HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-12-13estes valley
master trails plan
Contents
Chapter 1:Introduction 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5
ABOUT ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 8
ABOUT THIS PLAN 8
MASTER TRAILS PLAN VISION 12
WHY TRAILS: BENEFITS OF TRAILS 12
Chapter 2: Community Engagement And
Participation 18
Chapter3:Understanding Current
Conditions 26
EXISTING TRAILS AND FACILITIES 27
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS AND COMMUTER
CORRIDORS 30
OTHER POLICIES AND PLANS TO CONSIDER 32
3 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanChapter 4: Standards and Guidelines 44
TYPOLOGY 45
UNDERSTANDING THE USERS 48
TRAIL STANDARDS 52
BEST PRACTICES 59
Chapter 5:
Trail Use And Economic Impact 66
TRAIL COUNT SUMMARY 67
GENDER 68
LAKE ESTES TRAIL 69
EAST PORTAL TRAIL 70
JURASSIC PARK TRAIL 71
HOMER ROUSE TRAIL 72
RIVERWALK TRAIL 73
LILY MOUNTAIN TRAILHEAD 74
LILY LAKE TRAIL 75
TRAILS MEAN BUSINESS 76
CREATING SYNERGY BETWEEN THE ECONOMY AND RECREATION 79
Chapter 6: The Master Plan 80
INTRODUCTION 81
OVERALL VISION: WHERE ARE WE HEADING 81
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 103
Chapter 7: Implementation 114
PROJECT PRIORITY LIST 115
FUNDING SOURCES 121
LIST OF WORKS CITED 128
Chapter 1:
Introduction
5 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Estes Valley Recreation And Park District Staff
• Tom Carosello, Executive Director
• Kim Slininger, Project Manager
• Janet Carabell, Administrative Assistant
• Skyler Rorabaugh, Former Executive Director
Estes Valley Recreation And Park District Board Of
Directors
• Kathryn Asche, President
• Kenneth Czarnowski, Vice President
• Dave Kiser, Treasurer
• Ronald I. Duell, Secretary
• Vacant, At-Large Member
Estes Valley Recreation And Park District Trails
Committee
• Gary Matthews, President
• Amy Plummer, Vice President
• Hal Dalzell, Secretary
• Dick Putney, Treasurer
• Danny Basch, Committee Member
• Ed Hayek, Committee Member
• Daniel Marshall , Committee Member
• Lisa Plaut, Committee Member
• Ken TeSelle, Committee Member
• Tina Kurtz, Town of Estes Park Liaison
• Phil Kleisler, Town of Estes Park Liaison
• Ben Greer, EVRPD Board of Directors Liaison
• Ron Duell, EVRPD Board of Directors Liaison
• Tom Carosello, EVRPD Executive Director
• Janet Carabell, EVRPD Administrative Assistant
• Herb Loveall, EVRPD Parks/Trails Manager (Interim)1. INTRODUCTION
6Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictProject Partners
• Town of Estes Park
◦Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
◦Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner
• Rocky Mountain National Park
◦Larry Gamble, Chief of Planning for Rocky Mountain National
Park
• Estes Valley Land Trust
◦Erica Goad, Stewardship Coordinator
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife
◦Nick Dellaca, Trails Coordinator
◦Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager
• US Forest Service
◦Kevin Cannon, Recreation Forester, Canyon Lakes Ranger
District, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests
• Larimer County
◦Jeffrey Boring, Resource Planner
• Bureau of Reclamation
• YMCA of the Rockies
• Trail Counters And Volunteers
◦Gary Matthews
◦Heidi Tryon
◦Haldean Dalzell
◦Lisa Plaut
◦Herb Loveall
◦Kim S.
◦Amy Plummer
◦Todd Plummer
This Master Trails Plan was made possible through the planning grant
program of Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) and the National Park
Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program.
The Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund was created in 1992 to
allocate a portion of Colorado Lottery proceeds to GOCO for projects
that preserve, protect and enhance the state’s wildlife, park, river, trail
and open space heritage.
The RTCA supports community-led natural resource conservation
and outdoor recreation projects across the nation by partnering with
community groups, nonprofits, tribes, and state and local governments
to design trails and parks, conserve and improve access to rivers,
protect special places, and create recreation opportunities.
7 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanPlanning Team
◦Mark Kane, Director of Community Planning & Design, SE
Group
◦Drew Pollak-Bruce, Associate Planner, SE Group
◦Mike Beach, Analyst & Planner, SE Group
◦Kristen Poehling, Analyst & Planner, SE Group
◦Joyce Allgaier, Senior Consulting Planner, SE Group
◦Liz Grades, Landscape Architect, SE Group
◦Terri L. Musser, Senior Transportation Planner, Charlier
Associates, Inc.
◦Patsy McEntee, Landscape Architect, National Park Service,
Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance Program 1. INTRODUCTION
8Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictABOUT ESTES VALLEY RECREATION
AND PARK DISTRICT
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVPRD) is a quasi-
municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of
Colorado that sits amidst some of the most scenic backdrops in the
nation. The District was formed in 1955 and was first known as the
Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Recreation District. It was created for
the purpose of supplying recreational facilities within its boundaries.
In 1985, the District’s name was changed to the Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District.
Lands within the EVPRD are a mecca for outdoor recreationists
and trail users—local residents and visitors alike. The District
encompasses approximately 320 square miles in southwestern
Larimer County and northern Boulder County, and includes within
its boundaries primarily unincorporated land and the Town of Estes
Park. The permanent population of the Recreation District varies
between 10,800 and 11,600 in any given year.
District boundaries are generally described as approximately two
miles north of Glen Haven (including Glen Haven); one mile east
of Drake (including Drake); southeast toward (but not including)
Pinewood Springs; 2 miles south of the Larimer-Boulder County
line (including Meeker Park, but not Allenspark); and west to the
Continental Divide.
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors.
The District Board is responsible for the overall management
and administration of the affairs of the District. The Directors
hold regular meetings and, as needed, special meetings. Day-to-
day operations of the District are conducted by 17 full-time staff
members, led by the Executive Director, Tom Carosello.
The District’s operations are also informed by the Estes Valley Trails
Committee (EVTC) that promotes the development and maintenance
of a comprehensive and sustainable trail system throughout the
Estes Valley, which considers a variety of trail users. The EVTC acts
as an Advisory Committee to the Estes Valley Recreation District and
Park District Board of Directors.
The mission of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District is
to plan, direct, organize, and implement recreational programs,
manage facilities, and provide public park and recreation
opportunities for residents of the District and visitors to the
community. The District implements programs that offer a wide
variety of recreational opportunities for all age groups, including
both active and passive experiences.
ABOUT THIS PLAN
The Estes Valley is blessed with a myriad of organizations and
agencies that manage many miles of trails that traverse some of the
most beautiful landscapes in the Rocky Mountains. In addition to
9 Estes Valley Master Trails Planthe 355 miles of trails in Rocky Mountain National Park, numerous
local and federal agencies administer and maintain their own trail
networks, including EVRPD, the Town of Estes Park, YMCA of the
Rockies, the US Forest Service, the US Bureau of Reclamation, and
Larimer and Boulder Counties. These trails are governed by different
rules and maintained to different standards. In many places,
trails exist in close proximity to one another, but lack connectors.
Signage, such as it is, refers to the rules and distances within each
trail system. A Master Trails Plan for the Estes Valley will begin the
process of knitting these disparate trails systems together to create
a consistent, cohesive and connected regional system of trails in the
valley.
A cornerstone of this Estes Valley Master Trails Plan is bringing
together all the partners working on trails in the valley, and
integration of other regional trails planning efforts such as the
Rocky Mountain Greenway project, Boulder County Parks and
Open Space Regional Mountain Master Trails Plan, and the Larimer
County Open Lands Master Plan to ensure efficient connectivity
and reduce duplication of effort. This plan also builds upon the
vast potential of the EVRPD’s already successful trails network to
provide a range of trail experiences for diverse user groups, as well
as to connect users to the natural landscape while respecting the
resources that make the valley so special. The final Master Trails
Plan will ensure that new trail and facility development preserves
and protects wildlife and natural habitat areas, serves youth and
families, and is complementary to recreational use on adjacent
public lands. Through a robust planning process, the Estes Valley
Master Trails Plan aims to connect existing trail systems, evaluate
new trail opportunities, and plan for safe facilities that will enhance
bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The planning process also seeks
to encourage community collaboration and partnerships while
guiding a shared and multiple use vision for the Valley. Finally, the
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan strives to demonstrate the significant
economic, recreational, and environmental benefits of a thoughtful
plan for a regionally-connected system of trails in the Estes Valley.
The development of this plan is supported by a planning grant
from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) and technical assistance
from the National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance (RTCA) Program. The Town of Estes Park, Larimer County
Department of Natural Resources, Rocky Mountain National Park
(RMNP), the US Forest Service, the YMCA of the Rockies, Estes Valley
Land Trust, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife were all partners on
both the GOCO application and the application to the RTCA program.
The professional services of SE Group of Frisco, CO were retained to
conduct the planning process and draft the Master Plan document.
Charlier Associates, Inc. acted as a sub-consultant on the project for
transportation planning and design support. Support from RTCA has
primarily focused upon coordination among stakeholders, ensuring
meaningful community dialogue in the process, and developing long
term support strategies for the plan and trail stewardship.1. INTRODUCTION
10Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictPROJECT AREA
The project area for the Master Trails Plan includes the entirety of
EVRPD’s jurisdiction, as described above. However, because the
western half of the district is located almost entirely within RMNP,
where a comprehensive trails network is already in place, the plan’s
focus is on areas surrounding the Town of Estes Park, including
connections to RMNP and US Forest Service land. The project area
also extends north towards the Comanche Peak Wilderness, south
from Estes Park to Boulder County and east towards Pinewood
Reservoir and the community of Drake.
MASTER TRAILS PLAN MISSION
The Master Trails Plan Mission has been vetted through the project’s
community and partner outreach, and articulates the overall
purpose of the planning process. The mission is as follows:
“To create a Master Trails Plan that will foster a coordinated
approach to trail development and multi-modal connectivity
between public lands within the Estes Valley. The Master Trails
Plan will provide a framework to guide decision-making regarding
trail & connectivity planning, acquisition, development, funding,
maintenance, and management of a district-wide multi-user trails
system.”
PROJECT GOALS
The Project Goals expand upon the Master Trails Plan Mission and
further clarify the purpose and anticipated outcome of the planning
process. The Project Goals are as follows:
• Identify conservation properties, open space, recreation
areas, and trailheads to be included in the plan, as well as
areas of potential for trail and conservation planning.
