plan discusses these impacts briefly.

• The Plan should perhaps emphasise more strongly the existing environmental planning process in place associated for developments in protected areas as well as for other land tenures (e.g. the PWS RAA process).

• The Plan recommends that the natural and cultural values of an area must be assessed prior to the development of trail or other MTB facilities. However, this recommendation in Section 5.5 will be strengthened to refer to the range of existing environmental planning processes in place (e.g. the RAA process, Planning Schemes etc).

• The reservation status/land tenure will provide some protection of natural and cultural values.

• Ensure that the Plan emphasises the need for in-depth environmental and cultural investigations, and that the outcomes of feasibility studies should provide an informed basis from which to proceed with a proposed trail development.

18. • General support for the Plan • Suggests that the Plan needs to include more on the need to improve

roads for bikes and public transport for bikes in MTB riding areas (e.g. Metro buses with bike transport facilities)

• Suggests making roads (e.g. Huon Road) more bike friendly would improve riders experiences (as many riders use roads to access trails or close a loop), and improve sustainability as less motorised transport will be needed

• Providing a safe and accessible cycle track/s from the City to Fern tree and on to Mt Wellington for recreational cyclists, enabling MTB riders to access other trails without having to use roads – this could also act as a commuter route for residents in the longer-term

• Suggests upgrading existing fire trails and other tracks to link the O’Grady’s Falls Track to the Hobart Rivulet and the Pipeline Track below Fern Tree to the Sandy Bay Rivulet (Map attached to submission)

• Agree that safe road linkages can provide important connections to off-road trails for MTB riders, or to close a loop. However, some of the MTB riders that attended the regional forums, indicated that they tried to avoid sealed roads on their rides, preferring off-road trail networks.

• The proposed off-road cycling linkages between Fern Tree and the City would be significant improvements to the cycling network in Hobart, for commuters as alternative transport routes, as well as for MTB riders.

• Improving bike facilities on buses, particularly to key riding locations, such as Fern Tree/Wellington Park, will be important aspects of improving sustainable access options to MTB riding areas, particularly for younger riders.

• Note significance of off-road linkages such as the proposed improvements to the Fern Tree – City linkage, as well as Rail Trails, as alternative transport linkages, general safe cycling routes and off-road connections to MTB trails.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 19. • General support for the Plan

• Indicates that IMBA Australia offers its full support to the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts – Sport and Recreation Tasmania in the implementation of the Plan (e.g. training, guidance and support for staff and recreational MTB riders)

In particular, supports the following recommendations/directions: • Adherence to IMBA trail building references, guidelines and trail difficulty ratings • Establishment of trail building schools • Specific design and construction for MTB trails • Combination of shared use and single use trails • Development of an IMBA Epic ride(s) in Tasmania • The hierarchy of trails and establishment of set criteria • Iconic Wild Trails (potentially the branding of unique Tasmanian trail experiences) • Collaborative approaches between government, business and the community • Strategies that lead to the protection of natural assets

• Amendments to relevant legislation and policy to enable implementation of sustainable MTB opportunities for community use and tourism

Suggests including a map of Tasmania that details elements such as: • Existing popular riding spots • Potential and appropriate areas for MTB Trail development

• Existing trails or areas of MTB activity that could or should be discouraged

• Mapping of authorised locations is recommended in the Plan as part of the future requirements for marketing and promotion.

• Providing public detail of all potential (but not authorised) riding locations is not considered to be appropriate at this stage, given the potential to encourage increased visitation to areas where riding is not authorised by the land manager, or where increased MTB could result in environmental/social issues.

