TRAILS MAP

The County Trails Map is intended to display three types of trails: proposed regional trails, existing regional trails, and existing trails on County Open Space. Regional trails are those paths, courses, and routes that allow users to connect and link to other trails, trail systems or neighborhoods. Regional trails allow recreationists the opportunity to have longer trail experiences and to use trails to access public lands which often have their own internal trail system. Examples of regional trails include such varied routes as the Sourdough Trail (which links Peaceful Valley, Beaver Reservoir, Brainard Lake, and Rainbow Lakes Road), the East Boulder Trail (connecting Arapahoe Road, Valmont Road, and Heatherwood Notch), and the Coal Creek Trail. While regional trails are shown on the map regardless of which agency or organization manages or maintains them, the map is not intended to show all the trails in the County. The Trails Map is included in the County Comprehensive Plan for the purposes of displaying and planning a County-wide network of trails and for accommodating and considering these routes in planning activities.

A Conceptual Trail Alignment is a route where the general location has already been identified, usually alongside a landscape feature such as a stream or road--for example, the proposed trail along the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Supply Canal. A Conceptual Trail Corridor is a more general course that usually links specific destinations, but no landscape feature or specific location has been determined for the trail itself. Corridors are depicted on the map with a wider symbol in order to portray their inexact location. While a few Conceptual Trail Alignments and Corridors are shown across land that is currently owned by a public land agency, many of these Conceptual courses are on private land. Conceptual trail designations are merely proposed, no trail has been constructed and the area is not open to public access.

Existing regional trailheads are also shown on the map. These are terminus or way points along a trail that have parking areas for vehicles. In general, these are located near existing roads and trail junctions to allow for easy transportation access and multiple trail experiences.

County staff uses the Trails Map during development review to protect existing and future trail corridors from the direct encroachments of structures and lots as well as indirect effects such as visual intrusions. The County Parks and Open Space staff uses the Trail Map to plan land dedications for trail corridors as well. However, because of their general, unspecific locations, staff finds it difficult to effectively accommodate and consider Conceptual Trail Corridors during planning review of development proposals. Therefore, staff has tried to identify features that could serve as Conceptual Alignments for as many proposed trails as possible. This should help in evaluating development impacts to future trails as well as aid in corridor acquisition and dedication. The County Trail Map is a useful tool to coordinate trail planning with the various organizations, agencies, municipalities, etc. throughout the County. Because of the small scale necessary for a County-wide trail map, it does not serve as an effective map for identifying individual and specific trails on the ground.

TRAILS PLAN

TRAIL PURPOSES AND TYPES

The County recognizes the value of trails, in particular regional trails, for passive recreation and transportation. This commitment is apparent in the goals and policies which relate to trails in the Open Space Element. In general, trails enhance our appreciation and enjoyment of the outdoors while offering the opportunity to broaden our recreational experiences at the same time. Some trails serve to provide alternative modes of transportation and, where, the trail is off-road, provide an added measure of safety to users. But, perhaps most importantly, trails allow users to visit, experience, learn about, and respect areas of the County that are not easily accessible by other modes of transportation. Our understanding and stewardship of the County can grow through the thoughtful use of well-planned trails.

While the distinction between regional and other trails is based on the linking functions of the regional route, a more common and simple categorization of trails is based on the type of environment they traverse along with their corresponding trail surface. Such a classification would result in a continuum from paved city and subdivision trails to single track trails in wilderness areas. Because of the rural nature of the unincorporated County, many regional trails fall into the middle portion of this spectrum. The trail surroundings and environment influence the trail users’ experience and vice versa. For example, in Boulder County there are many trails within federal, municipal or county open space properties that are typically utilized for "wildland recreation" where the use is dispersed and depends upon the natural environment for its fulfillment, i.e. the impact of the natural environment is greater than developed recreational situations and improvements (Hammit and Cole, 1987). This contrasts sharply with a paved city trail that travels through neighborhoods serving primarily as a community connection, outdoor exercise area and off-road transportation route. Many trails lie in between the extremes, such as paths which wind through rural areas, small open spaces, or floodplains with residential subdivisions either adjacent or nearby. Many regional trails in the County meander between developed, rural, and wildland areas. This can be a source of conflict as some users expect a trail corridor to maintain a certain appearance, aesthetic, or standard as it traverses from wildland to a developed environment or vice versa.

Beside being in different environmental situations, many regional trails in the County also serve a dual purpose, providing a transportation connection between destinations as well as an opportunity to enjoy the outdoor environment and community landscape. For example, the Boulder Creek Path is used as a transportation trail allowing off-road commuting and traveling opportunities, but the trail is also used by people for walking, nature observation, running, and inline skating to name a few of its outdoor recreational uses. Combining recreational and transportation purposes into a single physical trail can create conflicts--for example, large numbers of cyclists, walkers, or joggers using the trail to get to a destination can negatively affect the experience of a hiker, mountain biker, or equestrian trying to exercise and/or appreciate the corridor itself. Or, commuters can be frustrated by congestion caused by high numbers of recreationists. A challenge for specific trail planning will be designing and locating dual purpose trails where users learn to appreciate mixed uses and easily coexist. While transportation uses of trails are accommodated in the Trail Plan, the County’s Transportation Element (including the Bikeway Plan) specifically addresses trails for transportation purposes.

The Open Space Element includes a policy on accessibility for special populations. Trails meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards will be addressed on a system-wide basis where management objectives allow.

Finally, the different tenure and management of trails provides another perspective for classifying or evaluating trails--the various cities and agencies often have different rules affecting their use. Often the trails that are located within public open spaces comprise a discrete trail system with different uses and rules (this is particularly true of County properties). Usually, their location and designation are reviewed through different processes, often as part of the management plan of the specific open space property. While some of these existing property-specific trails are shown on the County Trail Map, they do not function in the same way as the proposed regional trails which are depicted as Conceptual Trail Corridors and Alignments.

As indicated in the BCCP, the County is committed to a County-wide network of safe, useable trails for transportation and passive recreation purposes. As future trails are planned, the County will consider the corridor environment in order to minimize impacts to natural and significant resources.