• Identify key nodes and connections and opportunities/
constraints.
• Explore bike share program feasibility.
• Explore water trail feasibility and infrastructure.
• Reference agency masterplans and involvement within plan.
• Provide agency trail education & regulatory information.
Explore strategies for signage and/or communication modes
to portray this information.
PARTNERS
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District is leading this effort
with the support of the following partner organizations: the Town of
Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Valley Land Trust,
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, US Forest Service, Larimer County,
Bureau of Reclamation and YMCA of the Rockies.
11 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanObjectives of Partnership:
• To develop a Master Trails Plan that the Partners and region
can support.
• Incorporate each agency’s goals and master planning efforts-
understanding that each entity has their own specific goals but
have an interest in collaboration on the ideas where there is
overlap with EVRPD Master Trails Plan goals.
• Capitalize on agency relationships for potential critical
easements for trail priorities
• Develop overall trail map of the region identifying access
points, trail and multimodal connectivity and providing the
necessary education for these areas.
• Identify high value conservation areas and areas for special
uses such as viewshed preservation, habitat protection, historic
preservation and cultural interpretation.1. INTRODUCTION
12Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictMASTER TRAILS PLAN VISION
The Master Trails Plan Vision is an expression of the partners and
community’s desired future for trails in the Estes Valley. The Master
Trails Plan Vision attempts to captures what community members
most value about trails, recreation and their community, and
articulate a shared image of what they want their trails system to
become.
At the first Open House for the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan on
August 12, 2015, the public was asked about their vision for an
Estes Valley trail network. The following bullet points encapsulate
that feedback, as well as input from the EVRPD and the partner
organizations.
• Create a consistent, cohesive and connected regional system of
trails in the valley for all uses
• Provide a range of trail experiences for diverse user groups
• Bring together all the partners working on trails in the valley
• Connect users to the natural landscape
• Respect the resources that make the valley so special
• Serve users of all ages and abilities, including youth and families
• Encourage community collaboration and partnerships
• Plan for safe facilities that will enhance bicycle and pedestrian
mobility
WHY TRAILS: BENEFITS OF TRAILS
Discussions of the benefits of trails are often narrowly focused
on recreational or environmental aspects and fail to see the big
picture—the total package of benefits that a trail or greenway
can provide to communities, including public health, economic
and transportation benefits, and even the effect on quality of life,
community pride and identity. Among other benefits, trails can
13 Estes Valley Master Trails Planmake our communities more livable; improve the economy through
tourism and civic improvement; preserve and restore open space;
and provide opportunities for physical activity to improve fitness and
mental health.
When seen as a whole, the evidence about the far-reaching benefits
of trails and greenways is compelling, especially given the minimal
public investment involved compared to other undertakings with the
same community goals, like park and transportation improvements.
Why Trails? Because they:
• Save Money and Improve the Environment
• Promote Healthy Living
• Raise Quality of Life
• Encourage Community Transformation
• Enhance Economic Revitalization and Sustainability
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Trails and green space are important community amenities that help
to spur economic development. From home owners choosing to live
along a trail to tourists who choose their destinations based on the
availability of trails and recreation, trails are important community
facilities that attract both people and dollars. The economic effects
of trails are sometimes readily apparent (as in the case of trailside
businesses) and are sometimes more subtle, like when a company
decides to move to a particular community because of amenities like
trails, but as demonstrated below, mounting new evidence shows an
almost universal positive connection between well-designed open
spaces and trails and important economic development indicators.
Time and time again, the economic benefits generated by trails have
been shown to far outweigh the costs of land acquisition for trails,
trail construction and maintenance.
Trails Contribute to Tourism and Economic Development
As Visit Estes Park – the official Destination Marketing Organization
(DMO) for Estes Park – has acknowledged, tourism is the basis of
the Estes Park economy. Visit Estes Park has found that Estes Park’s
approximately 2 million guests spend $187 million in the town each
year, which generates $154 million in taxable sales. These guests
provide the Town of Estes Park with 54.1% of its tax revenues, almost
$18 million every year. Additionally, the tourism industry is Estes
Park’s largest employer, providing more than half the jobs in the
town (Visit Estes Park, 2015). Visit Estes Park markets the community
based on the following concepts: real wildlife, exceptional outdoor
adventures, extraordinary beauty, majestic mountain village and
a welcoming community. All of these concepts are enhanced and
supported by a robust, inter-connected trail system: trails allow
you to get out into nature to experience the beauty, wildlife and
outdoor adventure the Estes Valley has to offer. A cohesive, easy
to navigate system of trails also improves the quality of life within 1. INTRODUCTION
14Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtthe Valley and makes the community more welcoming to all its
residents and guests. Trails, and the access to the outdoors and
nature they provide, are also a large factor in the decision for
tourists to visit Estes Park. All of the top four reasons for deciding to
visit Estes Park are related to trails: 1) relaxing mountain getaway; 2)
Rocky Mountain National Park; 3) wildlife viewing; and 4) outdoor
recreation.
The economic benefits of the Lake Estes Trail alone have been found
to be very significant to the local Estes Valley economy. For example,
spending associated with the Estes Lake Trail alone is estimated to
contribute approximately $7 million to the Estes Valley economy
each, generating approximately $950,000 in federal, state, and local
taxes and supporting approximately 104 jobs.
The intersection of trails and tourism, including the economic impact
of the Lake Estes Trail, is further explored in Chapter 5 as part of the
“Trails Mean Business” discussion.
For over a century, tourism has been the cornerstone of the Estes
Park economy and experience, as guests have marveled at the
area’s exceptional natural beauty, watchable wildlife, and outdoor
adventures. – Visit Estes Park
Trails Increase Property Values and Make Homes Easier to
Sell
Trails and greenway corridors provide a variety of highly-valued
amenities, such as attractive views, open space preservation,
and convenient recreation opportunities. This can be reflected
in increased real property values and increased marketability for
property located near open space and trails. Studies in Seattle,
Minneapolis, Denver and other communities across the country
have consistently found that that proximity to trails increases the
value of homes.
On Seattle’s most popular trail, homeowners with properties near,
but not adjacent to the trail, sold for an average of 6% more than
comparable property elsewhere (Seattle Office of Planning, 1987).
In Minneapolis-St. Paul, for every 400 meters closer a median-
priced home is to an off-street bicycle facility, its value was found
to increase by $510 (Krizek, 2006). Additionally, the National Park
Service notes that increases in property values range from 5 to
32% when adjacent to trails and greenways (National Park Service,
1995). In Denver, three trails were studied in detail, and results of
the survey show that “trails are regarded as an amenity that helps to
attract buyers and to sell property.” Of real estate agents surveyed
for the study, 73% believed that a home adjacent to a trail would be
easier to sell, 55% agreed that the home would sell for more than a
comparable home from a different neighborhood, and 82% of real
15 Estes Valley Master Trails Planestate agents would use the trail as a selling point (Conservation
Fund and Colorado State Parks, 1995).
Sidewalks and other places to walk such as trails rank as one of the
top priorities with home buyers. The 2013 Community Preference
Survey, conducted on behalf of the National Association of
Realtors, found 80% of those polled considered having sidewalks
and places to take a walk one of their top priorities when deciding
where they would like to live. This was an increase from the 2011
Community Preference Survey. Also, places to walk ranked higher
than “high quality public schools,” which was selected by 74% of
survey respondents (National Association of Realtors, 2013). This
sentiment is also echoed in surveys of second-home owners and
resort properties. For example, all Kelsey & Norden Resort Real
Estate Surveys, which have been conducted each year since 2009,
have identified trails as the #1 amenity resort real estate owners and
purchasers (Kelsey & Norden Resort Real Estate Survey, 2014).
Trails Attract Businesses and a High-Quality Workforce
Trails, bike paths and walkable, bikeable communities are key assets
in helping states and localities attract tax-paying businesses and
a high-quality workforce. As noted above, homebuyers in general
highly value proximity to trails and walkable environments. Trails
and walkable, bikeable communities are also what companies and
young professionals are seeking when deciding to relocate. Of those
“Millennials” that are often targets to attract and retain: two-thirds
seek walkable places and town centers, even if they prefer to live in
a suburb, 26 percent do not have a driver’s license, and 45 percent
report making a conscious effort to replace driving with alternative
forms of transportation (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013).
In Portland, OR, the city surveyed recent transplants who bike in
2009, and 62 percent of respondents said the city’s bike friendliness
was a factor in their decision to move there (City of Portland, 2009).
Trails Increase Tax Revenues
Trail activities are associated with a lot of spending in the United
States, and that spending generates local, state and federal tax
revenues. For example, bicycling and trail sports (which includes
trail running, unpaved day hiking, unpaved backpacking, and rock
climbing) is estimated to contribute $162 billion annually to the
U.S. economy, which generates approximately $22 billion in federal,
state, and local taxes. An estimated 13% of all spending on outdoor
recreation trips in the U.S. – including camping, fishing, hiking
and skiing – is spent on bike trips and Americans spend more on
bicycling each year than they do on airline travel (Outdoor Industry
Association, 2012). As mentioned above, spending associated with
the Estes Lake Trail alone is estimated to contribute approximately
$7 million to the Estes Valley economy, generating approximately
$950,000 in federal, state, and local taxes each year. 1. INTRODUCTION
16Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictBicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects create jobs
Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects create jobs - more jobs
per federal dollar than road-only highway construction. A University
of Massachusetts study demonstrated that “road-only” projects
created 7.8 jobs per $1 million spent, while “bicycling only” and
“pedestrian-only” projects provided 11.4 and 10 jobs, respectively,
per million dollars of spending (University of Massachusetts, 2011).
ESTES VALLEY’S COMMUNITY VALUES FOR TRAILS
Love for Recreation and Desire for Transportation
Alternatives
Residents and visitors to the Estes Valley want to enjoy similar
amenities to many mountain communities that benefit from a tourist
economy. Residents want to enjoy the mountain lifestyle and be
able to access their local trails easily while also benefiting from the
tax revenues that visitors bring. People enjoy Estes Valley trail and
park amenities in a number of ways including hiking, biking, skiing,
snowshoeing, horseback riding, rock climbing, picnicking, fishing,
wildlife viewing, photography and much more. They appreciate and
respect the variety of activities that others enjoy in this area.
While residents benefit from the EVRPD’s local trails and the close
proximity of RMNP and nearby Arapaho and Roosevelt National
Forests, there has been a growing community voice expressing the
desire to be able to access these amenities by bicycle, foot and
horseback. There has also been a desire to see local kids be able
to get to school safely by walking and biking. For both types of
connections, safety has been a great concern.