• No changes required


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 20. • Submission provides the case for a world class MTB park on the North West Coast

(Dial Range) based on need, appropriate site, and pool of enthusiastic riders and volunteers – indicate that Councillors have expressed initial support for the concept

• There is a need for a MTB facility in the North West to cater for all disciplines and levels of ability

• Suggests that the Dial Range provides a central location for MTB development in the North West – the Club’s focus would be the development of a world class MTB park

• Indicates that gravity events require purpose built trails (authorised and supported), and that gravity trails need to be built in locations where they will not be damaged

• The walking track from Penguin to Cradle Mountain could be incorporated into an MTB experience for adventurous riders

• Indicates that many of the existing trails in the region are suited to very active riders – there is a need for trails that cater for a range of riders (e.g. children and women who are often reluctant to become involved due to lack of experience)

• Suggests that the development of a MTB park in the region would decrease illegal trail construction

• See response above in relation to the Dial Range (submission 9). • See comments above in relation to penguin to Cradle Mt. Trail

(submission 11).

• See actions indentified above in relation to the Dial Range and Penguin to Cradle Mt. Track.

21. • Indicates that as a trail bike rider, he has no objection to sharing trails with MTB riders, but object to riders putting up signs banning trail bikes

• The Blue Tier track (Blue Tier Descent) would have overgrown if trail bike riders had not been consistently using the track for decades

• Objects to the rubbish left behind following the Blue Dragon MTB Race (barrier tape and signs)

• MTB riders should not displace trail bikes in approved trail bike riding locations

• Trail bikes are unlikely to be suitable for use on shared trails used by mountain bike riders or other non motorised trail users for a range of different reasons (e.g. safety, environmental impact and noise)

• Land managers need to be aware that MTB trails may be attractive to trail bike riders and vice versa

• Managing the safety, user conflict and environmental issues associated with trail bikes and other trail users need to be resolved by land manager.

• No changes required.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 22. • Supports the strategic direction of the Plan

• Indicates that the WPMT have a commitment to participating in partnerships with all levels of government and MTB community to implement the Plan

• Supports the development of a regional MTB plan for the Greater Hobart region

• Do not support listing of the proposed Big Bend to Glenorchy MTB Park trail as a specific Iconic Wild Ride – should refer more broadly to Wellington Park

• Emphasises the need for the State Government to ensure there is active participation of land management agencies, particularly local government, in the implementation of the Plan

Indicates issues raised regarding the draft Plan in liaison with other land owners and management agencies with interests in Wellington Park: • Some agencies indicated that consultation has been insufficient to enable the

project team to understand the management issues and implications of land management agencies who will play a leading role in the implementation of the Plan

• Trail development could lead to a demand for associated infrastructure, which could lead to additional impacts upon Park values

• Lack of definition of trail ‘sustainability’ • Doubts surrounding the capacity of the development of additional bike

infrastructure within Wellington Park to drive tourism growth, particularly for the Hobart region

• Impacts of trail development on landscape and other trail issues’ • The need to cater for XC riding– survey data indicates that the majority of

riders are XC riders • The Trust and its agencies should determine what are the best and most

appropriate trail options for the Park

• Agree to remove the proposed Big Bend trail as the potential Iconic Wild Ride within Wellington Park.

• Agree local governments must be involved in the development of MTB opportunities – the intention to include a LGAT representative on the State MTB Working Group, and liaison with other representative (including recreation and community development staff) in relation to specific projects, will aid this process.

• Consultation process considered extensive given budget and time constraints with 3 regional forums for land managers.

• Check reference to DH versus XC riding – all disciplines of riding should be adequately catered for.

• The Plan is a high level strategy – land management issues need to be dealt with in detail through existing planning and development assessment processes (e.g. local government planning schemes and development assessment processes, RAA process, feasibility studies, EIA, site plans and regional/local trail plans).

• Experience overseas indicate potential for increased tourism yield with upgrading of MTB infrastructure – Hobart and Wellington Park are ideally suited for access by visitors (both niche market and add-on experiences). However, it is agreed that MTB opportunities in other locations in Tasmania (e.g. more remote and ‘wild’ areas) could potentially attract higher numbers of dedicated MTB riders, and be consistent with the current branding for Tasmania.

• The Trust and its agencies would maintain total management control over the use, development and management of Wellington Park and the extent to which MTB activity occurs.