BACKGROUND

The unique Boulder County landscape includes a variety of ecosystems, from the alpine tundra to the mountain forests to the plains grasslands, creating a rich geography that not only draws people to the area but, invites them to explore and discover. Since settlement, people have been recreating outdoors in the County, beginning especially with hiking and climbing and riding into the foothills and mountains. At the turn of the century, the Chautauqua association and subsequent outdoor groups inspired hikes and climbs in the foothills near Boulder, and these and other organizations worked on marking and constructing trails as well. At this same early stage, open space acquisition began through purchase and dedication, leading to a legacy of public lands, including Boulder Mountain Parks, City of Boulder Open Space, County Parks and Open Space and more recently municipal open spaces in the cities on the plains in the County. Federal lands within the County, now managed by the US Forest Service and the National Park Service, were also dedicated to the public at the turn of the century or shortly thereafter. Much of the recreational use of these public lands has been through trails. As bicycle use has increased across the nation, Boulder County has seen a rise in this type of recreation as well. The County has a rich history and heritage of outdoor recreation and concomitant trail use. Whether locations are accessible by motorized vehicles or not, there are many places in the County people have wanted to visit by trail, either on foot, bicycle, or horseback.

The same geologic and geographic conditions that attracted people to this region contribute to dramatic climate differences across the east-west axis of the County. These differences can be so great that an individual can easily ski in the west part of the County and then hike in the plains the same day. Trails in the sub-alpine and alpine zones are subject to truly seasonal variations in use, with skiing and snowshoeing in the winter and hiking and biking in the summer. Trails in the lower mountains and foothills are only infrequently available for skiing but, used for hiking and biking and horseback riding for a larger part of the year. Plains trails can be hiked, biked, and ridden nearly everyday of the year. A survey of the trail uses by type indicates that mountain bike use is heaviest in the foothills and mountains, with some in the plains as well. Equestrian and pedestrian use is spread across the County, with the highest numbers of pedestrians occurring on the trails near the cities in the plains where people use them socially or for exercising. Trails are also used by people whose primary recreational activity is not directly trail related, for example, hunting, fishing, picnicking, pet exercising, and nature study.

Jurisdiction and management affect the type and timing of trail use as well. Many jeep roads in the National Forest are subject to seasonal closures to motorized travel, actions that in effect open more "roads" for trail use, particularly in the winter. In the summer, many National Forest jeep roads are subject to a full mix of motorized and non-motorized trail use. Jurisdictions also limit trail uses to minimize impacts and conflicts, for example City of Boulder Mountain Parks prohibits mountain bikes on their trails as does the County on several open space trails.

The mix of geography, history, public lands, recreation, and tourism has combined to provide the County with many trails. To estimate the total mileage of trails in the County, staff used the County’s, the City of Boulder’s, and the U.S. Forest Service’s GIS databases as well as numbers provided by municipalities; there are over 370 miles of designated trails in the County, about 40% of which are in the National Forest. There are at least another 500 miles of roads in the National Forest that are often used as trails. About 66 miles of trails are maintained by the County. There are 268 miles of existing trails, about 100 miles of Conceptual Trail Corridors and roughly 150 miles of Conceptual Trail Alignments shown on the County Trail Map. However, as noted on the Trail Map, only regional and County trails are depicted on the map. Putting the trail mileage numbers in context, the National Recreation and Parks Association’s ‘Open Space Standards’ suggest a ratio of one trail mile per 2000 people. Thus the County’s trail inventory is about two and a half times the national standard, i.e. there are lots of trails in Boulder County! Of course much of the total trail mileage has existed for years, prior to the recent, accelerating influx of residents, since as mentioned above, there are many places in the County people have endeavored to explore using trails-- regardless of how many other people were living or recreating nearby.

While the County overall exceeds the NRPA standard, this standard is not met in some municipalities, and the residents of these areas are requesting more trails. For example, according to the 1997 Lafayette Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan, there are about 4 miles of existing trails, and this needs to be supplemented with an additional 27.5 miles in order to just meet current demand. This works out to be about 1.6 miles of trail per 1000 residents. On the other hand, the County’s 1997 survey of public opinions about County-owned open space found that 96% of the sample of registered voters in the County feel that protecting habitat for wildlife is an important or very important activity for open space, while 93% consider hiking important, 61% condsider mountain biking important, and 57% consider horseback riding important. Of the people surveyed who use open space occasionally or frequently, the common types of open space activity frequently engaged in (dozens of times per year) are hiking (41%), followed by running/jogging (18%), walking dogs (15%), and mountain biking (13%). Trail use is an integral part of recreational and open space experiences in the County.

The County’s wide variety of available trail experiences and the wealth of public land have attracted many recreationists to the area. Thus, while the number of miles of trails available for use is increasing, recreational use is increasing at least as fast, fueling the desire for more trails. Growth of communities on the plains and the Denver Metro region as a whole has added recreation pressure to Boulder County. According to Flather and Cordell (1995) the number of people 12 years old or greater participating in day hiking increased nearly 200% from 1982-83 to 1992--from 26 million to 50 million. The national trend for increased recreation is reflected locally in U.S. Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997) estimates which predict a 28% increase in trail use in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland (as measured in recreation visitor days) in the ten year interval between 1995 and 2005. Most of the predicted increase in use (about 70%) is due to mountain bicyclists while equestrian and pedestrian trail use is only expected to increase at 3% and 10% respectively. City of Boulder Open Space has seen recreational use of its properties dramatically increase as well, to the point that about 1.5 million people visited the system in 1994.

The increase in trail use is not only due to greater numbers of people but is a reflection of our lifestyle and times. Trails provide a low-cost opportunity to enhance our quality of life and contribute to the mental health of the County’s citizens. Trails allow us chances to recreate and relieve stress, balancing our lives with leisure activities. Trail experiences can expand our spirituality, and give agencies the opportunity to educate people about natural areas, cultural features, and our past heritage. Trails add to a sense of community.

