Undesignated Trails, Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw

September 1, 2006

To: Don D’Amico and Joe Mantione

Subject: Undesignated Trails, Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Draft Trail Study Area Plan additions, dated August 22, 2006

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

We have reviewed the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department’s additional materials concerning undesignated trails for the draft Eldorado Mountain/ Doudy Draw Trail Study Area (EM/DD TSA) Plan and would like to add the following comments to our previous submission:

For Natural Areas the Visitor Master Plan envisions creating attractive quality trails as the primary tool to focus visitor travel and keep most visitors on the designated trail system.

Visitor created undesignated trails point out unrealized visitor desires for official OS accesses. They illustrate where people want to go and how they want to get there. The EMDD TSA proposes closing and restoring many undesignated trails.

When alternate, high quality designated trails exist, redundant or damaging social trails can be successfully reclaimed. When alternate designated trails do not exist, attempts to eliminate undesignated trails will be unsuccessful and will, in fact, do additional damage by leading to the creation of new undesignated trails to replace the closed ones.



The trail system envisioned by the present EMDD TSA draft plan is a major improvement over the status quo, but still lacks a few alignments necessary for success:

1) Flatirons Vista Mesa Rim Trail (Map 2 Location 3 & Map 3 Trails 36, 46,47,49)
The northern loop trail on the Flatirons Vista Plateau and the associated access trail via the Matterhorn underpass is the primary missing component.
The draft proposes seasonal closures for this area, restoration of the existing undesignated trails, and various other actions to reduce visitation. The draft also proposes to allow continued use of the Matterhorn underpass without any trail designation and proposes to review the area access requirements at some future time.
The proposals to restore the undesignated trails while designating the use of the underpass and scheduling future studies are contradictory in nature and contrary to the Natural Area philosophy of managing visitor travel by designating appropriate trails.

Designating the Flatirons Vista Mesa Rim Trail and requiring on-trail travel during the seasonal closures would eliminate these issues, improve the likelihood of the success of the plan, and best protect the area.

2) Connection to South Boulder Creek trails (Map 2 Location 2 & Map 3 Trails 49, 50, & 52) The draft proposes deferring any decision on a trail connection from this TSA to the South Boulder Creek trails until the Shanahan/South Mesa TSA planning process. The draft also proposes restoring the existing undesignated trails that might provide such a connection. These trails should be retained until the decision about the South Boulder Creek trails connection is made.

3) Lower Doudy Draw Loop Trail (Map 2 Location 1 & & Map 3 Trails 65 & 66)
There is an existing loop of undesignated trails in this area. The draft proposes restoration of these undesignated trails without providing any alternative designated trails in the area. We have previously argued for a designated trail loop in this area. At the least, a loop of the undesignated trails should be retained to avoid the creation of additional undesignated trails in the area.

4) Roads designated as trails
Several of the designated "trails" in the draft plan are, in fact, roads (e.g., the old farm road from the Flatirons Vista trailhead to the old railroad grade and the Denver Water Canal maintenance road). Many visitors do not consider roads to provide quality experiences. As a result undesignated trails are often created paralleling the road alignments. The Boulder Valley Ranch roads and the Marshall Mesa roads are major examples of this situation.

Attempts to prevent or restore such parallel, undesignated trails within the EMDD TSA will be unsuccessful. A wiser approach is to incorporate these undesignated trails as part of the trail system, and to actively improve the visitor experience along the road corridors by constructing sustainable parallel trails as necessary to avoid the future creation of undesirable undesignated trails.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft plan and hope for the success of the plan and the TSA process.

Sincerely,

Boulder Area Trails Coalition Board of Directors

Cc: Mike Patton

Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Final Draft TSA Plan

Eldorado Mountain/Doudy Draw Final Draft TSA Plan

Boulder Outdoor Coalition

Note: This post was written as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.
The language in the draft TSA Plan gives the impression that many trails are being added to a pristine area. This would be a dramatic and factual misrepresentation. This area has seen continuous development activity for almost a century, including many roads to service mining and logging activities. The proposed Plan will reduce, not increase, human access in this Area, and the description should reflect this fact.



The big view off the edge of the Mesa. Surely, they could have moved it out from beneath the power line.

A few new trails will be created, while far more existing trails will be eliminated. The Plan will decrease both mileage and number of trails. Out of 35 trail miles presently in use, only 16 miles are designated. 19 existing trail miles will be eliminated, while only 8.7 miles of new trail are designated.

The visitor access restrictions go well beyond the "least restrictive" policy as required by the Visitor Master Plan.