• Review discussion in Plan regarding ‘sustainability’, and add further detail regarding the meaning of the term in relation to this Plan under Section 4.3 – vision.

• Review action plan to ensure active involvement of land managers is clear.

• Remove specific reference to the Big Bend trail concept as the potential Iconic Wild Ride within Wellington Park – removed from Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1.

• Refer to Wellington Park in general as a location for a potential Iconic Wild Ride


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 23. • General support for the Plan

• Suggests that the process for the development of the plan could have been improved through greater land manager/agency input via a more in depth consultation period and release of agency/land manager draft prior to public exhibition

• Steering Committee should have included local government representation • Suggest that the proposed MTB Working Group include local government

representation via LGAT appointing a suitably qualified/experienced representative • The Plan refers to the North South Shared Use Track – it should read ‘North

South Track’ • Suggests that a more detailed description of the North South Track project be

included on page 27 • Suggests that the findings from a rider survey undertaken by Council regarding the

North South Track be included in the final Plan • Supports recognition of ongoing trail maintenance costs, but suggests that the plan

explore the possibility of government funding for ongoing maintenance of higher level trail categories (e.g. Epic and Iconic Wild Rides), as the majority of trails are unlikely to generate sufficient financial return from permit fees

• Suggests that the primary pressure for DH riding within Wellington Park is in the area below the Springs – this can be dealt with via a Regional MTB Trail Hub master plan, including the feasibility of the Big Bend trail proposal

• Note that MTB clubs tend to attract riders who want to race, rather than the broader riding community – suggests broadening recommendations G1 and G2 beyond ‘clubs’ to MTB ‘representative bodies’

• HCC and other councils have significant skills in the management, design and construction of trails – suggest that recommendation E2 and elsewhere in the Plan acknowledge local government

• Suggests defining the different riding disciplines noted in the survey results on page 15

• See response above re consultation process (submission 22) • Agree generally with comments made, in particular:

• Agree local government should be included on the Working Group - acknowledge that the Steering Committee for the project dos not include local government representation – other than the representative from Wellington Trust, as a default representative of HCC.

• Amend final Plan to read ‘North South Track’ rather than ‘North South Shared Use Track’

• Agree. The Plan should better reflect the pressure for further DH opportunities from the Springs.

• Agree. Broaden the recommendations G1 and G2 to include MTB ‘representative bodies’

• Agree to ensure recommendation E2 acknowledge skills in Local Government

• Agree to review findings from HCC MTB rider survey and include summary in Plan

• Agree with significant State Government role required for the funding for the Epic and Iconic Wild Rides

• Defining of different riding disciplines was done for the MTB research and could be included

• Check wording re proposed Working Group to ensure that local government representation is included.

• Amend Plan to better reflect pressure for further DH opportunities from the Springs and/or Wellington Park in general, rather than just the Big Bend trail proposal (Section 5.3 – in paragraph about the Wellington Park Bike Strategy)

• Add to E2, G1 and G2 recommendations

• Add in description of different riding disciplines as an Attachment

• Review HCC MTB survey and summarise findings for inclusion in the Plan if considered relevant to the overall strategy

• Include further detail about the North South Track as provided by Council


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 24. Broad feedback:

• Lack of consideration of the environmental context and sustainability in particular in respect to Tasmania’s reserved land

• Failure to clearly articulate the needs, opportunities, issues and solutions for the different styles of MTB riding

• The Plan has been generated from an MTB point of view and does not take into account other viewpoints, issues and needs from the broader social, recreational, management and economic perspectives

• Needs to be more focus on ‘management’ rather than ‘marketing’ Detailed recommendations and comments: • The draft Plan be treated as a Discussion Paper or Strategy, rather than a Plan –

indicates that the issues associated with developing new MTB opportunities presented in the Plan have not been adequately resolved

• In developing the final Plan, the environmental, management, social and economic context be more fully considered and taken into account

• The primary role of State reserves – conservation and interpretation of the conservation values, be recognised