TRAIL IMPACTS

Increasing recreation has led researchers to assess its impacts on the land. Natural resource scientists are noting that recreational activities, including hiking, pose a greater threat to threatened and endangered species than more ‘consumptive’ land uses like grazing and logging. Trails themselves have direct impacts on vegetation and soil due to trampling, compaction, and erosion. There is also evidence that roads and trails serve as sources and vectors for the spread of weeds. Recently, more studies have examined the effects of recreation on wildlife. Knight and Cole (1995) cite MacArthur’s 1982 study of mountain sheep which showed that their reactions to hikers were greater than behavior responses to road traffic and planes. However, responses to recreationists are varied and especially dependent upon the type and species of wildlife. For example, a number of studies on birds indicate that responses to pedestrians are usually behavioral and short-lived. But with respect to nesting Knight and Miller found in 1997 that bird species composition changed due to the presence of trails in both grassland and forest ecosystems in Boulder County, and nest predation was greater near trails. A 1982 study found that elk numbers did not depress due to cross-county ski trails. Nonetheless, Boyle and Sampson (1985) surveyed 166 articles with original data on nonconsumptive recreational impacts on wildlife; 81% of the articles considered the effects negative.

One measure of the effect of recreation and transportation on wildlife is the effective habitat concept. This model was applied by the U.S. Forest Service to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest during the recent plan update (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1996). Effective habitat is "considered to be mostly undisturbed habitat which is buffered from regularly used roads and trails" (p. 14, Appendix B, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1996). The model operates under the assumption that disturbance corridor widths along roads and trails vary due to several factors primarily dealing with visibility. These include vegetation structure (e.g. forest versus grassland), position of the road, terrain, and intensity of human use. Disturbance corridors are wider in open country and on the downhill sides of travelways. The U.S. Forest Service used disturbance data for deer and elk (for which there is the most research), using these species as indicators for other wildlife. Using these methods, only 68% of the whole Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest is considered effective habitat. Most of the reduction from 100% is due to motorized roads (25% of the 32%--only 7% is due to trails). The most effective Geographic Area (subunits of the National Forest) which included portions of Boulder County was the Indian Peaks Wilderness with 77% habitat effectiveness. Of all the Geographic Areas comprising portions of the County within the National Forest boundary, over half are less than 60% effective--i.e. over 40% of the land in these areas is not effective habitat as measured by these methods. Clearly, wildlife habitat in the County has been impacted by the proliferation of roads and trails.

Perhaps the most intense conflicts regarding trail use and planning occur in wildland areas. Hammitt and Cole (1987) note that this is often because most recreationists do not recognize environmental or ecological impacts but rather note factors that decrease the functionality of a site or "unnatural" objects like litter or improvements and facilities. At the same time, many recreationist choose to walk, cycle, or ride in an area precisely because of the site’s "natural" environment. In these wildland locations, natural features are emphasized while things like turfed fields and concrete paths that are more common to developed areas are not. In short, wildland management strives to maintain the natural site environment in which human impact and use is minimized, but recreational use is still allowed (1987: 18). This is the management style that is employed on many open spaces in the County.

Of course recreational effects, including trail use, cannot be viewed in isolation. There are a myriad of other impacts occurring to the land and its resources at any one time, all of them together having effects on the environment (Knight and Cole, 1995). But, where there are significant environmental resources that could be disrupted by a trail, protecting those values will be the first priority. Often this doesn’t mean the complete elimination of a proposed trail but rather a relocation, adjustment, special regulations, or a seasonal closure. Any recreation has impacts; the challenge is to hold these to acceptable levels.

There are also societal impacts related to trails, and this has become an important issue in several situations where existing residents have objected to the creation or re-designation of nearby or visible trails. Most recently these objections have related to privacy and the visibility of trails and their users. Privacy/visibility can be addressed by sensitive trail locations, setbacks for residences or trails, and the use of screening vegetation. Other common complaints include increased crime rates for properties adjacent to trails--although studies show that rates are generally lower for homes near trails than for other homes in the same neighborhood (Ryan, 1993). The same relationship holds for property values, which are generally higher for lots adjacent to trails and open space.

The County’s Trails Plan and Map attempt to balance the public’s desire for more trails with environmental protection. This is primarily achieved by increasing trails in the plains, close to the majority of residents. This is an appropriate direction, especially since much of the mountainous and forested portions of the County are under U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction--including transportation management and trail use in the National Forest. Consequently, the County’s Trails Map and Plan is aimed at providing more trails and connections to plains residents, minimizing the amount of driving necessary for people to enjoy the outdoors.

While the Trails Map and Plan will consider primarily the BCCP-designated environmental resources, specific trail planning and siting will be important in minimizing environmental impacts. For example, a number of existing and conceptual trails on County open space travel through Environmental Conservation Areas (ECAs); in these cases the on-the-ground location of the trail will be important to protect the values of the ECA as well as any other environmental resources found on site. Also, as riparian systems and their plants and animals become more imperiled (such as Ute’s Ladies Tresses and the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse), increasing consideration of environmental impacts of existing and proposed trails along streams will be necessary during general and specific trail planning tasks. During the most recent update of the Open Space Element of the BCCP the County identified four riparian corridors where trails will not be considered near the stream because of environmental concerns: the St. Vrain Creek from Airport Road to U.S. 36; Lefthand Creek from State Highway 119 to U.S. 36; Boulder Creek from East County Line Road to 95th Street; Rock Creek from McCaslin Boulevard to State Highway 128.

 

TRAIL-SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO ACCOMPANY THE COUNTY TRAIL MAP

The following section describes all of the trails on the County Trail Map. Each trail is first identified by its name or location. A short explanation is given for the purpose of the trail and following that, the general location of the route is described and then analyzed for constraints and other issues. In the Analysis section, BCCP designations are capitalized, e.g. the Open Corridor for Coal Creek as shown on Map 6 of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Each description concludes with the County Trail Evaluation Team’s recommendation for the trail’s designation in the Plan and Map.

