Did anyone make it to the meeting on Tuesday night and have any
information to share? I'm hoping to make it to the next meeting. Also
any word on when the Forest Service is going to have a 2nd meeting?

Rob
www.ultrarob.com
Blog: http://www.ultrarob.com/blog
Cycling and Outdoor Deals: http://www.ultrarob.com/deals


> -----Original Message-----
> From: medicine_wheel_PPR@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:medicine_wheel_PPR@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Yount
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:17 PM
> To: medicine_wheel_PPR@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Medicine Wheel - Reminder: Colorado Springs
> Utilities Watershed Access Policy - Public Meeting tonight @ 6pm
> Importance: Low
>
>
> Reminder - CSU Watershed Access Policy meeting tonight:
> Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007
> 6 to 8 p.m.
> Leon Young Service Center
> 1521 Hancock Expressway
>
> **********
> Colorado Springs Utilities is undergoing a public process to
> come up with a formal Watershed Access Policy. This policy
> will dictate where you will have access on CSU land.
>
> This impacts numerous parcels of land throughout the City and
> County, including , as with the Forest Service Management
> Plan above, the South Slope of Pikes Peak. In addition, it
> covers the North Slope (Catamount Reservoirs), Waldo Canyon,
> portions of the East Slope of Pikes Peaks (St.
> Marys Falls region among others), Rampart Range Reservoir,
> etc. So biking can be heavily impacted by any policy they enact.
>
> There was even a recent Gazette article on the issue on Dec.
> 12, 2006 (front page of the Metro section).
>
> The draft policy (the policy, along with other information,
> can be found at http://www.csu.org/about/projects/watershed/
> and basically lays out three zones (1-3) with varying levels
> of access. Zone 1 = no public access, Zone
> 2 = trail corridor access only, and Zone 3 = limited public access.
>
> At the first public meeting in November, a map was displayed
> (it is posted on the site shown above) in which the entire
> South and Eastern Slopes of Pikes Peak were Zone 1 (no
> access), including not only CSU land, but large swaths of
> National Forest land as well. There was essentially no Zone
> 2 (only a very small parcel directly West of the Pikes Peak summit).
>
> Scott Campbell of CSU has stated that the map was
> misunderstood and frustrating to those at the 1st meeting and
> that it is being revised for the 2nd public meeting. The
> revision will supposedly zone only CSU land (not National
> Forest) and he also has stated that the placing of Zone 2
> corridors is ongoing and that all "accepted use" trails on
> CSU property will have Zone
> 2 corridors around them. However, CSU does manage National
> Forest Land, so they still might restrict access on land
> coincident with the first map but just not tell you that
> during the public process because it is separate from the
> Watershed Access Plan (I'm not a cynic!).
>
> However, it is up to us to ensure that the trails we love are
> Zone 2 and not simply leave it up to CSU to define "accepted
> use." For example, he stated that official (numbered, like
> 701 for example) Forest Service Trails are "accepted use," as
> is Barr Trail, but that we shouldn't expect "social"
> trails to become Zone 2.
>
> Questions abound, such as how these Zones will be enforced
> (what if someone accidentally wanders into a Zone 1 region
> because they followed a "social"
> trail that they have no way of knowing isn't "accepted use"),
> why they don't start with most regions as Zone 3 (limited
> public access) and restrict the zoning on these regions as
> need/use/problems/etc. dictate (in other words, leave it open
> unless sufficient reason exists to restrict access, not the
> other way around as they plan to - they admitted that it was
> a good question, but they wouldn't answer it), how much
> protection do our reservoirs really need (if they are remote,
> or, at the opposite extreme heavily trafficked (lots of
> witnesses), one would assume that restrictions would be
> minimal), how vulnerable are the reservoirs (that you will
> never get an answer to), why not use this opportunity to see
> if there are additional trails that could be designated as
> "accepted use" and designated Zone 2 (I was explicitly told
> that this will not be happening - there is a process by which
> you can submit a trail to see if they can designate it as
> Zone 2, but I wouldn't hold my breath - after all, they
> define "accepted use" and it is likely not in their best
> interest to provide access to anything other than the bare
> minimum of "accepted use" trails), etc.
>
> They plan on presenting the final Plan to the Utilities Board
> (City Council) on April 21st, but at this point they don't
> plan on having a final map (they see the map and the Access
> Plan as two separate concerns). It has been stressed to them
> that they need to include the map in the Plan, but we'll see
> if that occurs. If it isn't included, then they might not
> have a public process for the map (for actual designation of
> Zone 2 trails that can be accessed versus inaccessible ones).
>
> So it's up to you - if you have a favorite trail that you'd
> like to protect or gain access to, try to make the meeting(s)
> or send in comments.
>
> The meetings are :
> Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007 & Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007
> 6 to 8 p.m.
> Leon Young Service Center
> 1521 Hancock Expressway
>
> Or email comments to both:
> Scott Campbell
> Water Services Division Manager
> scampbell@...
>
> &
>
> Lisa Rosintoski
> Issues Management Manager
> lrosintoski@...
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee.
Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you
have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
immediately.