• National Parks and other reserves be considered as ‘special cases’, where MTB opportunities are only considered where it can be demonstrated that they meet the primary objectives for natural and cultural conservation, and it can be demonstrated there are adequate resources to build, monitor and maintain new facilities

• Specialist technical and ‘thrill’ seeking’ opportunities (e.g. dirt jumping, DH riding and competition riding) not be permitted in natural and cultural conservation reserves in Tasmania, due to the incompatibility of the activity with reserve values (e.g. activity not environment focused, DH trails have potential for erosion)

• There is little differentiation in the Plan about what is required for the different types of riding styles (e.g. interests of each, specific issues environmental impacts for each and potential opportunities for each) - this will have implications for what opportunities are appropriate for reserved land

• States that there is a bias in the Plan towards providing opportunities for DH riding – when the majority of riders are XC riders

• Lack of discussion about the environmental impacts of MTB riding in the reserved land context, and the associated management issues of the proposed opportunities

• Many of the concerns raised are considered valid issues and have been flagged as such in the draft Plan. It should be noted that the current Plan is a high-level strategic document, which must be underpinned with sound regional and local trail planning, concept feasibility studies, and detailed trail design and management/monitoring plans and documentation. It cannot be expected to detail every potential environmental and social issue in depth at this level – many of the points are outside the scope of the project. Other comments regarding the submission: o The brief for the project included developing Tasmania as

an MTB destination, of which marketing is a key component

o The Plan presents a framework and initial concepts only, and recommends the development of further feasibility studies, regional and local trail plans etc

o The Plan does not recommend that trails be developed in National Parks, but rather general landscape areas that offer a uniquely Tasmanian experience (e.g. lands surrounding National Parks such as State Forest and other public land), subject the feasibility studies and other planning processes required

o The existing status and use/development restrictions associated with National Parks and other protected area categories mean that these areas are already ‘special cases’ when it comes to any sort of development or introduction of new recreational activity.

o The discussion in the Plan regarding Parks and Wildlife MTB policy development refers to the need to consider which riding styles are appropriate for which reserve category as part of the policy development process.

o National Parks and other conservation reserves may not be appropriate locations for the development of new MTB trail developments – this will be part of PWS and other land management agencies policy development process, and is likely to be determined on a case by case basis

• See relevant actions outlined above, including the incorporation of further detail relating to existing environmental and development processes (particularly as it relates to reserved land), and the provision of additional detail regarding the term ‘sustainable.



• The TNPA state that national parks and other environmental reserves are not in general appropriate for MTB, particularly where new trails and facilities are proposed – state that other land tenures are more suited to MTB (e.g. State Forest and Recreation Reserves)

• Provision of MTB opportunities in National Parks should be considered on a case-by case basis to ensure that they do not contravene the objectives of the National Park

• Indicate that the developmental and tourist promotional aspects of the Plan should be reviewed, and must reflect the key land management objectives of the land tenure in question

• Opposes the recommendation to change management plans to allow for MTB riding and to allow for commercial development within National Parks

• The Plan needs to consider shared trails in more detail (e.g. potential conflicts, needs of other users)

• The management and economic context of the proposals needs to be examined in more detail (e.g. taking into account the recent budget cuts to State agencies – infrastructure development proposals must be prioritised, ‘realistic’ schedule for development of new facilities also built into the Plan, and the need for monitoring these facilities be considered

• Suggests that the impression given in the Plan that if more MTB opportunities are available, there will be less illegal use of other facilities, is not necessarily correct, and notes an increase in illegal riding within Wellington Park since some of the trails have been opened to bikes as an example

• Suggests the initial focus of the Plan should be on addressing regional and local MTB trail and facility issues, rather than tourism opportunities

• The Plan does provide a strong basis for the development of regional and local MTB trail networks and opportunities

• As noted above, many of the concerns raised relating to appropriate trail and facility development in National Parks in particular will be dealt with through the recommended MTB policy development exercise.