As with neighboring communities on the Colorado Front Range and
communities nationwide, increasing populations of visitors and
residents are creating a growing demand for alternatives to vehicular
transportation. No longer are people content to waste precious time
sitting in traffic—there is a growing movement where communities
are developing connectivity corridors and systems for non-motorized
movement. Likewise, the Estes Valley is in tune with the vision that
trails aren’t just for recreation, they are for transport and social
behavior as well.
Healthy Lifestyles
The ability to recreate and enjoy the natural and scenic beauty
of the Estes Valley is another common goal that enlivens and
regenerates people. Researchers now agree as they are finding ways
to measure the profound affect that nature has on the human body.
Many indices including everything “from stress hormones to heart
rate to brain waves to protein markers—indicate that when people
spend time in green space, there is an intense benefit. In 2009 a
group of Dutch scientists found a lower incidence of 15 diseases—
including depression, anxiety, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and
17 Estes Valley Master Trails Planmigraines—in people who lived within about a half mile of green
space” (National Geographic, 2016).
But having trails in the area is no longer enough when residents and
visitors fight vehicular traffic to reach a walkable destination. Many
walkability experts are now noting that the mere presence of trails
and parks in an area is not enough to keep people healthy and active
on a daily basis. The need for walkable communities and parks and/
or trails that are accessible within ¼- ½ mile for all is a critical need.
Trails and community infrastructure that promote bicycling and
walking contribute to healthy communities and lower healthcare
costs for individuals and local governments. A 2004 cost-benefit
analysis of using bike/pedestrian trails in Lincoln, Nebraska to
reduce health care costs associated with inactivity found that for
every $1 invested in trails for physical activity, $2.94 of public health
benefits are produced (Wang et al, 2004). Local organizations in the
Estes Valley have been greatly motivated by this knowledge. The
local Estes Valley Library organizes activities around active living
and wellness and supports residents in expanding their knowledge
of their local resources in order to reach their physical activity
goals. In addition, the three local Medical Clinics, the Estes Valley
Medical Center, the Timberline Medical Clinic and the Salud Family
Health Center have begun a collaborative partnership through the
Rural Estes Alliance for Community Health (REACH). The Partners
are working on a variety of ideas that they can collaborate on in
order to develop common interventions, utilize a shared disease
self-management education program, and offer a collaborative
calendar of educational workshops to address the community’s most
predominant health concerns.
Getting Young People Outdoors
According to the Institute for Social Research, the average American
boy or girl spends just four to seven minutes in unstructured outdoor
play each day, and more than seven hours each day in front of an
electronic screen (University of Michigan, 2010). This is startling
data that has been causing a ripple effect across the country. Nearly
every industry nationally that works with young people has begun
initiatives to help change this statistic. From school districts and
environmental education organizations to federal land managers,
conservationists and the outdoor retail industry, new funding
streams for outreach and programs have developed. There are
several negative long term effects of kids’ “nature deficit disorder”
as coined by Richard Louv, but the two greatest impacts are on the
general health and well-being of America’s youth and the ability
and desire for future generations to steward and value our public
natural and wild areas, as well as our local trails and parks. For this
reason, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District is committed to
supporting and working with local youth-serving organizations to get
more young people outdoors more often.1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2:
Community
Engagement And
Participation
19 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanCommunity engagement and participation is a vital part of any
planning effort. Throughout this planning process the Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) placed a tremendous value
on the participation of the community. The District realized that
understanding the vision and desires for trails in the Estes Valley
were both important for the development of the plan as well as for
the long term support of priority projects. Also, when local citizens’
values and needs for trails are heard through the planning process,
many more opportunities develop for the community to come
together around the plan, to support future projects and to steward
their local resources. As a result, thought was given to how this
process could be an interactive discussion with the community and
how people could participate beyond the format of traditional public
meetings and an interactive project website was developed for this
purpose. Multiple forms of marketing media were used to focus
public attention on this project including press releases, newspaper
ads, social media, a project flyer that was posted at trailheads, and
a project postcard that was distributed at places of business and at
trails by Trails Ambassadors. Multiple discussions were also held with
the EVRPD Trails Committee who have been vested in this process
from its inception, many of whom have advocated for trails in the
Estes Valley for many years. Following are expanded descriptions of
the key strategies of public participation that were utilized:
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS: The planning team spent two
days on August 6-7, 2015 with local groups discussing trails interests
through stakeholder interviews, meeting with over 55 people from
22 groups representing different interests from the community.
Stakeholder meetings included detailed discussions with the
following groups and more:
• EVRPD Board
• EVRPD Trails Committee
• Estes Park Cycling Coalition
• Estes Park Equestrian Club
• Estes Park Running Club
• Trail Masters Hiking Group
• Estes Park Gun & Archery Club
• Local Health Partners: Estes Park Medical Center, Timberline
Medical, Salud Clinic
• Estes Park School District/Exercise for Learning
• Visit Estes Park
• Town of Estes Park Senior Services Division
• Little Valley Owners Association
• Estes Park Police
• Estes Valley Watershed Coalition 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
20Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictPUBLIC MEETINGS: Between the June 2015 project launch
and June 2016 project close, three public meetings were held in the
Town of Estes Park:
1. August 12, 2015: The first public meeting was an open house
and brainstorming workshop. The public got a chance to
meet the planning team, see an overview presentation of the
project and then break out into small groups. Maps were
available to draw on and each group was facilitated by a
planning team member. The small group discussions allowed
the public to openly voice ideas, concerns and opportunities
related to specific topics and questions. A summary of Maps
were available to draw on and each group was facilitated by a
planning team member. A summary of public comments can be
found in Appendix A.
2. February 18, 2016: The second public meeting was a
presentation and workshop to review trail connection
alternatives that had been established through discussions
with Partner agencies, the Trails Committee and the Public.
Maps showing proposed trail connections and trail types
were available for comment. Other project information was
also available for comment such as the economics of trails,
public survey results, trail facility types and descriptions, trail
maintenance standards, and trail counts. A summary of public
comments can be found in Appendix A.
3. April 28, 2016: The third public meeting was an opportunity
for the public to see an overview of the Final Trails Master Plan
Document. A summary of public comments can be found in
Appendix A
21 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INTERACTIVE ONLINE ENGAGEMENT: Throughout
the trail planning process, the public had access to information
about the project through an online engagement platform at www.
EstesValleyTrails.com. The site was active from the day of the first
public meeting in August 2015 and was a vehicle for providing
ongoing information about the project. The site was also a platform
for hearing back from the community. The site was an opportunity
for gathering the community’s preferences and priorities for trails
and safe bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout the Valley.
Two informational surveys were available to the public from August
2015 until March 2016 which provided the planning team with
valuable information regarding the community’s vision for trails,
priority trail connections, facility preferences and much more.
Questions were both qualitative and quantitative so the resulting
information provided clear directions for both the priorities for trails
and the grand vision for both the Town of Estes Park and the Estes
Valley.
22Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictEVRPD AND THE TRAILS COMMITTEE: The EVRPD
Trails Committee is a voluntary advisory committee that makes
recommendations for trail project priorities and related activities to
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Director and Board. The
Committee is made up of citizens, advisory liaisons from the Town
of Estes Park and EVRPD staff members. Current activities that the
Trails Committee now conducts:
• Advocates and pursues recruitment of as many people
different people of different trail user type involved as possible
on TC.
• Research existing trail easements
• Develops and recommends trail project priorities to the EVRPD
Board
• Researches necessary planning information, assists with RFP,
grant and funding development
• Coordinates volunteer projects
The Trails Committee has discussed the potential for pursuing the
following activities:
• Pursue opportunities to develop an Estes Valley Trails map for
the public
• Desire to be coordinating more activities in response to the
plan recommendations,
• Desire to be actively promoting and preserving trail
connections and prescriptive trails
• Desire for more coordinating of volunteers for trail
maintenance, understanding that funding and staff time are
limited, as is dedicated funding
• Trails Committee is interested in supporting the Prescription
Trails program
• Trails Committee is interested in supporting more youth
engagement.
23 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT YOUTH ENGAGEMENT: As mentioned in the introduction
of this plan, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District is
committed to supporting and working with local youth-serving
organizations to get more young people outdoors more often. They
are also interested in supporting the engagement of youth in the
development of trails, parks and related stewardship activities. To
date, EVRPD has utilized youth for youth corps projects and trail and
restoration volunteer projects. During this trail planning process,
the District took the opportunity to bring together youth-serving
organizations to brainstorm around activities that all organizations
could collaborate on. Some of these groups met with EVRPD about
the trails master plan and future youth activities.
The following organizations are organizations that work with youth in
the Estes Valley:
• Estes Valley School District
• Exercise for Learning
• Rocky Mountain National Park
• Eagle Rock School
• Rocky Mountain Conservancy
• YMCA of the Rockies
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife
• Estes Park Running Club
• Estes Park Cycling Coalition
• Estes Valley HS Running Team
• Estes Valley Mountain Biking Team
• Estes Valley Library
• EVRPD/ Trails Committee
• US Forest Service- Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forests
24Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictAll of these groups have opportunities to provide meaningful
experiences for young people in the Valley and getting young people
out into nature more often is a common goal for many. There could
be a great benefit for this collection of organizations to meet on a
regular basis to develop some activities that they could collaborate
around, increasing any one group’s capacity and reaching more
young people as a whole. It is important to keep in mind that
the “key obstacles to overcome in getting youth to spend more
time in nature are a lack of access, a lack of interest, and feelings
of discomfort. If youth are given more opportunities to have a
meaningful experience outdoors, they will be more likely to value
nature, engage with it, and feel empowered to do something about
it (Nature Conservancy, 2016)
EVRPD WORKING WITH HEALTH PARTNERS
In addition to supporting youth to get outdoors, the EVRPD also
recognized the efforts of the local health community to outreach
to the community about physical activity and healthy lifestyles. As
mentioned previously, the three local Medical Clinics, the Estes
Valley Medical Center, the Timberline Medical Clinic and the Salud
Family Health Center have begun a collaborative partnership through
the Rural Estes Alliance for Community Health (REACH). This group
is working on a variety of ideas that they can team on in order to
develop common interventions and communication strategies
around health and wellness in the community. The development of
new trails through this plan was a great opportunity to also generate
awareness of existing trails. In a number of cities and towns across
the country, health partners are teaming with land managers to
promote parks and trails as a resource for people to meet their
fitness and activity goals. The program is referred to as “Prescription
Trails” or “Prescription Parks” and is commonly made up of a
program where doctors “prescribe” their patients specific physical
activity routines along with information about parks and trails
where they can go to accomplish these activities. Many programs
incorporate trail/park facility awareness (location/ease of trail/other
visitor facilities) as a key component of the program with other
programs developing a large database of recreational opportunities
for people of all fitness levels. At this time, EVRPD, the Town of Estes
Park, the National Park Service and the REACH group have agreed
to be the key support partners for the program and will continue
discussions about how the program can be most beneficial to the
community.