MOUNTAIN TRAILS

South St. Vrain

Purpose: Link to the foothills, mountains, and the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway from Lyons and Hall Ranch.

Analysis: Much of the South St. Vrain Canyon is designated as Environmental Conservation Area, Stream Connector, and/or Open Corridor. The route is a mixture of land tenure as well--County, private, federal. The existing state highway and steep terrain as well as the stream itself are considerable physical constraints. Due to the extreme combination of constraints and environmental impacts, the trail should not be located on the south side of the stream. An off-road trail on the north side of the creek would still have environmental impacts since the route, along with the existing road itself, would go through Critical Wildlife Habitat (for bighorn sheep and golden eagles). The physical constraints would make it a very costly trail to construct and maintain. In terms of potential use, it is difficult to envision much pedestrian traffic on such a trail more than a couple of miles past the town of Lyons; however, cyclists and equestrians would likely use an off-road connection for the entire length. There are existing on-road recreation and transportation opportunities, which make the cost/benefit analysis of an off-road trail such as this is difficult to determine--weighing the expense of a separate off-road trail versus the benefit in recreational experience or use. An off-road trail would probably have a low action priority, while an expanded shoulder or other trail-in-the-right-of-way version would be a more likely option. Destinations at both ends of this proposed corridor have access to nearby off-road trails and, for pedestrians, a link between the County’s Hall Ranch Open Space to Buttonrock Preserve. Anticipated users of this trail would be cyclists, equestrians, and to a smaller degree pedestrians (primarily near residential areas). At this time equestrian and, to a lesser degree, pedestrians are not adequately accommodated in this corridor since on-road use is the only option.

Recommended Designation: Trail Alignment along State Highway 7

Peak to Peak

Purpose: Trail along scenic byway, link from Camp Dick/Peaceful Valley to Allenspark and Rocky Mountain National Park

Analysis: The corridor is adjacent to several ECAs and is within an Open Corridor. Because this trail is in a sparsely settled, remote area and because most recreationists drive to the end points and utilize existing trail systems at those destinations, its use as a transportation link between Camp Dick and Rocky Mountain National Park is not expected to be high. Since the trail parallels the scenic byway, a trail within the right-of-way could take advantage of the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway views and attractions, making this trail more useful as an end in itself. Terrain and environmental constraints would make most off-road routes difficult. There are some minor roads in the Bunce School area that could serve as portions of this segment. Trails in this corridor should be primarily adjacent to the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (no change)

Fourmile Canyon

Purpose: Link from North Boulder trails to mountain communities, County trails, and to the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway

Analysis: This alignment begins at the west terminus of the Anne U. White Trail, continues to the Sunshine settlement, and then down to Fourmile Canyon. Land tenure for the alignment is primarily private, with some limited County property and some U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management ownership. A connection linking the west end of the Anne U. White Trail to the Bald Mountain Scenic Area has the benefit of providing an alternate trailhead and access to Anne U. White Trail, relieving some of the trailhead congestion at the eastern, existing trailhead on Pinto Drive; however, this connection would not work for cyclists who are prohibited on the Anne U. White Trail. At the same time, a western trailhead could create unintended environmental consequences by funneling more trail users into a small canyon with a narrow trail that has many water crossings. For this section, staff recommends pursuing a western trailhead for Anne U. White Trail, knowing that it will continue to have limited through traffic due to the bike prohibition. So, this trail should begin in the vicinity of Sunshine. Heading west, the existing alignment skirts through Sunshine, then falls to Gold Run, then back up the east side of Melvina Hill and down to the base of Fourmile Canyon where the route was to utilize the old railroad grade. Use of the railroad grade is no longer feasible on many sections due to private land and house locations. These segments between Sunshine and the bottom of Fourmile Canyon will have considerable topographic constraints, steep slopes and huge altitude gains and losses, however, there are chances to incorporate existing roads and drives. Once in the canyon, the trail alignment encounters more significant environmental and open space resources, including an ECA, Stream Connector, and Open Corridor. To avoid the heart of the Fourmile Creek/Bald Mountain ECA, staff is recommending that the alignment parallel the existing road in the Pennsylvania Gulch area. Also, instead of having the alignment extend west of the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway, into the University of Colorado research station property, Caribou Ranch, and City of Boulder Watershed, staff recommends ending the alignment at the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway; no public access is allowed on the Watershed, and there are already roads and trails providing access from the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway into the National Forest and Indian Peaks Wilderness. For example, access to the Sourdough Trail can be accomplished by using the Rainbow Lakes Road and a short stretch of the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment with some general location changes for all of the route except the section between Sunshine and Fourmile Creek which would be a Conceptual Trail Corridor to allow flexibility in trail routing and location.

Winiger Ridge

Purpose: Link from Walker Ranch, Gross Reservoir to Nederland and Eldora

Analysis: Much of this route already exists in the form of roads and utility corridors. While the physical constraints of this route are not as extreme as other mountain trails, there are significant environmental conflicts. The eastern portion of the corridor traverses the Winiger Ridge ECA and nears the Winiger Ridge Natural Landmark. Most of the route crosses the middle of elk winter ranges and migration corridors. Some of the existing Forest Service roads are under seasonal closure rules to minimize impacts to wildlife. Recreational uses in the vicinity of Gross Reservoir are currently being reviewed under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing procedures. A route roughly following County Road 68 J and then the cleared Public Service Company corridor to Magnolia Road and then paralleling that road to the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway would minimize environmental impacts. From there the trail could parallel County Road 132 and then primarily using existing roads and trails reach the Eldora Valley. Forest Service review, concurrence, and approval will be important for this corridor.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor with some general location changes.