• Whilst definitive data is not available, anecdotal evidence (land manager observation and number of complaints received) suggests there have been improvements in the occurrence of unauthorised trail use and construction in Wellington Park and the Glenorchy MTB Park, since the construction of authorised trails and facilities.

• See above.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 25. • Many land owners/managers seem to be unaware that MTB facilities are

needed, and if they are aware, this need appears to be given a lower priority in comparison to other users, such as walking tracks

• Notes the options available for walkers compared to MTB within Wellington Park – on many occasions the number of MTB riders outnumber walkers

• Suggests an education awareness program is needed for councils and other land managers

• The Plan recognises the importance of education in to the provision of quality MTB trails and facilities, and notes the benefits of such programs to land management staff as well as riders, volunteers and specialised trail construction contractors. Increasing general awareness is likely to improve the situation, and alleviate some of the issues noted in the submission.

• Check that the Plan refers to the need for land management staff education/awareness.

26. • Supports the draft vision statement • Supports the proposed governance structure, and suggests that Chris

Colley, the Regional Manager North be the PWS representative on the proposed State-wide MTB Working Group –with close engagement with local PWS staff

• Supports the recommendation to establish Regional MTB Project and/or Local Working Groups – PWS should work with riders to determine the areas that are appropriate or not for riding (notes that the reserve system draft General Management Plan zoning and Maplink/NVA RAA reports could assist in locating appropriate riding locations)

• The realities of visitor facilities overload and recurrent inadequate funding for maintenance should be recognised – need long-term management arrangements/partnerships with users, local government etc in initial planning stages

• Broadly agree with the recommended hierarchy of trails and the adoption of the IMBA Australia trail classification system (note need to consider the PWS walking track hierarchy and 4WD track classification)

• Broad support for the recommendations in the ‘Enabling Policy and Legislation‘ section of the Plan, including the development of MTB policy (subject to the limits of available resources)

• Note that the NPRM Regulations have recently been reviewed, and will allow for designated areas for bikes access under the Act in all reserves except Nature Reserves – will address some of the issues noted in the Plan

• Notes that detailed RAA and potentially management plan changes process may be required to allow MTB access to some trails

Agree with recommended alterations, in particular: • Support word additions to recommendations and addition of

new recommendation (E9) referring to track condition monitoring.

• Support minor rewording of some of the recommendations in Section F – ‘Resource Commitment’

• Agree to add reference to the international ‘Leave No Trace’ principles in recommendation J1

• Add proposed recommendation and text additions/alterations.

• See relevant actions outlined above relating to existing environmental assessments and development processes (.g. RAA process, planning schemes etc)



• Supports the recommendations in Section D – ‘Classification of MTB Trails and Signage System’ - suggest minor word additions to recommendation E7 and the addition of a new recommendation ‘E9’:

E9 Track condition monitoring is to be built into all tracks maintained for MTB riding, with limits of acceptable change specified for the various categories of track and action to be taken if limits are exceeded.

• Suggests that initial planning should identify trail standards to be maintained, consistent with IMBA guidelines, as well as monitoring requirements.

• Support all proposed resource/funding options, with some minor rewording – notes may be opportunities via Wildcare’s natural partnerships

• Suggest new recommendation under Section G – ‘Partnerships Between land Manager and Users’:

G2 Develop processes to build and support strong community networks across the State to provide a capacity for cooperative planning and action by the community

• Partnership approach supported • The leading MTB products and events are supported – but must be

sustainably managed (e.g. new events run on robust trails, and land managers need time to run impact assessment processes to determine suitability

• Support approach to marketing and promotion – suggests that an agency (e.g. Sport and Recreation) needs to commit to maintaining the proposed MTB website, with land managers and others feeding information

• Would like to be involved in finalising the proposed MTB Rider Code of Conduct

• Supports risk assessment • Supports data gathering and research approach • Notes that the greatest difficulty facing the PWS will be the provision of

staff and resources to implement the recommendation in the Plan – innovative funding and maintenance models are required

• See above. • The MTB Rider Code of Conduct presented in the Plan is

intended to be the version to be adopted at a statewide level.