25
Planning Process:
Jan 2015:
EVRPD Project Kick-o with Partners
June ‘15:
Partner Meeting & Project Kick-o with Consultants
August ‘15: Public Meeting #1
Project Kick-O Open House
Stakeholder Meetings
Trails Ambassadors/Trail Use Counts
EstesValleyTrails.com website launch- Survey #1
Sept-Oct ‘15:
Research & mapping of alternatives
Nov-Dec ‘15:
Review of 1st draft Opportunity maps
Website Survey #2
Feb ‘16: Public Meeting #2
Presentation of Alternatives to Public
April ‘16 Public Meeting #3
Presentation of Trails Master Plan
June ‘16
Final Plan Complete & Adopted
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Chapter3:
Understanding
Current Conditions
27 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONSAn important early step in creating the Estes Valley Master Trails
Plan was compiling and analyzing the existing inventory of trails and
facilities in the Estes Valley, and understanding the needs and issues
of the community and the project partners. This analysis of existing
conditions included on-site evaluation of EVRPD trails documenting
trail location, trail condition, surface type, user classification,
functionality, sustainability, and any seasonal restrictions, as well
as mapping and evaluation of the existing regional trail system (the
non-EVRPD trails). Analysis of non-EVRPD trails and connections
was also achieved by communicating with the Project Partners
to understand their resources and opportunities for connectivity,
new trail segments, and open space goals. With the existing trail
network well understood, the next layer of planning analysis was
to understand the existing transportation network, travel patterns,
destinations, and wants and needs of the community. This involved
a review of relevant on-going and previous planning work that
has been done as well as an analysis of the existing transportation
system and behaviors in the region. Overlaid on top of all of these
physical and social considerations of the trail network is another
layer of analysis: consideration of the unique natural environment
and the sensitive resources that make the Estes Valley such a
spectacular place and, along with that, an understanding of the
natural hazard considerations associated with these important
natural resources.
EXISTING TRAILS AND FACILITIES
As mentioned in the Introduction, the Estes Valley is blessed with
a myriad of organizations and agencies that manage many miles
of trails that traverse some of the most beautiful landscapes in the
Rocky Mountains. In addition to the 355 miles of trails in Rocky
Mountain National Park, numerous local and federal agencies
administer and maintain their own trail networks, including EVRPD,
the Town of Estes Park, YMCA of the Rockies, the US Forest Service,
the US Bureau of Reclamation, and Larimer and Boulder Counties.
The existing trail system in the Estes Valley provides world-class
recreational opportunities, including opportunities for walking,
hiking, backpacking, paved bicycling, mountain biking and other
natural surface bicycling, equestrian use and mountaineering. Trails
in the valley also provide access to wildlife viewing, stunning vistas,
alpine lakes and natural areas, and other recreational pursuits, such
as rock climbing or camping. Opportunities for pet friendly travel
and travel by mobility-assisting devices (wheelchairs, etc.) are also
provided on some of the existing trails in the Estes Valley, although
pets and most vehicles (including bicycles) are prohibited from most
trails in RMNP. In terms ability levels and opportunities for learning,
there seems to be a reasonable progression of difficulty levels in the
existing trails in the valley (some easy trails, some moderate trails
and some expert level trails), providing appropriate experiences for
28Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtusers of all ages and abilities and allowing all users to develop their
skills.
The EVRPD manages and actively maintains three trails. The Lake
Estes Trail is a 3.75-mile long trail circumnavigating Lake Estes.
The paved multi-use trail is very popular with walkers, bikers, and
fishermen/women. It is accessible from several locations on all sides
of Lake Estes, with the most popular being the Visitors Center on
the west side of the lake. The Matthews-Reeser Bird Sanctuary is
located along the trail, as are three fitness stations. Restrooms and
drinking fountains are located at Cherokee Draw Day-Use Area on
the south side of Lake Estes, at the Visitors Center on the west side,
and at the Estes Lake Marina on the north side of the lake. There
are several easily-accessible fishing spots along the trail, including a
handicap fishing pier near Fisherman’s Nook. The Estes Lake Marina
store offers fishing and sun supplies, snacks, beverages, and bike/
surrey-topped pedal cart rentals. The marina also includes a small
beach area for sand play, volleyball, horseshoes, and picnic facilities.
In general, the Lake Estes Trail is in good condition and the pavement
and other features of the trail are very well maintained.
The Fish Creek Trail was partially destroyed in the 2013 flood but is
currently in the process of being reconstructed in concert with Fish
Creek Road and associated utilities. Reconstruction of Fish Creek
Road and the multi-use trail is now anticipated to begin in the fall of
2016, a time of low flow for Fish Creek. Early construction activities,
in the fall and winter months, will include work in Fish Creek and
construction of retaining walls and concrete box culverts (bridges).
Major construction activities on Fish Creek Road and the multi-
use trail are anticipated in spring and summer 2017. The project
is expected to be complete in fall of 2017. Once complete, the
approximately 3-mile mostly paved multi-use trail will once again
connect the Lake Estes Trail with the Homer Rouse Trail, ultimately
providing access to Lily Lake and RMNP from town. The trail goes
by the Dog and Agility Park, ball fields and a playground with an
exceptional view of Longs Peak and Mount Meeker. The Fish Creek
trail is an important connector trail to the south and is a bit more
challenging than the Lake Estes Trail, as it has steeper grades in
many sections.
The Homer Rouse Trail begins at the southern end of the Fish Creek
Trail and continues south up to the Baldpate Inn, Lily Lake, and the
Twin Sisters trailhead. For a majority of its length, the Homer Rouse
Trail is located on an old county road bed. Lower portions of the
dirt trail were washed out in the 2013 flood and have since been
reconstructed and graded sustainably to allow for proper drainage
and for use by hand cyclists. A reroute on the upper portion of
the trail is in the design stage. This new alignment will avoid the
Baldpate Inn parking lot, climbing closer to CO Route 7 and still
ending at the Twin Sisters trailhead. Aspens line the trail for much
of its distance, especially along the lower portions. Conifers are
29 Estes Valley Master Trails Planmore predominate in the higher sections. While there are some
waterbars and other trail features that will require maintenance
or reconstruction, the trail is generally in good shape. There is also
an unsanctioned social trail spur forming along the trail with some
erosion occurring that should be addressed as on-going trail work
is completed on the Homer Rouse Trail. A full trail inventory and
assessment of the Homer Rouse Trail, including recommended trail
prescriptions is provided in Appendix B.
EVRPD also manages a fourth trail – Otie’s Trail – which connects the
Visitors Center to the Lumpy Ridge trailhead north of town. The trail
is an important connection to RMNP, but all required easements are
not currently in place. In its current state, the trail consists of a mix
of dirt and paved surfaces. Once the easement considerations are
addressed, the trail will require maintenance work on trail surfaces,
features and signage. A full trail inventory and assessment of Otie’s
Trail, including recommended trail prescriptions is provided in
Appendix B.
Trails maintained by several federal, county, local and private
land managers round out the Estes Valley trails network. The NPS
manages 355 miles of trail within RMNP. The RMNP trails system
is well connected within the park, including access over the
Continental Divide via the Flattop Mountain Trail and the Continental
Divide Scenic Trail. The Twin Sisters trailhead, East Portal area, Deer
Ridge area and Lumpy Ridge trailhead provide connections from
town. As much of the park is a designated wilderness area, trails
in the park are only open to foot and horse traffic (some trails are
currently closed to horse use while flood recovery takes place).
The US Forest Service trails system in the Estes Valley is focused
around two main areas – the Crosier Mountain/Comanche Peak
Wilderness area and the Homestead Meadows/Pierson Park area.
Both areas were hit hard by the 2013 flooding and recovery is still in
progress. The Crosier Mountain/Comanche Peak Wilderness area is
mainly accessed from Devils Gulch Road. Trails in this area include
the North Fork Trail and trails on Crosier Mountain, some of which
are still closed due to flooding.
The Homestead Meadows/Pierson Park area is accessed from Cabin
Creek Road off of CO Route 7. Johnny Park Road (Forest Service
Road [FSR] 118), Pierson Park Road (FSR 119) and Coyote Hill Road
(FSR 325) are the main routes in this area. As with other areas, flood
recovery is still in progress.
Larimer County manages the 1,362-acre Hermit Park Open Space,
located just southeast of the Town of Estes Park between US 36
and Fish Creek. Hermit Park offers 2.8 miles of trail, including the
Kruger Rock trail overlooking town and the Homestead Meadows
Connector, which connects to 12 miles of USFS trails. Another trail is
planned to be built over the next few years, arcing around the west 3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
30Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtside of the open space and connecting to both existing trails and the
main access road from US 36. See Chapter 6 for more details on this
planned trail.
The Town of Estes Park and private organizations such as the YMCA
of the Rockies also offer paved and soft-surface trail opportunities
on their respective lands. This Master Trails Planning process
has engaged each Partner to fully understand their existing trail
conditions and to integrate each agency’s goals and master planning
efforts related to trails to ensure efficient connectivity and reduce
duplication of effort.
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
PATTERNS AND COMMUTER
CORRIDORS
Major commuter corridors in the Estes Valley generally follow the
primary road network, including the major arterial highways, which
all converge in the downtown area. These highways include US 36,
which connects Lyons and the Boulder-Denver areas with Estes Park;
US 34, which connects Loveland with Estes Park; Highway 66, which
accesses Rocky Mountain National Park to the south and west; and
Highway 7, which links Estes Park to Allenspark and the Peak-to-Peak
Scenic Byway. Other important roadways include Big Thompson
Avenue, Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue, Saint Vrain Avenue,
Riverside Drive, Dry Gulch Road, Devils Gulch Road, and Fish Creek
Road. These facilities provide the primary means of access to the
downtown area and Rocky Mountain National Park from most of the
regional connections and residential areas in Estes Park. Except for
some three and four lane roadway sections within the downtown
area, the primary as well as secondary roadways are all two lanes.
The majority of these roads do not have sidewalks or multi-use paths
associated with them.
