FOREST SERVICE OVERSIGHT OF MANITOU INCLINE FLAWED

This is the text of an email I sent to the USFS and our local media today: Hello, I am of the opinion that the Manitou Incline will have to be closed permanently. The City of Colorado Springs is withholding information from the public and deceiving them. I am certain that there are numerous violations of the Special Use Permit, has the Forest Service notified the City? Why has no mention of problems with the Incline been made in the media? The Incline is in violation of several of the promises that were made during the public comment process which approved its legal opening. During the public comment process conducted by the Manitou Incline Task Force we were promsied an alternate route down from the Incline to alleviate the excessive numbers of Incline hikers coming down the Barr Trail. I only withdrew my opposition to the legal opening of the Incline because of this promise. The Incline has been open for five years already, and the process to approve such an alternate route down has not even begun. Why is that? Does the Forest Service believe that an alternate route is even feasible? If it is not, should the public not be informed? The Incline suffers from chronic mismanagment. During the public comment process it was determined that 75,000 people were using the Barr Trail to come down from the Incline each year. Had the public been told that they were going to allow 300,000 or 400,000 people to use the Barr Trail to come down from the Incline in a year the public would never have allowed to Incline to be legally opened. Do the current excessive numbers of people coming down the Barr Trail not offend the Special Use Permit? Many Incline users run down the Barr Trail. This enhances what I call the unnecessary pain and suffering of the Barr Trail hikers and backpackers. It is my opinion that Incline users have no need to run down the Barr Trail. and it both lessens my enjoyment of the trail, and makes hiking up the Barr Trail more difficult. In the Manitou Incline Site Development and Management Plan, on page v-11 it states that certain steps are required before the Incline would be legally opened. #10. Safety repairs to Incline including: debris and hazardous rebar removal and tie stabilization. Incline will be closed during work. No tie stabilization was done, and yet the Forest Service issued the Special Use Permit. Why was this work not completed before the legal opening of the Incline, and why did the Forest Service issue the Permit? Were all parties not required to obtain approval from the public before omitting any of the promised steps? Many people become obsessed with the Incline to an unnatural degree. Someone or something seems to be exerting an undue influence on Incline users. Are laws being broken or are citizens rights being violated by Incline management? My sources tell me that the Task Force was advised against trying to maintain the Incline because in the absence of the rails the ties would not remain stable. Constant maitenience would be required to prevent the ties from wiggling or coming completely loose. The public was never told this, but logic certainly supports it. I asked the City of Colorado Springs about this. Here are two questions that I posed to the Mayor and City Council. They avoided my questions and I received a response from Kurt Schroeder of Parks and Recreation. "I have heard that as long as the three sets of rails were on the ties the entire Incline was one piece, but as soon as the rails were removed the long term stability of the Incline was compromised." ANSWER - You are incorrect. The rails were removed and the incline operation ceased after storms caused significant washouts that compromised the integrity of the track. The rails did not ensure the stability of the incline. The incline owners then removed the rails and sold them for scrap. "Did the Manitou Incline Task consult with a professional engineering firm about the long term stability of the Incline? Did the City do so before assuming responsibility for the maintenance of the incline? What do the consultant's analysis say about these issues?" ANSWER - The Task Force did not, that was not their role. The City did however. Significant engineering was conducted prior to the final design being completed. The analysis said that the incline was unstable and recommended repairs that would make it stable which the City then instituted. Mr Schroeder clearly made an incorrect statement when he says that the Task Force did not consult with a professional engineering firm about the long term stability of the Incline. This “mistake” is a huge red flag. The Forest Service had two representatives on the Task Force. Does the Forest Serice have a copy of the engineering reports obtained by the Task Force, and if so, what do they say? If the Task Force made a mistake or inadvertently omitted important information during the public comment process, either the public must now be informed, or the Incline must now be closed. Here are two more questions and answers from the same email: Are any ties on the Incline loose today? - No. Does the Incline meet the safety standards required by the Special Use Permit today? - Yes Does the Forest Service agree with those two statements? I have been told that some ties on the middle section of the Incline are already beginning to move some again. What do Forest Service inspections reveal? What environmental analysis were required before the work on the upper section of the Incline was performed. That land is owned by the Forest Service, were stricter standards required, and if so were they fulfilled? Thank you, Carl Strow