Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

USFS Bear Creek Watershed Assessment - Colorado Springs

6K views 27 replies 12 participants last post by  zrm 
#1 ·
Doug Bursnall posted this on the Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates Facebook page:

The U.S. Forest Service is holding an open house on their proposal for trails and access in the Bear Creek watershed. The open house is Thursday, April 4, 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm, at the Leon Young Service Center for CS Utilities, Pikes Peak Room, 1521 Hancock Expressway.

The proposal would affect all user groups, hikers, bikers, equestrians, and motorized users. The Forest Service is seeking comments from all users.

The proposed changes are in response to the issues surrounding the greenback cutthroat trout in Bear Creek. Under the proposal, the Forest Service would close a total of 6.4 miles of trails and re-route some of these by constructing 2.9 miles of new trails. Trails affected by closures include trails 666, 667, 668, 701, 720A and 622A. Theses closures would be to all users. The proposal also converts 0.6 miles of non-motorized trail on Seven Bridges, 622, to motorized use.

The current ban prohibiting camping and campfires in the watershed would become long-term, and access would be restricted to on-route only.

As you can see, these changes would affect all trail users. The Forest Service wants your comments. Please try to attend the open house, 4 to 9 pm, Thurs, April 4.
It's an open house, so you can stop by, learn more, and provide your thoughts anytime in the 5 hours, and stay as short or as long as you want.

You can find the assessment, maps of current trails and the proposed system, and other information on the USFS web site at:
Pike and San Isabel National Forests Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands - Home
Links for the documents and maps are at the bottom of that page.

You can also go to the USFS web page for the Pike and San Isabel Forests, scroll to the bottom, and find the link for the Bear Creek Watershed Assessment

My note: I have attached two maps - one is the current setup, and the other is the proposed one, which is pretty darn drastic (Jones Park would be gone for all users)

Blue Green Yellow Text Colorfulness
Blue Green Yellow Colorfulness Text
 
See less See more
2
#9 · (Edited)
Mind blowing....if the USFS is so concerned about erosion and fabricated wild life and their Eco systems they probably should focus their attention to the Waldo Canyon area....??
It's sequestration. The USFS can't afford to fight the litigation from the CBD. Just wait... it's coming. Salazar will let us know. lol :D

Seriously. Damn shame. That's the South Slope watershed, Ring the Peak, Waldo/Rampart, Cheyenne Mtn top and now Jones Park. All closed indefinitely.

Imagine how crowded Buckhorn/Captain Jacks/Section 16 will be this summer.
Time to put the house up for sale...
 
#10 ·
I've known those fish were there for a long time now. Each time I passed them there was no shortage of MTB tracks and moto tracks as well. They are pretty hearty. Having said that, I am an avid fly fisherman too and they are very rare (particularly on this side of the Divide and so close to the big city). I would support finding a way to keep them safe if the USFS accommodated the trails as I ride RTP multiple times each year. Tough call.
 
#11 · (Edited)
My note: I have attached two maps - one is the current setup, and the other is the proposed one, which is pretty darn drastic (Jones Park would be gone for all users)

View attachment 782412 View attachment 782413
I notice that on the original map key it describes the trails as being open year round vs. the new map shows the trails as being open seasonally to multi-use... WTH, is this correct?
 
#14 ·
Funny, the bottom of Bear Creek would remain open from the bridge to Captian Jacks down to the exit on high drive. Aren't there fish in that part of the creek? I seen 'em. Above that, however, on 666 would close to all use. If just the next section could remain open, at least we could preserve the Pipeline route pretty much intact. Otherwise, we lose two ecellent, long downhill routes.

I'm also not sure why the proposal to close the area to dispersed camping. If I'm adequate distance away from any water source, am I still a sediment-in-the-creek threat?

I'll be at the open house.
 
#15 ·
Funny, the bottom of Bear Creek would remain open from the bridge to Captian Jacks down to the exit on high drive. Aren't there fish in that part of the creek? I seen 'em. Above that, however, on 666 would close to all use. If just the next section could remain open, at least we could preserve the Pipeline route pretty much intact. Otherwise, we lose two ecellent, long downhill routes.

I'm also not sure why the proposal to close the area to dispersed camping. If I'm adequate distance away from any water source, am I still a sediment-in-the-creek threat?