• See above. • Review wording in Section 5.10

– Education, to ensure that the version of the MTB Rider Code of Conduct presented in the Plan is the final version to be adopted.


No. Summary of comments Response Action to be taken 27. • Beneficial to see the results of the online survey in the Plan – council

would like to review the responses people provided to the questions 6 and 7, as it will aid them to understand wants and needs of riders in the Southern Region

• Suggest that the 2hr agency workshop appears to be insufficient to enable the consultants to understand the full extent of management issues and implications on land management agencies

• Supports the ‘other issues’ raised at the Land Managers Forum in Hobart, including the need for further research to justify allocation of resources, the need for land managers to works together at an early stage – all land managers working together and considering the region as a whole

• Supports the adoption of a standard trail classification system and would like to see some of the existing signage in Wellington Park combined with the adopted system

• The Plan does not consider the limitations to potential MTB tourism opportunities

• Strongly supports recommendation L1 – collection of rider profile and participation data

• The need to provide for DH rather than XC noted as an interesting result, given that ~80% of the survey respondents indicated that they were XC riders

• Suggests that the Plan should refer to Wellington Park more broadly for the location of a potential Iconic Wild Ride, in addition to the proposed Big Bend Trail

• Supports Wellington Park and the Glenorchy MTB Park being classified as Regional Trail Hub

• Note that development of new trails will lead to demand for associated infrastructure – this needs to be explored further

• Supports the recommendation for the development of trail care groups – these will need to be facilitated by land managers and be consistent with agency policies

• Survey data can be made available through SRT to others • Consultation was extensive given budget and time available

including 3 regional land manager forums that was sufficient for development of high order strategy

• Need to clarify recommendations relating to DH versus XC trail infrastructure to ensure that it is clear that opportunities for both disciplines are required, and that there is significant cross over between the disciplines.

• The scoring system, if developed, will only be used a conceptual tool to consider where individual trails/facilities fit within the hierarchy (see Section 5.1)

• Agree there should be reference in the Plan to the need to consider social and landscape impacts as well as environmental and land management impacts

• It has been recommended by HCC that LGAT appoint a representative to the proposed MTB Working Group – this will be noted in the final Plan as a recommendation.

• Agree to broaden the reference to Wellington Park as the location for a potential Iconic Wild Ride

• See actions above re clarification of DH and XC needs

• Ensure reference is made to potential landscape and social impacts as well as environmental impacts

• Add reference to ‘landscape’ and ‘social’ values to the detail of the term ‘sustainable’ (in Section 4.3 – Vision)

• Other concerns raised have been addressed in relation to other submissions received above

• Refer to the broader area of Wellington Park as a location for an Iconic Wild Ride



• Would like to emphasise importance of Section 5.1.2.4: ‘The responsibility for the planning, development and management of local MTB trails and facilities rests with the relevant land managers in partnership with the local councils, MTB clubs and riders and other interest groups’

• Concern regarding the suggestion that a scoring system associated with the trail hierarchy may be developed by MTB Working Group, as it has the potential to bypass responsible land managers

• Suggests that Section 5.5 ‘Innovative Trail Design and Construction’ must consider social and landscape impacts as well as environmental impacts – all aspects must be included in a definition of sustainable trail development

• Specific opportunities documented in the Wellington Park Bike Strategy have been overlooked – is currently the core document until a trail master plan for the greater Hobart area is prepared

• See above • See above

28 • Supports the Plan • Would like to add the Badgers Range State Forest and Stoodley Plantation

State Forest as potential future develop opportunities for future MTB development.

• The consultants have limited knowledge about these areas • General support for the potential use and/or MTB development

of trails in these areas, if it can be demonstrated that MTB use will not conflict with other land management priorities.

• No change required. The Plan refers to other areas to be explored for MTB potential. These areas are considered to be in this category, and could be explored as part of the development of regional MTB opportunities.

Printed from www.development.tas.gov.au/sportrec/mtbplan

mtb_plan_attachments

Documents