TIME TO SPEAK UP! SEND YOUR EMAIL. If you only have 2 seconds to spare and not enough bandwidth to understand all the details, then please send a simple email to the Parks Advisory Board that says, "Vote No to the North Cheyenne Cañon Master Plan". THIS MATTERS A WHOLE BUNCH! Below you can find the emails to send it to, and all eyes need to see it for transparency. Also, the Friends of Cheyenne Cañon is looking for feedback as well. So, please email them your feedback at: friendsofcheyennecanon@gmail.com EVERYONE NEEDS TO STEP UP THIS TIME. IT IS OUR ONLY HOPE. In a nutshell, everything remains in this plan. It has merely been redefined or reworded to make it appear less definitive. Many of the decisions can be made administratively. The Parks Department needs to start over. Stunningly, this plan and appendices is 483 pages long which is utterly absurd. To give context, the Master Plans for Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Chautauqua, Rocky Mountain, to name a few are 41-76 pages long INCLUDING appendices. None of these plans have marketing plans or plans to hire marketing or tech staff to create virtual reality tours and apps. This plan is so full of unnecessary and confusing as well as contradictory material, it makes it a chore for any person to digest it. Additionally, parks like the Grand Canyon, provide cost estimates for all the pieces of their plans including the source of funding. While people were told when asked about specific costs and funding like the paving of Gold Camp Road which is easily $2,000,000, that they did not know and much of this cannot be funded today, the plan asserts funding is there which we find incredible given the City just gave away 1/3 of the original park, Strawberry Fields, lamenting costs. This is a vague, confusing plan with items which cost millions and millions to implement. The plan also limits public access with closures and the implementation of fees and adds pollution and congestion to an otherwise serene, lovely park. The trails are great although we believe Chamberlain should cut across the Cutler Mesa as that is a stunning hike, but that is about it. This plan takes a park that has been used for generations to freely recreate, picnic, hike, bike and climb and turns it into a commercial theme park with hanging bridges, virtual reality tour, and what appears to be exaggerated historical claims to commercialize the experience. The park should remain natural and open to all and free from the pollution and congestion buses, road closures, pull out closures and marketing programs add to a park which is repeatedly claimed to be "loved to death". If a perceived problem is identified, then the process should be to do the studies (environmental, traffic, carrying capacity) to confirm and justify an action and then open it up for public scrutiny in open mic forum meetings so all comments can be heard -- and then a vote on each major item. We certainly should not accept a plan which has zero costs estimates for many items which will cost millions and millions of dollars. And, to the claim that public involvement will be granted in those cases, then what is the big deal to leaving them out and going through the process the proper way. Studies first to justify and confirm a need, and then a public process, and then inclusion or implementation? This time your email should be addressed to the Parks Advisory Board as they will be the ones making a decision. Note when you send it: Please forward this to the Parks Advisory Board Members. Email: cmehew@springsgov.com and for transparency, cc: jsuthers@springsgov.com, NCCMasterPlan@springsgov.com, AllCouncil@springsgov.com, savecheyennemountain@gmail.com, zubeck@csindy.com, krdonews@krdo.com, mike.rausch@krdo.com, news@kktv.com, lmartin@kktv.com, news@koaa.com, kduffy@koaa.com, news@fox21news.com, jcole@kxrm.com, jpaul@denverpost.com, info@krcc.com, jim.alexee@sierraclub.org, friendsofcheyennecanon@gmail.com Here is a quick summary of the most objectionable points most: 1. Buses - they pollute and will overcrowd canyon. Studies need to be done (environmental, traffic and carrying capacity of park) first, and THEN a public process including open mic discussions. 2. Closing pull outs. They are natural dispersement of cars and people throughout canyon, and for some people their only way to enjoy park. 3. Closing roads - we should not be closing roads for buses to 7 Falls in a high fire risk area and further congesting traffic and excluding low income, minority families from picnicking where they have for generations. 4. Park Fees - taxes pay for parks. Park fees exclude classes of people from recreating in the park. 5. Paving Gold Camp - there is no need, and it is far too expensive and item to leave to a future administrative decision without studies to justify need and cost estimates. 6. Marketing - North Cheyenne Canyon is in all the tour books and online sites. We do not need to promote it more creating further degradation of trails and visitor park experience. Here is a link to the online document for ideas/inspiration. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CphxbUjKGQmUQxX7AAYmCdtfHvupVxey3G4XGuL6buo/edit?usp=sharing We have printed Save Cheyenne President Kent Obee's email below. Dear Parks Advisory Board Members -- I write one more time to address what I believe are still both serious deficiencies and areas of overreach remaining in the North Cheyenne Canyon master plan on which your are scheduled to vote in your May 10th meeting. I personally believe this vote should be delayed for at least another month. At 166 pages plus 317 pages of appendices (online version), the plan is truly daunting -- and, for starters, I think it simply has too much in it. Other parks master plans I have reviewed over the years were rarely even half this long. This current NCC plan, even in this latest iteration, tries to do too much -- and is all over the place. All of you have my sympathy as you attempt to digest it and come to an informed judgment about whether to approve it or not. Good luck. I was initially heartened by the elimination of the "toolbox" in this final version. As I previously commented, I believed the toolbox was basically a backhanded way of slipping controversial or unpopular items into the plan. I had also strongly concurred with the recommendation of the Friends of Cheyenne Canyon that toolbox items 3, 6-8 be dropped altogether. Thus, I was disappointed to see that these four items are still alive and well in the updated plan. Yes, I understand that the fate of the "pullouts" will be determined by "criteria," but I expect the result will be largely the same. Likewise I am not reassured that the final three toolbox items (Gold Camp Road paving, shuttles, and "Consider Park Entrance," i.e., reconfigure the South Canyon loop) will require more public process and a "minor" amendment to the plan for implementation. This is too much like the Strawberry Fields land swap -- make a decision, have a "public process," and then implement the decision. I continue to believe they should be dropped altogether. (Footnote: Over 4,600 individuals have now signed the Change.org "no shuttles in NCCP" petition. Compare this figure with the 350 "distinct individuals" who participated in the master plan public meetings -- and a majority of these people didn't want shuttles either.) A further comment on the South Canyon loop and the roadside picnic sites: Since the plan draft first emerged, I have paid more attention to this area and have included it in many of my walks in the canyon. My own empirical observation -- particularly as the weather has gotten nicer -- is that it remains heavily used by both minority and what I suspect are lower income elements of our community. And, no, I haven't seen any "shenanigans." The plan does make note of the state of the south creek (page 34) and the fact that is is dry for months at a time -- a condition which itself is a serious degradation. What isn't made clear -- and should be addressed -- is that much of this dry-up is caused by Seven Falls impounding of the water to recirculate it again and again over their falls. It may be good for them, but it is bad for the creek. "Good try" to plan's authors on changing the "marketing" section of the plan into a "strategic information" section (page 87). It still walks and quacks like a duck. And does our underfunded Parks Department have the resources to "hire experts to create such a plan?" Another raid on TOPS? I personally believe that Matt Mayberry and his competent staff are more than up to task of coming up with the historical and other NCC-related information to enhance the visitor experience. Do we really have to "build the NCCP brand" (page 88)? To end on a somewhat more positive note, I do believe the plan does have many good elements -- particularly in the area of expanding the trail system. I remain sorry that the Chamberlain Trail does not cross the Mount Cutler Mesa and worry that there are places where trying to run a trail up the floor of the canyon to Helen Hunt Falls may be just too destructive. Thank you for consideration of these comments -- and, again, good luck in your deliberations. Kent