Aqueduct

Purpose: Link from Walker Ranch and Boulder Mountain Park to Barker Reservoir; and a scenic trail corridor

Analysis: This alignment is appealing because of its "existing but rugged" nature and easy grade well away from most roads and because it travels through a wild, relatively isolated, forested canyon that offers solitude. However, due to a number of siphons and tunnels associated with the aqueduct, there are sections where significant trail construction would be necessary and subject to physical constraints such as steep slopes, rocky outcrops, and drainage crossings. There are considerable environmental constraints as well, because of the relatively isolated nature the corridor is generally an area of effective habitat, including the Hawkin Gulch/Walker Ranch ECA, the corridor also intersects wildlife areas on the Platt Rogers and Reynolds Ranch County Open Space properties. Land tenure is primarily U.S. Forest Service with County and private ownerships as well. Because 1) this route roughly parallels the Winiger Ridge route and links the same general portions of the County, 2) it has significant physical and environmental constraints, 3) there are management considerations of the County properties (i.e. the properties may not be suited to thru-traffic on a regional trail because of wildlife issues, seasonal closures, etc.), and 4) the "regionalization" of the route would diminish some of its most appealing wildland qualities, staff is recommending that this route be removed from the County Trail Map. The alignment may be used in some property-specific trails in Platt Rogers and/or Reynolds Ranch.

Recommended Designation: Trail Alignment (no change, although staff recommends removing the alignment from the County Trails Map so that comprehensive trail and travel management for this area can occur through the Winiger Ridge Project of the Boulder County Ecosystem Cooperative.)

Switzerland Trail at Caribou Ranch

Purpose: Trail on existing railroad grade between Caribou and Peak-to-Peak.

Analysis: Although the Caribou Ranch environmental assessments are just beginning, conflicts with elk ranges and migration areas as well as wetlands and stream crossings are possible for this route. While the Switzerland Trail may be more scenic and pleasant, there are nearby U.S. Forest Service roads that duplicate the connection function of the old railroad grade through Caribou Ranch. The purchase contract for the property prohibits bicycle use. Pedestrian and equestrian use of this route will be evaluated during the management planning for the Caribou Ranch property.

Recommendation: No Change, leave off map.

Ward

Purpose: Link from East Ward to North and West Ward

Analysis: Land tenure is private (County only has Conservation Easements) and B.M. land that is likely to go into private or Town of Ward possession. Ward has not been interested in trail connections in the past. Area is within Indian Peaks ECA and there are wetlands in the vicinity as well. Existing U.S. Forest Service roads already provide access and routes to the destinations in the area.

Recommendation: No change, leave off map.

FOOTHILLS

North Foothills Trail

Purpose: This corridor roughly parallels North Foothills Highway but provides an important off-road connection to trails and open spaces between the Lyons and Boulder.

Analysis: The existing corridor starts on the south in the vicinity of Beech Open Space (a property jointly owned by Boulder County and the City of Boulder and managed by City of Boulder Open Space) west of N. Foothills Highway. From there it traverses to the northwest, crosses Lefthand Creek and heads through the County’s Heil Ranch down to Lyons and the St. Vrain. In terms of environmental constraints, most of the route is within two ECAs, the Beech/Boulder Valley and the South St. Vrain/Foothills. There are Rare Plant Areas, Significant Natural Communities, and the Open Corridors along North Foothills Highway and Lefthand Creek. Both County and City Open Space staffs have concerns with the existing corridor. City staff feels that the portion of the Beech property west of North Foothills Highway has important resource values that could be impaired by a regional trail. The new East Beech trail just west of Lefthand Valley Reservoir between Boulder Valley Ranch and Neva Road can serve as a southern segment of this route to avoid these resource concerns. From Neva the corridor can go north and then west under U.S. 36 using the existing underpass and then heading north closer to North Foothills Highway. A spur would head west and connect to Buckingham Park. Management studies on Heil Ranch have indicated that the western part of the property has important wildlife values. Consequently the route should be revised to be further east on the Heil Ranch. However, even with an eastern alignment, this segment of the trail could be subject to special management stipulations specific to Heil Ranch, for example seasonal wildlife closures; so, an alignment through Heil Ranch may not serve adequately as a regional trail connector. The route in the vicinity of Lefthand Creek is not straightforward either although there is public property and social trails which could be partially utilized for some segments. However, some of these stretches come close to golden eagle nest sites. A corridor west of the highway on the Beech property could be considered in the future depending on use patterns.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor with location changes.

Stone Canyon

Purpose: Link from Lyons north to Larimer County

Analysis: This route runs through Stone Canyon, an area with residential development and quarry activity. Steamboat Mountain Natural Landmark is to the west. There are no significant environmental or physical constraints, particularly if existing roads are used. However, the trail crosses primarily private land and ends at the County line since Larimer County does not anticipate any trail connection in this location. Because of other potential connections north of Lyons, this one is unnecessary.

Recommended Designation: Remove from map.

Dowe Flats

Purpose: Link Lyons and Rabbit Mountain to Larimer County

Analysis: This alignment is shown as the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Supply Canal. This route goes through private land and County open space as well as the Rabbit Mountain ECA. Since the canal passes alongside county open space areas that have no public access, use of this route would pose management complications and a threat to cultural resources. In order to address this concern and the opportunity to minimize trail disturbances in the Rabbit Mountain ECA, staff is recommending a realignment of this trail (from along the canal) to the right-of-way along County Road 47, realizing that this will certainly result in a less satisfactory trail experience. (As part of the relocation of the County Road 47, Southdown Inc. donated a trail right-of-way along the road right-of-way from north of State Highway 66 to the Rabbit Mountain trailhead.) From the Rabbit Mountain trailhead the alignment would follow existing trails and then follow the existing NCWCD maintenance road to Little Thompson Creek and Larimer County. This would link to a proposed Larimer County trail along the Little Thompson. Because of the sensitivity of Rabbit Mountain Open Space which includes a Rare Plant Area, Significant Natural Communities, an ECA, a Natural Area, and important cultural sites, any regional trail connection would need to follow existing roads or trails in order to avoid new construction disturbances.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment with adjusted location; the portion connecting to Larimer County would be coordinated with their cooperation.

Rabbit Mountain southeast to Longmont

Purpose: Link Rabbit Mountain to Longmont

Analysis: From Rabbit Mountain, the corridor traverses areas seasonally closed due to golden eagle nesting, a rare plant area, and cultural sites. Land tenure is with the County at the west end, and in private and County agricultural land for the remainder of the route. Because of the resource concerns, staff recommends removal of this corridor.

