I recently ran across a copy of the following letter by a guy I know and respect, Mark Swan, that I wanted to share here:
**Danger of wildfire precludes public access
As a crew boss on a local wildland fire crew, I have responded to wildland fires in the vicinity of the South Slope. Access to the South Slope takes about one-and-a-half to two hours on a good day. To put any significant firefighting resources on the South Slope to fight a major fire would take days. During the height of the fire season, a wildland fire has to be several thousand acres in size before national resources are committed. As we have seen from past fires such as the Hayman in 2002 and the Mato Vega in 2006, wildfires can become extremely intense, consuming several thousand acres in just a few hours.
The South Slope is particularly vulnerable to fire because of its location and topography. If we add the human element by allowing public access, the risk becomes unacceptable.
The Denver Water Board is having problems dealing with Hayman- Fire-generated silt in its Cheesman Reservoir ("Mud, ash sliding into Cheesman," Metro, Nov. 25). And this is five years after the fire was extinguished. This contamination of our water sources causes significant operational problems in water treatment and significantly increases treatment costs. Even with the added treatment processes, water quality suffers; it is still safe to drink, it just "tastes funny."
Critics of the Colorado Springs Utilities' plans for the South Slope point to other watersheds that are open to the public. Most, if not all, of these areas do not have the access problems nor the vulnerability to fire the South Slope has.
I enjoy hiking, backpacking, hunting and fishing in Colorado's wild spaces as much as anyone. But I also enjoy clean, uncontaminated, fresh water to drink.
Springs Utilities is taking the reasonable and prudent course in maintaining its policy regarding public access on the South Slope.
Mark Swan
Colorado Springs
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Colorado Springs Utilites: Watershed Access Considerations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
And when this letter was originally published in the Gazette, I responded. This is what I wrote...
Mark Swan's comments regarding the increased risk of wildfire to the South Slope watershed if opened to legal use ("Danger of wildfire precludes public access") are wrong for three reasons.
First, denying legal access does nothing to stop the 50% of Western wildland fires that are caused by lightning, but it does reduce the number of potential human spotters who might spot early onset fires. Second, the Hayman Fire started more than 10 miles from Cheeseman Reservoir and traveled 19 linear miles in one day. By comparison, downtown Manitou Springs is less than 4 miles from Big Tooth Reservoir and the popular Seven Falls area is only 6.5 miles from Lake Moraine. Open or closed, the risk of human caused wildland fire on the South Slope has always been there and granting legal access does nothing to change this.
Third and most importantly, the law breaking human element has been on the South Slope for generations. Trespassers and poachers routinely hop South Slope fences to hike and fish the reservoirs, as evidenced by the abundant fishing wastes and litter (including cigarette butts) that have been found on the lakeshores. The only thing missing from the South Slope are the eyes, ears and helping hands of the law abiding public that could actually help to reduce this abuse. Don't buy into the fear, Colorado Springs. There absolutely is no proof that granting limited non-motorized access to the South Slope watershed will increase the risk of wildland fire on the South Slope. Opening the North Slope was a huge success. Fourteen years later, it's time to repeat that success on the South Slope.
Post a Comment