Instead of doing the necessary research to determine whether these uses are compatible, you beg the question, and assume they are. Even if you intend to continue destroying wildlife habitat, you should have the honesty to say so candidly, since, at least theoretically, you are a public agency. Please pay special attention to your nonverbal communication. Building trails manually says that you care about people, nature, and even using your funds conservatively, and engenders similar behaviour in your visitors. This is probably at least partly due to the fact that the process of road-building utterly destroys any natural areas in its path, and hence teaches people that such behaviour is acceptable and right.
Nonverbal education is by far the most powerful.
Most park systems have already recognized that their resources are finite, and have responded appropriately. Behaviour that was considered innocuous when I was a kid, such as burning wood found in the wilderness, is no longer acceptable. Limits on the number of hikers on a given trail are common. Certain behaviours are as obsolete as buggywhips. If you want more minorities to enjoy the parks, then you need to decrease access so that the total number of visitors doesn't increase.