Recommended Designation: Removal

South Boulder Creek from Eldorado Springs to Walker Ranch

Purpose: Link between Eldorado Springs, Eldorado Canyon State Park, and Walker Ranch County Open Space along South Boulder Creek; creekside trail in scenic canyon.

Analysis: The linking purpose of this trail is already accomplished for pedestrians by the Eldorado Canyon Trail. Land tenure and access is complicated with Denver Water ownership and private residences. A multi-use trail would allow connections to Walker Ranch from Eldorado Springs. There would be very significant physical constraints if the trail were located anywhere in the corridor but on or near the existing private road. Even then, although there would be few physical limitations, the route would still travel through an ECA and alongside a major stream and associated riparian corridor. Since this route would allow easy mountain bike access to Walker from Eldorado Springs, it would increase mountain bike traffic on Walker, an open space property with extremely heavy bike use already.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (No Change)

Betasso to Bald

Purpose: Link Betasso Preserve to Bald Mountain Scenic Area County Open Spaces

Analysis: This route would travel primarily through private land between the two County open spaces. Along with a creek crossing and associated wetlands, the route encounters steep topography.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (no change)

Tram Hill

Purpose: Connection from Walker Ranch/Flagstaff Road to Betasso Preserve

Analysis: This had been a proposed trail corridor on past County Trail Maps but had been removed due to environmental conflicts associated with trail construction impacts on very steep slopes. The area south of Boulder Creek is designated as a County ECA and is an extremely rugged area that is relatively "remote" due to the terrain likely serving as good habitat for seclusive forest species. Boulder Mountain Parks, private landowners, and the U.S. Forest Service comprise the principal managers in this route. A crossing of Boulder Creek is necessary as well as a crossing of Boulder Canyon Drive. Wetlands and riparian vegetation are associated with Boulder Creek in this area. Recommendation: No change, leave off map, significant environmental and trail construction issues remain.

PLAINS

Lefthand Creek/Table Mountain from Foothills to Supply Canal

Purpose: Off-road link from Foothills to Supply Canal; streamside trail

Analysis: The linking purpose of this route is met by rural roads in the immediate vicinity as well as existing City of Boulder trails several miles to the south. Land tenure is principally private with some County and City open space properties in the vicinity as well. The route has few physical constraints but significant environmental resources including Stream and Open Corridor designations, riparian and wetland areas, and Critical Wildlife Habitats east of North of 49th Street. Most impacts can be avoided by locating the trail outside the riparian corridor. The County’s Comprehensive Plan states that trail development is not appropriate for this riparian corridor. Because the linking functions of this trail corridor can be met by rural, County roads in the area, this trail corridor can be removed from the map without compromising the County’s trail network.

Recommended Designation: Remove from map.

Ruth Roberts Trail between Broomfield and the Rock Creek Trail

Purpose: Off-road link between Broomfield and Rock Creek Trail

Analysis: This trail would cross the agricultural lands on the Ruth Roberts property to connect residential areas in Broomfield with the Rock Creek Trail. Land tenure is principally the County with some private land in the vicinity of Rock Creek. The largest constraints will likely be related to minimizing impacts to the agricultural operation and wildlife habitat on the County’s Ruth Roberts property; however, there are no known significant environmental resources, aside from the Rock Creek riparian corridor. Although there are some slopes and drainage crossings that would complicate construction, physical constraints are not significant. This route is shown as a proposed trail on Broomfield’s Trail Map.

Recommended Designation: Add trail corridor to map.

US 287

Purpose: This off-road trail corridor provides a non-motorized north-south transportation link in the eastern part of the County from Broomfield to Larimer County.

Analysis: Although this route crosses a number of environmental resources, its proximity to the highway minimizes any additional impacts. Land tenure would be primarily the Colorado Department of Transportation if the trail remains within the right-of-way. Outside the right-of-way, ownerships would include some County and municipal open space properties, but primarily private land. Portions of this trail already exist in Lafayette where the highway was recently relocated. Because of the length of this proposed alignment it provides connections to many east-west trails as well. Physical constraints are primarily the creek crossings and their associated wetlands. There is no Larimer County connection proposed. Because of the proximity to the highway, it is likely this route would be used primarily for alternate transportation and making connections to other trails; it would not be a destination trail. This trail and route are more suited to a bikeway classification (it is on the current Bikeway Plan). Since the function of this trail is captured by the bikeway designation, no additional, parallel trail is necessary.

Recommended Designation: Remove from Trail Map.

Coal Creek

Purpose: Scenic, regional streamside trail, links open space, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, and Weld County (Erie)

Analysis: Much of the trail is already completed. Planning and design for this trail is performed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the County and affected municipalities. The U.S. 36 underpass is a component of the Coal Creek/Rock Creek Master Plan. Louisville, the Colorado Department of Transportation, Superior, and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District will need to participate in the design of the improvement. The western segment is nearing completion. There is a coordinated effort to protect Coal Creek upstream from Superior, and to entirely avoid trails on that section of the creek (a County-designated important Riparian Corridor and an area within the ECA). Protecting this section would be accomplished by ending the creekside portion of the trail in the vicinity of Superior and connecting to Coalton Trail via McCaslin Boulevard.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment

Rock Creek Trail

Purpose: Scenic, regional streamside trail, links open space, Superior, Rock Creek Farm, the Coal Creek Trail, Broomfield, and Lafayette

Analysis: Planning and design for this trail is performed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the County and affected municipalities. The route follows Rock Creek from McCaslin to the confluence with Coal Creek. Superior is doing work on the section in Rock Creek Ranch. Broomfield is considering trail connections at the 96th Street interchange of U.S. 36. Constraints include crossings at McCaslin Boulevard, U.S. 36, U.S. 287, and at least two railroad grades. A design for an at-grade crossing in Rock Creek Farm is being prepared for application to the Public Utilities Commission to connect Broomfield’s trail to the Rock Creek Trail. Environmental features primarily relate to the riparian corridor and Stream Connector associated with the creek itself. The County’s Comprehensive Plan states that trail development is inappropriate along Rock Creek west of McCaslin Boulevard. The alignment will be sensitive to the riparian corridor and associated wetlands.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

UP line

Purpose: Scenic trail in Boulder Valley, links Boulder and Erie and provides off-road connections too other trails too while avoiding the immediate banks of Boulder Creek.

