We have two ways to have our voices heard by the Parks Advisory Board: 1. The petition. Let's double it! That will make a statement for sure. If every person gets just one other person to sign, we can double it this weekend. That will send a strong message. Link to petition is easy to find on the Save Cheyenne Home Page. www.savecheyenne.org. Email it -- share it on social media! 2. Write that email. It matters and is free and takes just a minute to do! Thanks to all who have taken the time to email the Parks Advisory Board in advance of their vote on the NCC Master Plan on 5/10. This is so important. Please take the time to send even just a vote no and copy all we suggest for transparency and accountability. 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. 7. The Stream in S. Cheyenne Canon. The NCC cites the stream being dry as a reason to justify potentially limiting access or moving it. We have heard there is a pump in 7 Falls which recirculates water and, naturally, could cause the downstream to be drier than it would if natural, unimpeded flow was allowed. We asked about this with no reply. We would like to know is this true, and, if so, is there an agreement between the City and the Broadmoor which allows this? What are the levels allowed to impound the water and for how long? What independent body monitors those levels of water impoundment? Here is a link to the online document for ideas/inspiration. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CphxbUjKGQmUQxX7AAYmCdtfHvupVxey3G4XGuL6buo/edit?usp=sharing Below is another citizen email for inspiration (note: many or short and just "vote no" -- but if you want to learn more, here is a more detailed one). Public Comments on NCC Master Plan Kathy Meinig Dear Parks Advisory Board, I notice that both the endorsements from FCC and approval from Parks Advisory Board are already included in the acknowledgement section of this "draft", with blank lines for the dates to be filled in. Is this merely part of a standard draft? I will submit my comments anyway, in the hopes that the inclusion of this language is not an indication that this is a done deal. The plan itself is huge - 483 pages with appendices. By comparison, the master plan currently in use for the Grand Canon National Park is 90 pages, including appendices. I find the verbiage in this plan to be ambiguous and vague and although the "toolbox" language was removed, the items previously in the toolbox are still in the plan, albeit under different headings. Toolbox # 8 Consider Park Entrance: The original toolbox objectives for park entry remain unchanged on page 58. This presumably retains the possibility of the restructuring of the south canon loop, including shutting the north half to the public and allowing only commercial buses on the other half. The plan recommends more public process and PAB approval, however, the "high profile resource restoration projects include projects encompassing...all or part of South Cañon" is listed as a "high priority initial project" on page 144. Since this restoration may include road closure, will the public process be started immediately after approval of this master plan for this entrance decision? Toolbox #3 Pullouts: I suspect that the criteria now listed on page 68 for retaining or removing pullouts will achieve the same results and original plan to reduce pullouts by 70%. That is a shame, since I firmly believe that not every pullout has to connect to a trail to provide respite, relaxation, or recreation for individuals or families, especially those with children in tow. Toolbox #7 Shuttle: The shuttle is still in the plan. It is referred to on page 58, "not preclude the possible need for a future Park Shuttle facility", and again on page 69, "Park shuttles to reduce private vehicles in the Park and the accompanying infrastructure modifications for Park shuttles that provide accommodations for Park users, multiple bikes, dogs and persons with disabilities". Public process: While "topic-focused public involvement process" is indeed listed as a requirement before any minor amendment to the Master Plan is made, this is walked back by the statement that , "While the public process participants’ input guides Master Plan recommendations, concerns about traffic, parking congestion, and their impacts to natural resources and visitor experience persist. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is responsible for and committed to addressing these concerns to protect North Cheyenne Canon for this and future generations." page 66. Also, the statement that, "Parks Director can promulgate park rules – not every rule and regulation is found in City Code. City of Colorado Springs" (page 43) is a worrisome addition to the Master Plan as it seems to give Parks basically unlimited power to add anything it wants. Taking these comments into consideration, I find that the recommendation for public process before implementing shuttles or park entrance has no teeth. Streams: The damage to the stream bed of South Cheyenne Canon is blamed on " trampling along stream banks" on page 34 but it also references the "the weir and in stream diversions". The definition of a weir is "a low dam built across a stream or river to raise the level of water upstream or to regulate its flow". I assume that this weir and the "in stream diversion" refers to the fact that the water that used to be in this stream is now used for 7 Falls, to the detriment of the downstream system. This has caused the South Cheyenne Canon creek bed to be dry for most of the last 3 1/2 years and may be the source of damage to the aquatic and riparian habitat. Page 105 notes that "Critical resilient creek access locations include: South Cañon Picnic Area". I hope that maintaining water in the creek is considered to be a priority, and that the fact that these creek beds are dry is not used as justification for moving the creek or that damage to this stream bed is not used as justification for closing down South Canon Road to public traffic. Parking: Parking volume is listed more than once as a concern, however page 50 states, " Although some trailhead and parking lots are at capacity seasonally and on weekends, this is generally not observed as an every-day condition". Page 50 also states, "Budget and timing prevented a qualitative parking survey to assess the parking use patterns and potential parking conditions as part of this study." I find it difficult to make decisions about traffic or parking with no data. Funding, tourism, and culture: Regarding the "tourism and branding" (page 2) of our parks- Included in this plan is funding to "hire staff to create an interpretative IMP", social media, digital concepts, mobile app, and "programming with the possibility of a full time staff addition". I would have liked to have seen some funding strategies or estimates for these additions to the plan. " Implementation as funding allows" , is not very specific, although colors and types of benches are planned with excruciating detail. The funding listed on page 48 is sufficiently vague as to give no discernible recommendations whatsoever. The only given is that Parks does not intent to use state or federal funding since that will absolve Parks from complying with any NHPA regulations. Page 136, "It should be noted that without a state or federal nexus (e.g., funding or permitting), future projects will not legally require compliance with the Colorado State Register Act or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended 1966, NHPA). Until the involvement of a state or federal nexus, all cultural resource management is considered due diligence and best practices. As a result, the City is not obligated to complete cultural resource investigations or consultation on project effects with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer." Does this mean that Parks can close anything, build anything, or do anything it wants to? Funding sources remain a mystery since no state or national monies will be used. Funding sources also impacts NRHP : Page 38 states, "The department must comply with federal and state regulations such as National Register of Historic Places, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)...", however, page 101 states that ,"although the entirety of North Cheyenne Cañon Park is a NRHP listed historic district, the nomination does not provide any special protections for contributing features unless a state or federal agency is involved in a proposed undertaking" . One more note regarding funding: Those of us that have followed this saga from the beginning remember how Parks cried Poor to justify giving Strawberry away. To see these expensive projects and hiring plans is just confusing to me. Thank you for your consideration, Kathy Meinig