Brian Baumann
Thanks for posting this Michael. We definitely need to show up and voice our concerns with the plan. Even just being there, with mountain bike helmet on or in hand, will make a needed impression. There are a few people who are volunteering a LOT of their lives in order for us to be able Ride to Where We Ride, so please show up if you can to support their efforts. They deserve it.
Cheers!
________________________________
From: Michael
To: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 2:47 PM
Subject: [OBRA Chat] Cycling in Forest Park, Again
The ongoing crusade to exclude MTB access in Forest Park remains very active and organized; Marcy Houle's broadcast call to arms is pasted below:
____________________
Forest Park Proposed Evaluation/Management Changes
From City of Portland Parks and Recreation:
Please Join Us!
Provide feedback on an evaluation method to screen construction and capital projects in Forest Park
August 5, 3013
Hoyt Arboretum Library
4000 SW Fairview Blvd
6:30 – 8:00 pm
The Forest Park Project Evaluation Methodology (PEM) synthesizes recent information compiled on the ecology of the park related to wildlife, vegetation and habitat and includes the baseline recreation survey. This information is used to create a science-based evaluation tool to screen construction and capital projects that propose alterations to the current landscape. The evaluation tool provides a systematic and consistent method to evaluate projects and incorporates the latest information available to aid decision making. The Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP; 1995) guides park management, and PEM will be used in conjunction with the NRMP to screen construction and capital projects.
Portland Parks & Recreation staff Kendra Petersen-Morgan, Ecologist and Emily Roth,Natural Resources Planner will present the methodology and answer questions.
We will also be taking on-line comments: www.portlandparks.org through August 19th, 5:00 PM.
From Marcy:
Dear Friends who care about Forest Park!
Forest Park needs you now, and especially your comments, as Portland Parks prepares to release its new "Evaluation Tool" that has just been developed to guide all future projects -- including new recreation projects -- in Forest Park.
Called the "PEM" ("Project Evaluation Method), this tool will be the initial step in determining which projects will be allowed in Forest Park. Included in these projects will be proposed user changes, such as single track cycling, shared trails with hikers and cyclists, building of new single track trails, among other uses. Presently, many of these uses aren't allowed in Forest Park, but that could change. Now, all these kinds of projects will be evaluated -- pass or fail -- by "PEM".
In reviewing this document, which I have attached, I am deeply concerned Moreover, I have found at least five points that are in direct violation of the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan. I have written Commissioner Fritz and some of the scientists in Portland Parks about my concerns. They responded by saying they need to hear from others who feel the same way.
Therefore, if you love Forest Park as I do, and feel concerned for its future, please consider either attending the public unveiling of "PEM" on August 5th at Hoyt Arboretum (see invitation below), or, more importantly, write your comments to Commissioner Fritz at Amanda.Fritz@portlandoregon.gov, and www.portlandparks.org. They will be accepting comments on "PEM" until August 19th.
Your comments are truly necessary if we wish to advocate for rescinding this document.
Below, I have included my letter to Commissioner Fritz and Parks, in which I state the five fatally flawed points that could cause irreparable harm to Forest Park and its users. Please feel free to use any or all of these in your correspondence.
Thank you so much for your concern for our regional treasure, Forest Park! And feel free to pass this email along!
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE FIVE POINTS:
July 28, 2013
Dear Commissioner Fritz:
I have reviewed the “Forest Park Project Evaluation Method” – or “PEM” – the new tool that Portland Parks and Recreation is proposing to “inform and guide themanagement of Forest Park.” After closely studying the document, I see glaring inconsistencies it has with the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP), Ordinance No. 168509.
The "PEM", as currently drafted,subverts the NRMP and should not proceed with adoption or implementation.
"PEM’s"suppositions will threaten Forest Park’s unique qualities, as well as negatively impact its health as well as the safety of its users. The document is fatally flawed in that it fails to be concordant with land use law in at least five major categories:
1. It does not include one of the most significant parts of the NRMP, namely, that all forms of recreation in Forest Park must be passive in nature.
2. It attempts to evaluate impacts to Forest Park wildlife by using studies that do not have the required information to make such determinations.
The NRMP specifies that there must be: annual monitoring of wildlife, permanent wildlife monitoring stations,nighttime wildlife censuses, and data collection on wildlife that is coordinated with recreation monitoring.
To date, none of these specifications has been done.
Of further concern, there have been no studies undertaken why Forest Park appears to be losing its native avian species.
Between 1984 and 2012,nearly 10% of Forest Park's native bird species have disappeared, declining from 117 species to104.
As the ecological health of the park and its wildlife is the NRMP’s TOP PRIORITY, these questions must be addressed before any further recreation development is allowed.
3. The "PEM"also assumes, incorrectly, that additional activities are to be developed in Forest Park. The NRMP,
however, states just the opposite.
Infact, a major prerequisite in the NRMP is that demand for additional recreational activities for Forest Park is to be
redirected to other parks, to take the pressure off of Forest Park.
4. In terms of its recreation evaluations, "PEM" is flawed on at least four important counts:
It implies 1) there will be new trails constructed in Forest Park,
2) there will be expansion of activities in Forest Park with”willing partners or user groups that will
assist with maintaining the project:", and
3) that separate uses, aside from pedestrian-only trails, are an allowed use.
All of these assumptions are contrary to the NRMP. Even more injurious, they may lead to the
false impression that "Forest Park is for sale” to any willing user group that will assist with
maintenance.
Further, PEM omits entirely any discussion of safety issues currently facing Forest Park –
such as cyclists riding illegally on pedestrian-only trails, which are placing
pedestrians at risk. This is a gross oversight. The NRMP repeatedly stresses
safety as a key component to all management decisions for Forest Park.
5. Lastly, the"PEM" fails to make any mention to the most cogent piece of the Forest Park Management Plan:
That Forest Park was conceived,and has been managed for the park 65 years, to be an Urban Wilderness.
This is the over-arching goal of the NRMP. Moreover, this sole feature makes Forest Park unique among
all city parks in the United States.
By ignoring this fact completely, PEM risks losing this quality for future generations and jeopardizes the
heart of the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan.
Sincerely,
Marcy Houle
____________________
Please consider adding your voice, in person or online, for a balanced approach to FP access.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org