Convergence of these major routes within the pedestrian-oriented
downtown has created significant challenges for bicycle and
pedestrian movement, as well as congestion on the road network.
Since both the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National
Park are major tourist destinations, traffic conditions in the town
are generally more congested in the summer than in the winter. The
level of traffic volume, particularly in the summer, can often create
challenges for pedestrians crossing multi-lane streets, including:
• Big Thompson Avenue/Hwy 34 – east to Loveland
• N. St. Vrain Avenue/Hwy 36 – southeast to Lyons
• S. St. Vrain Avenue/Hwy 7 – south to Allenspark
• E. Wonderview Avenue/Hwy 34 – north and west to RMNP Fall
River Entrance
• E. Elkhorn Avenue/Hwy 36 & Bus 34 – heart of Downtown
Estes
31 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan• W. Elkhorn Avenue/Bus 34 – west to RMNP Fall River Entrance
• Moraine Avenue/Hwy 36 – south and west to RMNP Beaver
Meadows Entrance
Natural and manmade constraints also create challenges for bicycle
and pedestrian mobility within the downtown area. Mountainous
terrain limits additional trail opportunities, and crossing Fall River
and the Big Thompson River inhibits north-south travel. Vertical
rock faces at the south bank of river/east side of Riverside Drive; on
the north side of Elkhorn Ave, behind businesses where Cleveland
Street terminates at Big Horn Drive; and on the south side of Elkhorn
Ave, south of the water wheel also create accessibility challenges.
Furthermore, existing development makes street or right-of-way
widening difficult. While the Riverwalk provides some off-road
opportunity for pedestrians, bicycles are not currently allowed
on the trail due to its width and level of use. As a result, bicycles
primarily travel through downtown in the full traffic lane, which
creates stress and safety concerns for many users.
The Estes Park Elementary, Middle, and High School are clustered
together on Community Drive, south of Highway 36 (N. St. Vrain
Avenue) and east of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue). While
the Lake Estes Trail and the Fish Creek Trail provide some off-road
connectivity from the north, the schools are somewhat disconnected
from downtown and areas to west of Highway 7, and particularly
disconnected in terms of off-road pedestrian and bicycle use, which
is generally preferred for younger users. Comments from the public
stressed the need for creating additional safe routes to schools in the
Estes Valley, often noting challenges with crossing St. Vrain Avenue
(Highway 7).
“Kids have no safe way to bike/walk to school from many locations
in town, especially on the west side of St. Vrain (SH 7). Please explore
options to increase the safety which will then be an incentive for kids
to walk/ride to school.”
In terms of regional connectivity, the major routes (US 36, US 34,
Highway 66, and Highway 7) receive considerable bicycle use,
but have small or no shoulders, and public input has indicated
maintenance of the existing facilities could be improved.3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
32Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictOTHER POLICIES AND PLANS TO
CONSIDER
PREVIOUS POLICIES AND PLANS
1986 Estes Valley Trails Plan
The first comprehensive look at trails in the Estes Valley occurred
in 1986 and was brought about through the efforts of the Estes
Valley Trails Coalition, a citizen’s group interested in preserving trails
in the area. The Trails Plan was developed by the Larimer County
Parks Department. This plan envisioned a 170-mile recreational
trail system in the region and shared many of the same goals of
the current trail planning effort: 1) to preserve and improve public
access to public lands; 2) to provide safe access to public lands for
pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists within road right-of-ways
through high traffic areas; and 3) to facilitate the inter-agency
coordination and cooperation necessary to implement such a plan.
Many of the trails planned for in this effort have been implemented
since this time, while other contemplated projects have evolved
along with the Estes Valley community.
2005 Estes Valley Trails Plan
In 2005, trails in the Estes Valley were again considered – this time by
the EVRPD. This plan focused on the mapping of trails and on desired
connections, but did not elaborate on implementation, funding, or
other topics of concern. Again, many of the trails planned for in this
effort have been implemented. Most of the projects evaluated in this
plan that have not yet been implemented are still relevant for the
current planning and have been carried forward while considering all
of the new realities for trails in the Estes Valley.
Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study
In 2003 the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
completed a study for the Estes Valley with input from individuals
representing the Town of Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park,
and Larimer County, as well as substantial input from the public.
The goal of this project was to develop a well-balanced, multi-
modal transportation system that addresses existing deficiencies
and accommodates future travel needs for the Estes Valley in
a safe and efficient manner. The project objectives included: 1)
providing a wider range of transportation choices; 2) maintaining the
environment and reducing congestion; and 3) improving the visitor
experience. Eleven trails are included in the Vision Transportation
Plan of this study. These paths were intended to provide a
comprehensive system throughout the Estes Valley that would allow
pedestrians and bicyclists to meet their mobility needs without using
an automobile. Most of these contemplated trails have been carried
forward into the current effort while considering the new realities
for trails in the Estes Valley.
33
ExE cutivE
Summary:
Our LaNDS
Our FuturE
recreation & conservation
choices for Northern colorado
Open Lands Master Plan
Larimer County
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
January 2015 Adoption Draft
Estes Valley Master Trails PlanLarimer County Master Plan
The Larimer County Master Plan is a policy document adopted in
1997 that establishes a long-range framework for decision making
for the unincorporated area of the County. It includes criteria for
development decisions, decisions on public services and capital
facilities and decisions on environmental resources protection
through its Guiding Principles and Implementing Strategies. The
Larimer County Master Plan suggested the implementation of a
bikeway system to include trails, bicycle lanes and bicycle routes.
Chief among the concerns of the Larimer County Master Plan is to
create a system that recognizes the need to serve both commuters
and recreational users and that coordinates with the plans of
adjoining cities and counties. Highway 34 is identified in the plan
as an important mobility corridor to reserve right-of-way in the
development of land use planning for future transportation options.
Larimer County Our Lands Our Future Study
In 2013 Larimer County, along with each municipality in the
County, conducted a county-wide study of the region’s needs and
preferences related to land conservation, stewardship of locally-
conserved lands, and outdoor recreation. For this effort, Larimer
County and all of the municipalities within joined together to analyze
the challenges, opportunities, and possible gaps in their collective
land conservation, stewardship, and outdoor recreation programs
and portfolios. The findings of the Our Lands - Our Future study are
the result of residents identifying county-wide priorities for land
conservation, stewardship, and outdoor recreation in the future and
have been carried forward into the current Estes Valley Trails Master
Plan thinking.
Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan
In 2015, Larimer County completed the Open Lands Master Plan
building upon the work done for the Our Lands Our Future Study.
The purpose of this plan was to outline the direction of the Open
Lands Program of the County and how revenues from the Help
Preserve Open Spaces sales and use tax should be allocated for
conservation and management of current and future lands. Of
particular interest for the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan was a goal
we have seen reiterated throughout regional plans for the area:
creating a system of regional trails to connect communities to
each other and with open spaces and other public lands. Regional
trails were defined as longer distance natural surface trails or trails
that may be used for recreation as well as serve non-motorized
transportation needs and it was noted that regional trails are often
located in the vicinity of river and stream corridors, or along other
linear features such as roads, railroad grades, utility corridors and
irrigation canals. The plan recommended offering paved and natural
surface trail opportunities for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and
numerous other low impact recreational uses and placing trails and 3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
34
»Appoint an official Bicycle Advisory Committee to create a
systematic method for ongoing citizen input into the development
of important policies, plans, and projects.
»Adopt a Complete Streets policy and offer implementation
guidance.
»Adopt standards for bike parking that conform to APBP
guidelines.
»Increase the amount of high quality bicycle parking
throughout the community.
»Develop an on street bike network with a focus on arterials.
On roads with posted speed limits of more than 35 mph, it is
recommended to provide protected bicycle infrastructure.
»Develop a Safe Routes to School program. Bicycle-safety
education should be a routine part of primary and secondary
education, and schools and the surrounding neighborhoods
should be particularly safe and convenient for biking and walking.
»Continue to expand your public education campaign
promoting the share the road message.
»Offer bicycling skills training opportunities for adults.
»Promote cycling throughout the year by offering or
supporting more family-oriented community or social rides.
»Design and publish a local bike map in paper and online.
»Develop a comprehensive bike plan.
estes pA rk, co
9%
19%
Good
0%
Good
yes
No
Good
No
7715
10 Building Blocks of
a Bicycle friendly community Estes ParkAverage Bronze
Arterial Streets with Bike Lanes
Total Bicycle Network Mileage
to Total Road Network Mileage
Public Education Outreach
% of Schools Offering
Bicycling Education
Bike Month and
Bike to Work Events
Active Bicycle Advocacy Group
Active Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bicycle–Friendly Laws & Ordinances
Bike Plan is Current and is Being
Implemented
33%
Bike Program Staff to Population
26%
SOME
33%
GOOd
MAYBE
MAYBE
SOME
MAYBE
PER 77k
leArN more » www.bikeleAGue.orG/commuNities supported by
Estes Park
1.05%
162.6
0.0
category scores
eNGiNeeriNG
Bicycle network and connectivity
educAtioN
Motorist awareness and bicycling skills
eNcourAGemeNt
Mainstreaming bicycling culture
eNforcemeNt
Promoting safety and protecting bicyclists' rights
eVA luAtioN & plANNiNG
Setting targets and having a plan
key outcomes Average Bronze
ridership
Percentage of daily bicyclists 1.2%
sAfety meAsurescrAshes
Crashes per 10k daily bicyclists
370
sAfety meAsuresfAtAlities
Fatalities per 10k daily bicyclists
4
key steps to BRONZE
populAtioN deNsity
929.55,858
totAl populAtioN
totAl AreA (sq. miles)
5.8
# of locAl bicycle
frieNdly busiNesses 0
# of locAl bicycle
frieNdly uNiVersities N/A
2 /10
2 /10
2 /10
3 /10
1 /10
Estes Valley Habitat
Assessment
September 2008 Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtfacilities strategically to minimize impacts to ecological values. The
Open Lands Master Plan provided a Regional Trail Corridors Plan –
complete with suggested connections – as well as suggested trail
definitions and standards, a regional trail gap analysis, and a list of
regional trail corridor priorities. All of these trails considerations
have been folded into the current effort for the Estes Valley.
League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community
Report
The League of American Bicyclists have recently completed an
analysis of the bicycle network in Estes Park to evaluate the
community’s “bike friendliness.” While the community did receive
the “Bicycle Friendly Community” designation in this review, the
League of American Bicyclists provided recommendations to help
further promote bicycling in Estes Park and increase the chances
of receiving this designation in the future. A number of these
recommendations were relevant to the current planning process,
including increasing the ratio of the bicycle network mileage to the
total road network mileage in the community, ensuring smooth
transitions for bicyclists between the local and regional trail network,
and the street network, ensuring that all bicycle facilities conform
to current best practices and guidelines, and providing off-road or
separated facilities along major arterial roads such as Highway 36
and Highway 34.
