HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2017 Item 10, Mourenza
Christian, Kevin
From:Alexis Mourenza <alexis.mourenza@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October
To:Harmon, Heidi; Christianson, Carlyn; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; Pease, Andy; E-mail
Council Website
Subject:City Council 10/17/2017 Agenda Item 10 PLEASE POST
Attachments:CorrespondenceRegarding101017CityCouncilAgendaItem10.docx
Dear Councilmembers,
In regards to the proposed pilot program for extending Winter Open Space hours of use, I request that you consider the
following points/questions:
How will you assess any effects on wilderness and wildlife that occur during the duration of the pilot program? How
will these impacts be measured and who will be responsible for conducting and interpreting results of those
measurements?
In the absence of the establishment of a baseline/starting point, assessing impacts to the prioritized function of Open
Space (i.e. protection of wilderness and wildlife) will be impossible. Any conclusions drawn about the extent of the
negative impact on wilderness and wildlife will be conjectural at best and thereby biased.
What would success of the pilot program look like and what would constitute failure (i.e. what would trigger a halt to
the pilot program?), both during and at the conclusion of the 2-year pilot program period? How and when (i.e. how often)
will these assessments take place, who will be responsible for conducting and preparing them (outside experts, or
stakeholders) and who will they report to?
These criteria of success and failure must be delineated before any changes in current allowed use take place. If not, any
conclusions drawn will be severely skewed. And if cameras are going to be used to measure the amount of and types of
human recreational use occurring during the extended hours, then they must be installed not only at the approved entry
point but also at the unsanctioned entry points.
As empirical questions, it is important to establish standards of evaluation before, not after or during, the changes in hours
of Open Space use occur. Failure to do so would constitute a failure of basic scientific methodology.
Further, these questions are intimately connected. If success is measured by the amount of human use, then standards of
success of the pilot program will be in opposition to conclusions drawn from the negative impacts to wilderness and
wildlife. Your wildlife biologist was not able to give you a definitive answer of how severe the negative impacts would
be, but he was clear that there would be negative impacts and that the level of severity would depend on the extent and
1
type of increased use. What is being prioritized? Does that prioritization fall in line with the basic function of our Open
Spaces (i.e. protection of wilderness and wildlife)?
A final point regarding safety and equal access:
Further extending allowed hours of use for mountain bikers in our Open Space will have the result of effectively
prohibiting more passive recreational uses, specifically that of hikers and other wildlife enthusiasts and stargazers who are
deterred from utilizing these spaces because of the safety issues inherent in having extreme sportsmen sharing trails with
pedestrians.
If any changes are being considered, I propose that you limit biking hours so that the (much larger) population of
individuals that utilize these spaces for the sake of actual passive recreation can do so without the risk of physical harm
and also with the opportunity for peaceful communion with nature, which is impeded by having trails shared by both
hikers and bikers.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Alexis Mourenza
alexis.mourenza@gmail.com
2