Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trail Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOSAC debates trails scoring matrix: commissioners split on whether conservation should be a gatekeeper
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a new trails work-plan matrix that scores proposals by conservation, user experience, community context and cost. Debate focused on whether conservation should be an overriding 'go/no-go' criterion or a weighted factor among co-equal master-plan goals; members proposed testing the tool on sample trails and adding criteria for net ecological benefit and trail rework/decommissioning.
BOSAC spent a long portion of its June 15 meeting debating a proposed trails scoring matrix meant to make trail prioritization more objective. The matrix assigns weighted scores across conservation, user experience, community context and management cost, then ranks candidate trails.
Several members argued conservation should act as a preliminary gatekeeper so proposals that would cause "irreparable harm" are excluded before other criteria are weighed. Others noted the town’s master plan identifies conservation, recreation, access and inclusion as co-equal strategic goals and said elevating conservation in the matrix would create a structural inconsistency between the matrix and the master plan.
Commissioners recommended practical next steps: test the matrix on one or two candidate trails with a site visit, consider a separate scoring track for reworking or decommissioning existing trails (where projects can create net ecological benefit), and cluster trail priorities by geographic zones (to focus on missing connections in workforce-housing neighborhoods, for example). Several commissioners also urged the staff to clarify definitions (what exactly does 'conservation' mean here) and to capture opportunity costs and lifecycle maintenance estimates when scoring cost components.
Staff said the matrix is a guideline and that the tool is intended to start conversations; commissioners generally agreed to pilot the approach rather than adopt the framework as a final rule. BOSAC proposed follow-up steps including field tests, a tighter purpose statement and clearer language about when conservation concerns trigger exclusion versus mitigation.