Hermit Park Master Plan
The Hermit Park Open Space was acquired by Larimer County
in February 2007, with a master plan produced for the property
later the same year. The plan explains that trails are an important
component of the vision for the future of the property and
that many of the existing 3 miles of natural surface trails on the
property are not built sustainably, lead to or cross private property
boundaries, or are within the Rocky Mountain cinquefoil rare plant
population boundary. A relocated trail system is proposed in the
plan, totaling 5 miles of natural surface trails within the open space
boundaries. The plan notes that trails should be focused to the west
and south portions of the open space to avoid bisecting the main
riparian habitat in drainages flowing east from the open space and
correspond to wildlife movement corridors. As the Hermit Park Open
Space provides some opportunity for broader connections to USFS
trails and beyond, the planning considerations and vision for the
Hermit Park Open Space have been considered in the formulation of
this plan.
Knoll-Willows Master Plan
The Knoll-Willows Master Plan was completed for the Town of
Estes Park in 2003 for a parcel of open space located behind Town
Hall and the Estes Valley Public Library. Goals of the plan include
establishing trails that present the spectacular vistas of the Knoll and
35
Fall River Corridor Plan for Resiliency
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
DRAFT January 2015
Estes Valley Master Trails Plandesigning any new construction to minimize impacts to the natural
character and integrity of the site. The planning considerations and
vision for the Knoll-Willows Master Plan have been considered in the
formulation of this plan.
Estes Valley Habitat Assessment
The Estes Valley Habitat Assessment was conducted for the Town
of Estes Park in 2008 to enhance the understanding of wildlife
resources within the Estes Valley and identify specific lands
within the Estes Valley that could be considered for some form of
protection. The plan identifies important vegetation communities
and wildlife species in the region and sets priorities for the ecological
network.
ON-GOING PLANNING PROCESSES
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was jointly adopted in 1996
by the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. The plan establishes
a long-term decision making framework for development in the
Estes Valley. Starting in 2012, the plan began receiving updates,
though policies from the original plan are not changing. The plan
recommends hiking and biking trail connectivity, including corridors
through town and loops surrounding town, which have been
incorporated into the current planning effort
Estes Park Downtown Plan
The Town of Estes Park received a grant to complete a downtown
plan which will establish a vision for the downtown area over the
next 10 years. The planning process is currently underway. Once
complete, the downtown plan will become part of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. The plan will include goals, objectives and
strategies, integrating hazard mitigation, climate change, land
use, housing, transportation, parking, infrastructure, design and
economic competitiveness. As trail connections are a vital piece
of the downtown puzzle, the recommendations from the Master
Trails Plan will be incorporated into the Downtown Plan to ensure
consistency. Terri L. Musser, a Senior Transportation Planner with
Charlier Associates, Inc. is involved with the in-town bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity recommendations for both the Estes Valley
Master Trails Plan and the Estes Park Downtown Plan, ensuring
cohesiveness between both processes.
Downtown Estes Loop
The Town of Estes Park, together with its partners – Central Federal
Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and CDOT – is initiating the project
development process including public outreach, environmental
analysis and preliminary engineering for the downtown road
realignment project – “the Downtown Estes Loop.” The project
includes evaluation of three primary roadways: Elkhorn Avenue, 3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
36
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceConceptual Graphic of Connecting Recreational TrailsRocky Mountain National Park and Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
Produced for the Division of Planning, Region 6
Denver, Colorado
Current to: April 6, 2012
Basemap (Date): ESRI 2010
File: w:\co\rkm\maps\rkmtorfltrail\maps_s_april_2012\rkm_romo_trail_D_040412.mxd
0 4 8 12 162Miles
0 4 8 12 162
Kilometers UTM ZONE 13
NAD 83
Ü
Rocky
Flats
National
Wildlife
Refuge
RockyMountainNationalPark
Jefferson
Boulder
Gilpin
Boulder
Larimer
Boulder
COLORADO£¤36 £¤34£¤36£¤34£¤34 CarterLake
Reservoir
PinewoodLake
LEGEND
FrontRangeTrailPinewoodLakeLakeEstesPinewoodLakePinewoodLake
Foothills
Reservoir
Button
Rock
Reservoir
Grand
LakeShadow
Mountain
Lake
Lake
Granby
£¤34
Left
Hand
Valley
Reservoir
Monarch
Lake
EstesPark !.!.
!.
!.
Allenspark
Balarat
Drake
!.
Grand Lake
7
7
72
!.Ward
£¤36
!.Boulder
119
Valmont
Reservoir
Base
Line
Reservoir
Marshall
LakeGross
Reservoir
Barker
Reservoir
Boulder
Reservoir
Clover
Basin
Reservoir
Left
Hand
Valley
Reservoir
Sixmile
Reservoir
Gold
Lake
93
£¤36
£¤36
119
157
Glacier
Lake
Ralston
Reservoir
Tucker
Lake
!.Nederland
119
72
72
119
46
!.Rollinsville
!.Peaceful Valley
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
66
Lyons
Jamestown
Goldhill
Altona
Glendale
£¤36
!.
Meeker Park
Lilly
Lake
MarysLake
Highway
Road
Conceptual Trail Corridor (Draft)
Existing Regional Trails
Planned Regional Trails
National Park / National Wildlife Refuge
County Boundary
Hydrology
Community!.
46
72
!.
PinecliffeLarimerJacksonLari
m
er
GrandG ra n d
!.Apex
!.Tolland
BoulderGrand
CONTINENTAL DIVIDE
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictMoraine Avenue and Riverside Drive through downtown Estes Park.
The project is in the early phase of scoping, including collection of
environmental data and development of alternatives.
Larimer County Transportation Plan
The 2016 Larimer County Transportation Plan in the process of being
created and will include existing transportation conditions, as well as
short range and long range improvement needs in the county. The
plan will consider various transportation modes, including vehicular,
transit, pedestrian and bicycle, to provide for a high degree of
mobility to all segments of the population. The previous Larimer
County Transportation Plan was adopted in 2006 and identified
Regionally Significant Corridors throughout the valley, which
follow the major rivers including the Poudre River, Platte River, Big
Thompson River, Little Thompson River and Spring Creek. Plans for
these Regionally Significant Corridors have been considered in the
development of the current trails master plan.
Rocky Mountain Greenway
Announced by Secretary of Interior Salazar and Governor
Hickenlooper in 2011, the Rocky Mountain Greenway (RMG) vision is
a system of uninterrupted trails linking the three Denver Metro area
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs): Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR,
Two Ponds NWR, and Rocky Flats NWR. Beyond the Denver Metro
area, the broader vision is to extend this Greenway Trail through
the Estes Valley to Rocky Mountain National Park. When complete,
the RMG will link thousands of acres of public lands together
through trails and transit. This regional trail is divided into various
phases, some of which are already built and some of which are just
beginning to be studied. Some portions of the RMG are planned
to utilize existing regional trails, such as the South Platte Trail to
complete the overall connections. While planning for the section of
the RMG in the Estes Valley has not begun, the vision of the RMG
and potential regional connections to achieve this vision have been
considered in this current trails planning effort.
Rocky Mountain National Park Multi-Use Trail Plan
Environmental Assessment
In July 2015, the National Park Service released an environmental
assessment (EA) analyzing three options for providing a multi-use
trail system on the east side of the park along existing road corridors.
The proposed trail system would connect with existing and proposed
trails in the Estes Valley. Along with the no action alternative, two
other alternatives were studied proposing up to 15 miles of multi-
use trail within the park with the northern terminus at the Fall
River Entrance to RMNP and the southern terminus at Sprague
Lake. If approved, the multi-use trail will become a key link within
the park, ultimately connecting to the Estes Valley trail network;
the Aspenglen, Moraine Park, and Glacier Basin campgrounds; the
Fall River, Beaver Meadows, and Moraine Park visitor centers; the
37 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanLawn Lake, Hollowell Park, and Sprague Lake trailheads; and hiker
shuttle stops and Park & Rides in the park. This trail has been carried
forward in the Future Opportunities Maps for the Estes Valley Master
Trails Plan based on feedback on its current status from RMNP.
Fall River Trail Extension
In the summer of 2015, the Town of Estes Park began working with
a consultant to plan and design the extension of the Fall River Trail
to the Fall River Entrance of RMNP. Final design of the 2.5-mile
trail is expected to be approved later in 2016, with implementation
occurring once funding is identified and secured. Once complete,
the trail will provide an important multi-use connection between the
Town and RMNP. This trail has been carried forward in the Future
Opportunities Maps for the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan based on
feedback on its current status from the Town of Estes Park.
National Park Service, US Forest Service, and Bureau of
Reclamation Policies
The NPS, US Forest Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR)
have overarching plans and policies that guide decision making on
lands and trails managed by these agencies.
In addition to nationwide laws and regulations that guide
management of National Park Service sites across the country,
Rocky Mountain National Park is governed by the 1976 Master
Plan, the 2001 Backcountry/Wilderness Management Plan, several
management plans relating to recreation, biotic and abiotic
resources. The 2015 Compendium identifies designations, closures,
permit requirements and restrictions in the park.
Management of trails on the Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests is
also governed by several high-level laws and policies. On the Forest
level, the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan
directs decision making on the ground.
Lands managed by the BoR, including Lake Estes, Marys Lake, and
the East Portal, are governed by the 2008 Resource Management
Plan (RMP) and Final EA. The RMP includes trail plans for each of
these areas along with Environmental Commitments that guide
management of these areas. Trail recommendations from the RMP
have been brought forward into this plan.