I'll be at the open house.
Actually, they're making a re-route to 666, the new open section of 666 starts about a 1/3 of the way down past the existing bridge at the intersection of 666/667.
 
#16 ·
So it looks like that reroute picks up about where the Buckhorn climb ends and the Jack's descent begins, but routes down from the saddle rather than up the rest of Upper Jack's--am I reading that right?

Of course the remaining concern is that they don't close the existing routes before the new routes are in place. New routes cost money which the USFS is short on right now and closures can to into place without additional expenditure. I can see the closure going into effect in the name of the fish, but the new route being delayed, if built at all.
 
#20 ·
I can't fault you for being pessimistic -- getting any trail done around here on CSU or federal land seems almost sisyphean.

I don't expect to see anything new on Pikes Peak in the near future, if ever. Right now the USFS doesn't want any new human disturbance anywhere. Read this for their justification http://video.onset.freedom.com/colgazette/kzfquj-pikespeakbighornsheeptrailissue.doc

As you well know, CSU doesn't want anybody on any of their property and they only allow access after getting constant political pressure. Even when they relent they find ways to delay and prevent access.

In any case, hopefully people will show up at the Bear Creek meeting and make it known that recreational access is important.
 
#21 · (Edited)
As you well know, CSU doesn't want anybody on any of their property and they only allow access after getting constant political pressure. Even when they relent they find ways to delay and prevent access.
You're exactly right.
CSU's influence over our local governments decisions is quite concerning. CSU is a public agency only when it's convenient to them. The rest of the time the are elbows and assh@les. :eek:

And then, as I've been told... the Broadmoor influences CSU.

The Cog RR is owned by the Broadmoor and they don't want tourists riding the train to see people hiking/camping/fishing/riding/etc... on the South Slope. That was part of the reason for the closure.

Then you have the Broadmoor Stables on the backside of Cheyenne Mtn. They may not like MTB's/Motos sharing the same trails with their customers.

As a large property owner on the South Slope and Cheyenne Mtn, the Broadmoor has senior water rights and sells water from the South Slope to CSU. That's why the Broadmoor can water their golf courses so heavily, they own the water they use, and sell the excess to the City.

I'm not saying the above is true... but I have been told that this is how the Broadmoor influences CSU's decisions on public access to Pikes Peak. I really have nothing to back it up except hearsay though. Maybe someone else knows better?

EDIT: Don't forget the fish in Bear Creek were stocked by a Broadmoor caretaker who wanted to increase fishing opportunities in that area.

EDIT 2: It all starts to make sense.

Broadmoor plans rustic retreat atop Cheyenne Mountain | broadmoor, retreat, rustic - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

"The Broadmoor hotel in Colorado Springs is adding a second rustic retreat - planning to build an 8,000-square-foot lodge and up to 20 cabins on top of Cheyenne Mountain where hotel founder Spencer Penrose's historic lodge once stood."
"Getting to Cloud Camp could be an adventure by itself. Hotel employees will drive guests by jeep or other vehicle up the Cheyenne Mountain Highway, which was built by Penrose and leads to the summit. It's a 25-minute ride - a circuitous route in which the road zig-zags about 20 times before reaching the top.
Guests also can hike to the top along the road or even ride mules that will be guided by Broadmoor employees. A dozen picnic areas are being established along the road for guests who aren't traveling by car."
 
#27 ·
I work with Friends of the Peak, and we have been trying to get the Forest Service to make some kind of commitment for when they will reopen that area. So far, the best we have gotten is "We need to look into that." So, if you go to the Bear Creek open house, that may be a good time to casually bring up When is Severy Creek going to reopen? Is Bear Creek going to end up the same way, closed indefinitely? :skep:
 
#28 ·
Yeah, that's what I was going to say. The plan shouldn't be to just post a closed sign on the trail and hope that people will respect it. The strategy is to "decommission" the trails as soon as resources are available. That means rip, re-grade, obscure, and reseed. I've helped with a bit a trail obliteration/rehab and when done properly you can hardly tell there was a trail there.

As far as enforcement goes each ranger district is different as to what they have for LEOs. There's usually one dedicated LEO for a district although sometimes one LEO has to be split between two. There are usually a few other on the ground, dispersed rec rangers who have the authority to write tickets but don't have the authority to arrest or pack weapons.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top