Analysis: The trail would start on the west at about 55th Street and Valmont in Boulder and then proceed along the south side of Sawhill Ponds, and then through City of Boulder Open Space to 95th, then past the Heronry, and on to U.S. 287 and Erie. The physical constraints primarily relate to removal of the railroad infrastructure while allowing for use of the existing improvements for crossing drainages, wetlands, and roads. Environmental resources are primarily wildlife habitats associated with the wetlands and riparian areas of the Boulder Valley, including the Heron Rookery. While these are significant resources, they do not pose great constraints since the trail grade exists and because the route is distant enough from the features.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

NCWCD Supply Canal

Purpose: Scenic trail in rolling agricultural lands, links the Boulder Reservoir to Lyons and the St. Vrain Greenway

Analysis: This route is almost entirely owned by the NCWCD except for several siphon locations. The County has attempted to get the NCWCD to agree to allow a trail on one side of the Supply Canal for several years. The District’s concern has related to liability associated with drowning accidents. Physical constraints are primarily those related to the canal itself and the accompanying maintenance roads, very little construction would be necessary, rather improvements would need to concentrate on canal and road crossing safety. A suitable grade (a road in many cases) is already there on both sides of the canal, and it is used as a social trail. Although the trail would be close to the Table Mountain and South St. Vrain ECAs, it is primarily to their east and would not have an impact on these significant, identified environmental resources. However, the trail would route users into some of the more isolated parts of the west plains where there are wintering raptors. Measures should be taken to minimize these impacts.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

St. Vrain Greenway

Purpose: Scenic creek trail; link from Longmont to Lyons

Analysis: Much of this trail has been constructed in the Longmont and Lyons areas. The section between the completed segments includes private land, County open space and Western Mobile mining areas. The St. Vrain Corridor includes a number of significant environmental resources-- Stream Connector, Critical Wildlife Habitat, Significant Riparian Corridor and Wetlands, as well as Open Corridor designations. In light of these, the County’s Comprehensive Plan states that trail development along the creek is inappropriate west of Airport Road, and County staff has been planning for the route to follow the railroad tracks and thereby avoid as many environmental impacts as feasible. In order to more specifically identify this route on the Trail Map, the recommendation is to change the designation from a more general Trail Corridor to a Trail Alignment along the railroad grade.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment

Jefferson County connection along State Highway 93

Purpose: Link from City of Boulder trails (Flatirons Vista Trailhead) to Jefferson County

Analysis: Although a short segment, this link requires a crossing of Coal Creek in the vicinity of State Highway 93, presenting both a physical and environmental constraint. Nevertheless, Boulder County, City of Boulder, and Jefferson County agree that this an important connection. The land involved is owned by City of Boulder Open Space.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (no change)

Dry Creek/Boulder White Rock and Boulder-Lefthand Ditch

Purpose: Scenic creek/ditch trail through agricultural lands and residential areas, links Boulder Reservoir, Niwot, and Longmont

Analysis: Portions of this trail exist in the Niwot and Gunbarrel areas where it is popular for connecting neighborhoods. Planning for the trail sections linking Boulder Reservoir with Gunbarrel and Niwot sections is underway. The County has been acquiring right-of-way in the Niwot area through development dedications, and with the platting of Niwot Meadows PUD and Winterview PUD, the right-of-way will be complete from the west to the Niwot Sanitation District. Physical and environmental constraints are primarily Dry Creek itself. The County lands acquired for the trail allow adequate setback from significant habitats along the creek.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

Boulder Creek

Purpose: Scenic creek corridor trail east of U.S. 287

Analysis: The County is examining the potential for recreational use on the County lands in this area. The location of any trails will be dependent on this planning process. There are a number of environmental issues, including the East County ECA and Stream Connector associated with the creek itself. The County’s Comprehensive Plan states that trail development along the riparian areas between 55th and U.S. Highway 287 is not appropriate.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

Dry Creek--Longmont-Lagerman-Supply Canal

Purpose: Rural, creekside trail; linking southwest Longmont with Lagerman Reservoir County Open Space and the Supply Canal

Analysis: The route travels through a rural area that is primarily privately owned except for Lagerman Reservoir. Constraints include a number of road crossings and the avoidance of a Significant Natural Community along Dry Creek as well as the Critical Wildlife Habitat associated with Lagerman and the adjacent wetlands.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change).

Longmont Perimeter

Purpose: Link Longmont residential areas to other trails

Analysis: These alignments are now primarily within the City of Longmont. This is intended to serve the outer neighborhoods of Longmont and link with other city trails; City of Longmont staff should plan and design this trail.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

Baseline

Purpose: Uncertain--perhaps a link from East Boulder Trail (South Teller Farm Trailhead) to Erie

Analysis: The purpose and the corridor of this proposed trail are not known. This is not shown on either Lafayette’s or Louisville’s trail plans. With other existing and proposed trails in Louisville and Lafayette, the purpose of this trail will be duplicated and its route paralleled in all but the easternmost sections. Since Lafayette and Erie have annexed most of the land at the east end of this trail route, the County will have little ability to direct the development of this corridor.

Recommended Designation: Remove from map.

Ogallala spur

Purpose: Link from Dry Creek to Plateau Road

Analysis: This route would go through County open space and private land. Physical constraints include road crossings and a crossing of Dry Creek. The portion of Lefthand Creek near the northern end of this route is a Stream Connector, Significant Riparian Corridor, and has important wetlands. The corridor would link Niwot trails to southern Longmont and potential park sites.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (no change)

Panama Reservoir

Purpose: Link from Dry Creek Trail/Niwot to Panama Reservoir to Boulder Creek

Analysis: This would bring more use to Panama Reservoir area, a Critical Wildlife Habitat with private ownership. East of 95th Street, land tenure of the route is primarily County. Constraints include several major road crossings as well as Panama Reservoir itself. The alignment west of the reservoir would be along irrigation ditches. Because of the resource issues associated with the private reservoir and adjacent agricultural operations, staff recommends removal of this corridor and alignment.