As important Project Partners, RMNP, the US Forest Service, and the
BoR are each been involved in the development of the Estes Valley
Trails Master Plan to ensure integration with their agency goals and
trail planning efforts. 3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
38
Big Thompson River Restoration Assessments
Multi-Criterion
Decision Analysis
(MCDA)
Imagery obtained from NAIP, 2013
Date: 1/22/2015
Map Created By:
Streets, water features and urban areas obtained from ESRI, 2013
USFS boundary obtained from Larimer County Field assessments conducted on the following dates;
- Geomorphic Risk (GR) - October-December 2013 and March-May 2014, December 2014 (Weld County Segments)
- Flood Risk (FR) - May 2014 (December 2014 (Weld County Segments) - Aquatic Habitat Improvement Potential (AHIP) - May 2014, January 2015 (Weld County Segments)
- Riparian Ecological Improvement Potential (REIP) - May 2014, January 2015 (Weld County Segments)
Assessments conducted by field visits and desktop/digital analysis
Desktop/digital assessments used the following best available data;
- Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) October 2013 imagery
- Preliminary FEMA November 2013 LiDAR elevation data - Larimer County & City of Loveland May 2013 imagery and LiDAR data
- Larimer County Base Flood Elevations - FEMA floodplain DFIRM data
- Google Earth Imagery
0 1,600800
Feet
Major Land Ownership
USFS
Urban AreasSculptorDrN WilsonAve14th St SW Madison AveS Wilson AveS CountyRoad 9 EGeorgeRist Ditch
Bi
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
Ri
v
e
rSouth
S
ideDit
ch
Big
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
Ditc
h
N
O
2 BigThompsonRiverDr
y
Cr
e
e
k
G reeley
L oveland Canal
HandyDitchGeorgeRist Ditch
Farm ersDitchBarnes Ditch
Home SupplyDitchBig Barn
e
s
Di
t
c
h
Farmers Ditch
Hillsboro Ditch
ST402
£¤34
£¤287 ¨§¦25
GG20C
GG18
GG21
GG9
GG20
GG17
GG7
BoedeckerReservoir
LakeLovelandWhiteside
GR= 4.5FR= 2.8AHIP= 2.9
REIP= 3.9
County Line Road
GR= 1.6FR= 1.9AHIP= 1.1
REIP= 4
Lincoln - St. Louis
GR= 2.5FR= 3.5AHIP= 1
REIP= 4
Namaqua - Wilson
GR= 1.3
FR= 3.2AHIP= 1REIP= 5
Fairgrounds ParkGR= 2.5
FR= 4.1AHIP= 1.3REIP= 4
Wilson - TaftGR= 2.8FR= 3AHIP= 1.9
REIP= 3
KauffmansGR= 2FR= 3.1AHIP= 1
REIP= 5
St. Louis - BoiseGR= 2
FR= 3.8
AHIP= 1.4
REIP= 4
Morey Open spaceGR= 4.9FR= 3.7AHIP= 3
REIP= 4.6 Taft - RailraodGR= 2.5FR= 3.7
AHIP= 1.2
REIP= 3.5
Rossum - Namaqua
GR= 4FR= 4AHIP= 2.4
REIP= 4.5
I-25GR= 1.6FR= 2.5AHIP= 2.4
REIP= 5Boise - CR 9eGR= 2.5
FR= 2.3AHIP= 0.9REIP= 5
Thompson River RanchGR= 1.5FR= 2.1AHIP= 1.1
REIP= 4.2
¬«28
¬«41
¬«35
¬«31
¬«34
¬«32
¬«38
¬«36
¬«29
¬«33
¬«30
¬«39
¬«37
¬«40
Loveland±
County
Roa
d 50
Farm
er
s
Dit
ch
LittleThompson RiverHillsboro Ditch
Thompson
Platte Ditch
Hil
l
sbo
r
oDitch
T h o m p s o n
P la t te
Hillsb
oro
Ditc
h
Hillsboro
Ditch Platte DitchLittle
Beeline Ditch
Little
Thompson Ditc
h
Big ThompsonRiver
Thompso
n
Platte Dit
c
h
Hill andBrush Ditch
Thomp
s
o
n
a
n
d
Platte Dit
c
h
L
o
v
e
l
a
n
d
a
n
dGr
e
e
l
y
C
a
na
l
ST60
ST402
ST257£¤34
¨§¦25
GG17
I-25
GR= 1.6
FR= 2.5AHIP= 2.4REIP= 5
CR 54
GR= 2
FR= 3AHIP= 1.8REIP= 4.5 MillikenGR= 2.1FR= 2.6
AHIP= 1
REIP= 4.3
Great Western RR
GR= 3.2
FR= 2.6AHIP= 1.7REIP= 4.2
County Line RoadGR= 1.6
FR= 1.9AHIP= 1.1REIP= 4
Thompson River Ranch
GR= 1.5FR= 2.1AHIP= 1.1
REIP= 4.2
CR 48.5GR= 2.5
FR= 2.8
AHIP= 1.3REIP= 3.4
¬«39
¬«42 ¬«45
¬«43
¬«41
¬«40 ¬«44
Weld County±54th Street Rd
County Road 50
LittleThompsonRiver
Thompson
PlatteDitch
LittleThompson River Loveland andGreely
Canal
Little
Thompso
n
R
i
v
e
r Platte DitchThompsonPlatte
Hilland
Brush
Ditch
UnionDitchUnion Dit
c
h
Littl
e
Beel
i
n
e
D
i
t
c
h
Lower Latham Drain
Evans Town Ditch
Thomp
s
o
n
Platte
D
i
t
c
h
Thompsonand
PlatteDitch
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
D
i
t
c
h Big T h ompsonRiver
Godfrey Ditch
ST60
ST257
GG396
GG17
Milliken East
GR= 2
FR= 2AHIP= 1.3REIP= 3.4
MillikenGR= 2.1
FR= 2.6
AHIP= 1
REIP= 4.3
CR 27.5GR= 2.8
FR= 2.6AHIP= 1.4REIP= 4.1
ConfluenceGR= 2.4
FR= 3.4
AHIP= 1.1REIP= 3.1
CR 48.5
GR= 2.5
FR= 2.8AHIP= 1.3REIP= 3.4
¬«46¬«45
¬«47
¬«48
¬«44
Milliken±Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictRESILIENCY AND FLOOD RESTORATION PLANS
Following the devastating floods of 2013 which impacted thousands
of residents in the Estes Valley and caused significant damage to
trails and other public infrastructure, a series of resiliency and flood
restoration plans were completed in the Estes Valley with funding
and technical support from the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB) and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Flood-
affected communities were guided to create watershed coalitions
and develop collaborative stream corridor Plans for Resiliency
as the first critical step towards resiliency for the river systems,
economies, and communities. The directive of the funding is to
guide communities towards prioritization and implementation of
flood recovery and stream restoration projects that protect life
and property from hazards, while enhancing riparian ecosystems
for wildlife and recreation. As many existing trail corridors in the
Estes Valley follow river corridors – and a number of Estes Valley
Trails have recently or are currently being reconstructed with new
standards – the recommendations of each of these plans have been
considered in the current trails planning effort to ensure the long-
term sustainability of the trail system.
Connected Systems, Connected Futures: Building for
Resilience and Prosperity
In June 2014, an Urban Land Institute (ULI) panel of nine experts
in land use, development, finance, design, and community
engagement and education were invited by the Community
Foundation of Northern Colorado to the town of Estes Park and the
cities of Fort Collins and Loveland to conduct an Advisory Services
resilience panel. The goal of the panel was to develop optimal
regional strategies to reduce the effects of natural disasters, such
as the 2013 floods and wildfires, that threaten those communities
almost annually and to recover from and adapt to such disasters.
The study suggests that “though some areas of the floodplain may
be appropriate for active-use parks and infrastructure, they should
generally be minimized in favor of prioritizing natural uses with
smaller footprints, including trails, fishing access, or dog parks.” The
recommendations and considerations of the ULI study have been
considered in the current planning effort.
Big Thompson River Restoration Master Plan
The Big Thompson River Restoration Master Plan was completed in
May, 2015 and provides a framework for restoration of portions of
the Big Thompson River and North Fork of the Big Thompson River
affected by the 2013 flood. The upper portions of both rivers are
within the EVRPD boundary. The overarching goal of this plan is to
39
Public Draft | May 2015
A BIGGER VISION FOR THE BIG T:
A RECREATION AND CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT
Estes Valley Master Trails Plancreate a more resilient river system, with focus areas of increasing
ecological function, protecting infrastructure and reducing risk
to lives and property, among others. The strategies and resulting
projects prioritized by this plan also have the potential to result in
improvements to the recreational experience in the Estes Valley and
the current planning effort has considered the recommendations
of this plan in terms of protecting infrastructure and ecological
function.
A Bigger Vision For The Big T: A Recreation And
Conservation Assessment
This plan was produced in May of 2015 by Larimer County and the
City of Loveland, in concert with the Big Thompson River Restoration
Coalition and local and state agencies. The plan conducted a careful
examination of damaged recreation and conservation properties
and potential new opportunities along 40 miles of the mainstem
and North Fork of the Big Thompson River between the municipal
boundaries of Loveland and Estes Park. The Project Goals include:
1) assessing existing protected lands and identify the feasibility and
priorities for protecting additional conservation lands within the
Big Thompson corridor; 2) assessing existing recreation amenities
and identify the feasibility and locations for future recreational
access/facilities within the Big Thompson corridor; and 3) assigning
a priority, funding sources, and agency responsibilities to potential
projects. A number of trail and bicycling projects are included in the
assessment, including a Loveland West+ Big Thompson Multi-Use
Trail and US 34 Bicycle Safety Improvements. Trail recommendations
for the design of sustainable trails in the corridor are also provided.
These recommendations have been considered in the current
planning effort and have been carried forward into the generation of
the design standards.
Dry Gulch Road Plan
The Town of Estes Park is also in the initial stages of rehabilitating
Dry Gulch Road at its intersection with US Highway 34. The design
includes an improved intersection, signage and a trail connection
under US Highway 34 from the Lake Estes Trail to Dry Gulch Road.
These planned improvements have been included in the existing
conditions analysis for the current planning effort.
Fish Creek Corridor Plan for Resiliency
The Fish Creek Corridor Plan for Resiliency was completed in
March of 2015 and defines the vision for resiliency of the corridor
and identifies stepping stones to achieve the vision. The plan
is both a technical reference serving as a basis for final design,
construction, and monitoring as well as a funding tool to support the
grant writing process for flood recovery implementation funding.
Recommendations for the alignment of a reconstructed Fish Creek
Trail are including in the plan, as are recommendations for protecting
the trail in the future and enhancing the sustainability of the trail. 3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
40Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictThese recommendations have been considered in the current
planning effort and have been carried forward into the generation of
the design standards.
Fish Creek Public Infrastructure Project
The Fish Creek Public Infrastructure Project is currently underway
and deals with repairing and improving Fish Creek Road, the utilities
in the area (wastewater, water, and electric), and reconstruction of
the Fish Creek Multi-Use Trail. Construction of Fish Creek Road and
the multi-use trail is now anticipated to begin in fall of 2016, a time
of low flow for Fish Creek. Major construction activities on Fish Creek
Road and the multi-use trail are anticipated in spring and summer
2017. The project is expected to be complete in fall of 2017. The
progress of this project and the proposed improvements to the trail’s
design and location have been considered throughout the current
planning effort.