Specific Items of Concern:

• If all the proposed designated trails are actually built, the plan is minimally acceptable
  6 of 11 BOC trail recommendations were rejected (3) or deferred for further study (3).
• Of the 5 new trails included, the most significant (Fowler to Doudy Draw and Springbrook Loop) are under continuing attack. (If these are removed from TSA plan, the majority of the recreational organizations will reject it.)
• Visitor access restrictions significantly beyond the "least restrictive" required by the VMP
• Bikes and dogs are excluded from the HCA
• Equestrians are excluded from the permit process in the HCA
• Dogs are required to be on trail and on leash in the Springbrook NA
• Equestrians are required to be on trail in the Springbrook NA
• New, large-area seasonal closures are proposed in the Community Ditch and Flatirons Vista NA
• Inappropriate and/or premature undesignated trail closures
• Undesignated trails would be closed prior to the construction of corresponding designated trails
• All undesignated trails would be closed in "study" areas and other areas without any designated trails
• Quality of visitor experiences marginal
• The Plan would deliberately exclude access to desirable view points:
  • Lindsay Pond
  • Flatirons Vista overlooks
• A significant portion of the designated alignments (7.4 miles) are roads, not trails
  • Community Ditch access road
  • Denver Water access road
  • Defunct railroad grade
  • Flatirons Vista & Doudy Draw farm roads

A New Approach to Open Space

Bill Briggs
September 4, 2004

Note: This post was written prior to the creation of this blog and as part of an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

Reacting to the threat of a high-rise hotel on Enchanted Mesa overlooking Boulder in the early 1960s, a group of visionary citizens launched a campaign that resulted in the most magnificent city park in the world. Forty years later, all of us are the beneficiaries of 40,000-plus acres of spectacular prairies, mesas and mountains that have been set aside for preservation and recreation.

Most of us are grateful on a nearly daily basis for this remarkable legacy. But whether you hike, run, picnic, climb, bike, hang-glide, watch birds, or ride horses in Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks, the way you use these lands could change by the end of the year. The OSMP Visitor Master Plan reflects a heroic five-year effort in which the OSMP staff gathered research, conducted surveys, and worked with user groups. The staff deserves our appreciation for producing a document that is now available for public discussion.

The heart of the VMP is a plan for four different types of management areas, each with a different set of rules and allowed uses. The two most highly restricted areas (Habitat Conservation Areas and Natural Areas) would be more restricted to use as current open space; these areas would account for roughly 80 percent of OSMP lands. A third type of area (Recreation) appears to describe the current use of most existing open space and accounts for 9 percent of the land. The remaining 9 percent of the land is designated Agricultural. It takes no reading between the lines to see that the VMP is a testament to limited use and increased regulation.

Over half of the respondents to a recent survey cited recreation as the primary purpose of OSMP lands. But with an estimated 3.5 million visitors per year (more than most national parks), even the most ardent users do not want OSMP to become a free-for-all amusement park. At the same time, nearly half of the respondents to that survey ranked protecting habitat for wildlife as the top management priority for OSMP. But even the most vocal conservationists understand the impracticality of turning OSMP into a museum that visitors view from a distance. With this breadth in public opinion, the VMP cannot satisfy everyone. However, it is imperative that in its final form, the VMP strike a fair balance and accommodate the users who are the real champions of open space and have voted three times to tax themselves for the sake of open space. Here are some suggestions for giving users undiminished access to their land and a larger stake in its preservation:

1. Implicit in the VMP is a belief that the public cannot be trusted to care for its land and must be regulated by boundaries and restrictions. Local users love the OSMP legacy, they want today's open-space experiences preserved for future residents and visitors, and they can be trusted to exercise stewardship. For example, raptor closures in the Flatirons have had a high level of compliance and show that the public can be trusted. The VMP should limit impact on the land, but not use of the land.
2. The average cost of OSMP purchases in the last three years has increased from roughly $6,000 per acre to almost $16,000 per acre. In 2004 a 10-acre parcel was purchased for $900,000. Roughly 21 percent of this year's OSMP budget is set aside for land acquisition, while 9 percent is devoted to trail maintenance (another 49 percent goes to debt service on past purchases). The idea of stockpiling land made sense for 40 years, but now land is scarce and expensive. Funds must be shifted from acquisition to maintenance, services, education, and enforcement.
3. A reasonable concern of OSMP staff is the proliferation of social trails and the increase in off-trail hiking. The best explanation is fairly evident: By one estimate, in the time that open space holdings have doubled, fewer than 10 miles of new trails have been built! Some existing undesignated trails need to be maintained and made official. New trails need to be built to give access to popular areas. Not surprisingly, social trails and off-trail use will decrease as a result.
4. Any version of the VMP will require additional OSMP staff in the field, and future budgets should support a significant increase in staff. However, these jobs will be difficult with a raft of new unenforceable rules. For example, implementing the various rules of the patchwork management plan in the current VMP is bound to be impossible. Similarly, a proposed permit system will collapse under its own weight and incur unnecessary costs. And user fees should not be introduced: They will be expensive to implement and access to Boulder public lands must not be an economic entitlement.
5. OSMP has a network of volunteers that must be expanded. Volunteer work gives open space users an additional commitment to the land. OSMP also must be open to innovative projects. Last fall, a running event on Mt. Sanitas, in which participants contributed trail work, seemed like a win-win idea. Yet, the proposal was never enthusiastically endorsed and another such event seems unlikely.

In the 1960s, Boulder launched a visionary campaign to purchase its surrounding lands. Forty years later, it faces an unprecedented challenge in balancing preservation and use of those lands. The VMP is a laudable start to meeting this challenge. However, with its seemingly arbitrary restrictions, the current plan will not be embraced by the owners and users unless it provides open, but sensible, access to the land. Once again Boulder must break trail and find creative solutions. And once again, vision, boldness and trust will be needed.

Bill Briggs teaches at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Home Page