Recommended Designation: Remove.

Dry Creek South

Purpose: Trail connecting South Boulder Road to East Boulder Trail

Analysis: Land tenure is almost entirely City of Boulder Open Space. The route on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan between the Dry Creek Trailhead and South Boulder Road has numerous natural resource conflicts. City of Boulder Open Space staff has suggested two alternate corridors for this southern segment: one which connects to South Boulder Trail at the Bobolink Trailhead by going on the north side of Baseline Reservoir another that connects to South Boulder Road by going straight south from the Dry Creek Trailhead. North of the Dry Creek Trailhead, City of Boulder staff suggests a corridor along the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad line and then north to the Teller Farm Trailhead. Constraints include road crossings and a Significant Natural Community on Jefferson Hill as well as the creek corridor itself.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor with location changes

Louisville connector

Purpose: Local trail and connection from East Boulder Trail (South Teller Farm Trailhead) to Coal Creek and Rock Creek Trails through Louisville

Analysis: Existing trails in Louisville comprise much of this route. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan shows the northwest portion of this trail, some of which crosses City of Boulder open space. Constraints on this northern part include a railroad and road crossing. On the southern section, land is privately owned for the most part. Roads are the primary constraints as well as a railroad crossing. The southern portion of the route is depicted on Louisville’s trail plan. If detailed study deems that it is not an important habitat feature, the Goodhue Ditch south of Dillon Road could serve as an alignment. The ditch does not work well as an alignment north of Dillon because of physical and environmental constraints.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (no change)

Marshall Road

Purpose: Link from Marshall Mesa Trailhead to Superior/U.S. 36/McCaslin Boulevard intersection

Analysis: This route is shown along Marshall Road--already a popular bike route, but the alignment appears to correspond to the old Interurban Railroad grade. Once past Superior’s streets, the route has few physical constraints, crossing primarily County Open Space until east of S. 66th Street where City of Boulder Open Space begins. Portions of the City land are closed to public access and there are wetland areas nearby, both of which complicate the route’s location west of 66th Street, on this latter stretch, a location along Marshall Road could minimize environmental impacts.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

96th to Jefferson County

Purpose: Link from Rock Creek to Jefferson County

Analysis: Nearly the entire route is in the City of Broomfield through the Interlocken development. Because the trail could be an important connector to the south from the Rock Creek Trail, it should remain on the County Map.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Corridor (no change)

South McCaslin Boulevard

Purpose: Trail link from Coalton Trail/McCaslin Boulevard intersection to Jefferson County

Analysis: With a route along the road, it is most likely to serve a transportation function. Jefferson County has no plan to link to it. Most of this roadway is within the Town of Superior. If Superior agrees the route is important for its own system, without a connection south, it should remain; otherwise it should be removed.

Recommended Designation: Trail Alignment and Corridor (no change)

Marshall-Coalton Connector

Purpose: Trail link

Analysis: This route travels through City of Boulder Open Space and crosses Coal Creek. Because of the coalition effort to restore Coal Creek, City of Boulder Open Space staff recommends against this trail. This route is duplicated both to the east (with proposed trails) and the west with existing ones, so staff recommends that since it is not an essential link and has the potential for adverse environmental impacts, it should be removed from the map.

Recommended Designation: Remove from map

StorageTek

Purpose: Link from Dillon Road/Coal Creek Trail, 88th Street, school site and StorageTek to Rock Creek Trail

Analysis: Land tenure is primarily private (StorageTek) within the City of Louisville. The route serves the same purpose as several adjacent trail routes in the same vicinity. While relatively free of environmental constraints, the alignment’s location (alongside U.S. Highway 36) would affect its use and enjoyment. Since the trail would primarily serve StorageTek, the school complex, Louisville, and Broomfield, those cities and StorageTek would likely take the lead in its development and construction.

Recommended Designation: Conceptual Trail Alignment (no change)

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company

Purpose: Rail with Trail link from Broomfield to Boulder including connections to S. Boulder Creek and Boulder Creek Trails

Analysis: This route has several stream and many road crossings but would provide an off-road connection in the southeastern part of the County. The trail would be within railroad right-of-way for the entire distance.

Recommended Designation: Add to map

Powerline

Purpose: Off-road connection between Gunbarrel, Lookout Road, Heatherwood and Monarch Park

Analysis: The County has existing right-of-way (for 75th Street) for a portion of the route. There is also City of Boulder Open Space south of Mineral Road. The route is on the edge of the Plains ECA, but few environmental impacts are expected.

Recommendation: Add to map as Trail Alignment.

Cottonwood Trail to Willows Trail Connection:

Purpose: Connection of Boulder trails to Gunbarrel

Analysis: This connection would cross private land between the Juhl, Orchard Park and Willows subdivisions. Environmental impacts would be primarily to agricultural land although a wetland is in the vicinity as well and would need to be avoided.

Recommendation: Add to map as Trail Alignment.

IBM/Diagonal Underpass and Approach

Purpose: Off-road link from Boulder Reservoir to Gunbarrel

Analysis: Cit of Boulder Open Space is pursuing this connection.

Recommendation: Add Trail Alignment to County Trail Map.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Sampson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 110-116.

Flather, Curtis H. and H.K. Cordell. 1995. Outdoor Recreation: Historical and Anticipated Trends in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research eds., R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, 3-16. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Fogg, George E. 1990. Park Planning Guidelines, 3rd Edition. National Recreation and Park Association.

Hammitt, William E. and David N. Cole. 1987. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Knight, Richard L. and David N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research eds., R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, 3-16. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Ryan, Karen-Lee. 1993. Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan.