[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Open Space policy discussion

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Becker, KC

The Council Agenda Committee has indicated that the process for tonight's West TSA meeting will begin with a discussion of broader policy matters that we won't resolve tonight, but that we want to identify as matters needing additional work. 
I have 2 to add to the list.

First, I want to say that I appreciate all the work that went into this process by the CCG, OSBT and Open Space Department. I don't want my comments to be taken as a disregard of their hard work and the compromises they reached. 

But I have struggled with this matter. Because I practiced public lands law, I have professional experience defending trail closures and other use and access decisions. But all of those decisions were informed by NEPA documents: EA's or EIS's. In brief, these documents require that a government agency discuss the need for a proposed action, alternatives to the action and the environmental impact of all the alternatives.  The environmental impact section usually discusses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action; potential conflicts with land use plans; effects on the urban, historic, and built environment; means for mitigation; and cumulative impacts of various aspects of the decision; among other things. It provides ample opportunity for public input.  

Above all, the EIS is an analytic tool and scientific document. It provides decision makers the research to make accurate assessments.  I know OSMP completed some of this analysis, but not to the extent that I felt I had what I needed to make accurate assesments on the impacts of proposed decisions to the human and natural environment. A lot has just felt like conjecture and political bargaining. So I'd like to propose that we consider a more scientifically-based means for evaluating future TSA uses and restrictions. 


My second frustration with this process (and proposal for a policy discussion) is that in the future I'd like OSMP to consider the broader relationship and place for mountain bikes within our system, not just TSA by TSA. Mountain biking really didn't exist when our open space system first started. Its incorporation needs to be considered on a system-wide basis, not on a trail by trail basis. I also think there are opportunities for collaboration between our mountain bike community and staff to make sure that designated trails are designed and used in the most sustainable manner. 

With this in mind, I've included a link to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed 6 years ago between the National Park Service and IMBA. I think it provides a very good model for establishing a cooperative relationship between bike advocates and land regulators, while recognizing the contributions that both can bring to promoting a healthy, fun, and environmentally sustainable way to enjoy our public lands. I'd like OSMP to consider reaching a similar agreement between bikers (and other user groups?) that formalizes the relationship and puts the responsibility on both parties to provide support to the other.  AMong other things, ir requires the groups to conduct studies and research on the status and effects of mountain biking; to work together in the development of mutually beneficial work projects, compilation of information and educations tools, safety training, and docent programs. IMBA will provide technical expertise to NPS on identification of new cycling opportunities but will also make efforts to foster low-impact riding.

I recognize that a lot of what's described in the MOU may already be happening, but formally documenting and recognizing a cooperative relationship is, I think, another step forward.


http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/headline.cfm?type=Announcements&id=3429&urlarea=npsnews

KC Becker
Boulder City Council Member