Fall River Corridor Plan for Resiliency
Produced in concert with the Fish Creek Corridor Plan for Resiliency
was the Fall River Corridor Plan for Resiliency. This plan also defines
the vision for resiliency of the corridor and identifies stepping stones
to achieve the vision. This plan also provides design, construction,
and monitoring recommendations as well as funding information.
Recommendations for the alignment of a reconstructed Trail along
Elkhorn Avenue and Fall River Road are including in the plan, as
are recommendations for protecting the trail in the future and
enhancing the sustainability of the trail. These recommendations
have been considered in the current planning effort and have been
carried forward into the generation of the design standards.
NEEDS AND ISSUES
Several key needs were identified through the public process for
the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Many of these needs were also
identified in previous plans, as well as anecdotally by EVRPD, the
Town of Estes, Larimer County, and federal land management agency
staff.
The broad overarching need for the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan
is to create a consistent, cohesive and connected regional system of
trails in the valley for all uses. While the Estes Valley has an extensive
existing trail system, the myriad of trail and land managers in the
valley creates a challenge in standardization and connections across
and between disparate trail systems. Trails are governed by different
rules and maintained to different standards. In many places, trails
exist in close proximity to one another, but lack connectors. Signage,
such as it is, refers to the rules and distances within each trail
system.
As noted above, ongoing flood recovery on trails and roads that
were washed out in 2013 is another major issue in the Estes Valley.
Recovery and restoration is currently a major part of each agency
41 Estes Valley Master Trails Planand municipality’s program of work and has been for a few years.
Several of the area’s key connectors, including the Fish Creek Trail,
Aspen Brook Trail, North Boundary Trail, and Pierson Park Road,
were fully or partially destroyed by the flood. Full recovery will
likely take several more years. Land managers each have their own
timeframe and strategy for recovery. Planning is an essential part
of this effort, as some of the original trail alignments were located
within floodplains or were not built in a sustainable location. In
nearly all cases, environmental review processes will need to occur
before construction can take place.
Perhaps the most pressing need identified through this planning
process was the need to further connect the Town of Estes Park with
Rocky Mountain National Park. Because RMNP is such a popular
destination for both residents and visitors, these connections are
essential to the overall efficiency of the valley’s transportation
network. Currently, connections from town to the park can be found
at the Twin Sisters trailhead (via Fish Creek and Homer Rouse trails),
the East Portal area (via Spur 66), the Deer Ridge area (west of
downtown) and the Lumpy Ridge trailhead (via Otie’s Trail and Devils
Gulch Road). Further improvements to these connections as well as
additional connections are a key need and thus an important part of
this plan.
Establishing a safe bicycle connection to and through downtown
was also identified as a need during the planning process. Currently,
cyclists must either walk their bikes on the Riverwalk or on sidewalks
to travel through downtown safely. Riding on Elkhorn Avenue and
Moraine Avenue is permitted but, particularly in the busy tourism
season, traffic on these roads is often so heavy that bicycling
through downtown is not safe or efficient. Traveling to and through
downtown is important due to the number of businesses and jobs
that are located in and around downtown, and because getting from
one side of town to another is often most direct by going through
downtown. Creating a safe connection through downtown is also
important to the thousands of tourists that enjoy bicycling as a
vacation activity. Many are traveling with their own bicycles and are
challenged to find safe family areas to ride.
The Estes Valley should also continue to further develop larger loop
trail opportunities and connections to areas outside the Estes Valley,
including the Front Range and Boulder County. Developing broader
trail connections was not only identified as a need by the public
during this planning process, but also has been a priority of the
State of Colorado as a part of Governor Hickenlooper’s Colorado the
Beautiful initiative and his plan to make Colorado “the best state for
biking.” This state effort also includes a trail mapping project which is
currently underway. The end result will be a smartphone application
that will be able to map all safe bike and pedestrian trail connections
between specified locations.3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
42Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictThe safety of major road crossings and, more generally, the safety
of routes to schools and other institutions within the Town of Estes
Park should also be improved. The major routes through the area
are typically high-speed and high-traffic roads and can often prevent
safe and convenient crossings, particularly for children and visitors
who may not be as familiar with their whereabouts. An example is
the crossing of US 34 east of downtown, where crossing between
Lake Estes and neighborhoods north of the highway is a dangerous
and time-consuming proposition. Many other examples of this issue
exist.
Along these same lines, the creation of a trails system that serves
users of all ages and abilities, including youth and families, is another
important need for the Estes Valley. Planning for safe facilities that
will enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility and allow these users
to feel comfortable while traveling without a car can encourage
new residents and visitors to explore active transportation options,
encouraging both sustainable transport and physical activity.
The need to consider and respect the immense natural resources
within the Estes Valley is another important issue for the Trails
Master Plan. The environmental constraints of the plan are
important not only to ensure the sustainability of trails, but also to
ensure that proposed systems are sensitive to the environmental
factors at play in the valley and the region.
Finally, there is a need in the Estes Valley for trails to support the
tourism economy and economic development efforts of the region.
Outdoor adventures and access to the natural world are key tenants
of the identity of Estes Park and how the destination is marketed to
visitors. A cohesive, easy to navigate system of trails that provides
a range of recreational experiences would further support the
economic development of the region while improving the quality of
life within the Valley and making the community more welcoming to
all its residents and guests.
SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES IN REGION
The dramatic topography of the Estes Valley Region, which ranges
from 7,522 feet above sea level in the Town of Estes Park to over
14,259 feet at the summit of Long’s Peak, supports a diversity of
ecosystems, vegetation and wildlife species that is unique in the
Rocky Mountains. According to the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment,
typical vegetation found in the valley includes riparian corridors
along rivers and streams, open meadows, gently sloping shrub and
wooded transitions, and steeply sloping, heavily forested hillsides
interspersed with bare rock formations. Four major river basins
begin in Rocky Mountain National Park, one of which is the Big
Thompson River. Smaller rivers that flow into the Big Thompson
River include Fall River and Fish Creek, as well as smaller drainages
such as Mill Creek, Glacier Creek, Beaver Brook, Aspen Brook, Black
Canyon Creek, and Dry Gulch. These rivers are primarily charged
43 Estes Valley Master Trails Planby snow melt and many provide potential habitat for native species
such as the federally endangered greenback cutthroat trout.
According to the RMNP Elk and Vegetation Management Plan, the
Estes Valley is also home to nearly 350 vertebrates, including 276
species of birds, 52 mammals, 11 fish, four amphibians, and one
reptile.
The unique ecological and geological environment of the Estes
Valley triggered much of the region’s preservation as National Park,
National Forest and other public and private conservation land
and has made the region a recreational destination for millions of
visitors every year. The vast importance of the natural resources
of the region has been recognized by all levels of government and
local residents and their preservation and enjoyment are a common
principle shared by much of the community. As a result, this Trails
Master Plan has sought to both embrace and respect these natural
wonders. Where possible, trail recommendations have attempted to
connect users with the natural environment – like scenic vistas and
unique habitats – while at the same time considering the potential
impact on these same resources. While sensitivity to the natural
environment was central to the creation of the Trails Master Plan,
it is important to note that the trail connections identified in this
plan are conceptual “connection lines” and do not represent final
alignments. Natural resources will be further protected as any trail
recommendations from this plan ultimately become implemented,
as each Project Partner has an individual commitment, mandate and
process in place to protect natural resources in their operations and
development of trails. Each individual agency’s management plans
ensure consideration of natural resource impacts, and in the case of
the federal agencies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations further ensure natural resources are protected.
A final and important component of respecting the significant
natural resources of the Estes Valley is a commitment to building
sustainable trails. The recreation and conservation restoration plan
for the Big Thompson River, and many other restoration efforts, have
suggested that recreational development in the Estes Valley should
occur wisely and in suitable locations, and in ways that do not pass
the cost of flooding on to other properties, other communities,
or future generations. This plan has embraced this notion, and
considered the long-term sustainability of the recommended trail
connections in the planning and in the recommended trail standards
found in Chapter 4.3. UNDERSTANDING CURRENT CONDITIONS
Chapter 4:
Standards and
Guidelines
45 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESTYPOLOGY
Within this plan’s study area, there are eight agencies/organizations
who each manage significant land holdings. Each agency uses its
own terminology, trail classifications, development standards, use
policies, and maintenance practices. The Trail Typology presented
on the following pages was therefore developed to provide a
common vocabulary for trail types within the greater Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District, and summarize current policies relating
to intended trail users and design specifications for each facility type.
The Trail Typology is divided into two parts – one summarizing
appropriate facilities for the more remote natural, wilderness and
rural lands surrounding the Town of Estes Park; the other focusing
on in-town recommendations to improve connectivity, mobility and
safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and trail users.
The typology is based upon Partner practices and national guidelines
established by various organizations for the development of multi-
use paths, bicycle facilities, equestrian facilities, and sustainable
trails. The following documents have been used to develop the
typology and related design and maintenance standards of the Estes
Valley Trails Master Plan:
Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads and Campgrounds, USDA Forest Service and FHWA Recreational
Trails Program, 2009. Provides practical guidelines for developing recreation environments that are sensitive to the
needs of riders and their stock.
Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), USDA Forest Service, 2003 draft. Provides guidance for maximizing
accessibility, while recognizing and protecting the unique characteristics of the natural setting of each trail.
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Fourth Edition, 2012. National guidance on providing facilities that are safe, convenient, well-designed and
well-maintained, with low-crash frequencies and severities. Addresses various riding environments, including design
of on-road facilities and design of shared use paths.
Guide to Sustainable Mountain Trails: Trail Assessment, Planning and Design Sketchbook, National Park Service, 2009
Edition. Presents sustainability criteria for assessment, planning, design, implementation and communication of
mountain trail projects that minimize impact to natural and cultural resources.
FHWA Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared-Use Paths Final Report. July 2006 https://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05137/05137.pdf
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2009 Edition. Defines
the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets,
highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), 2011 draft. Forthcoming detailed guidance on how to apply the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. Draft information is currently available through training
course materials on “Designing Pedestrian Facilities for Accessibility.”
TRACS Trails Management Objectives, United States Forest Service (USFS), 2011. Specifies designed use objectives and
travel management strategies for individual sections of local Forest Service trails.
Trails Management Handbook, USFS National Headquarters, 2008. Used to implement decisions regarding trail
management within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland.
Trail Solutions: IMBA’s Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack, International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA), 2004. Is
a leading source of sustainable trailbuilding information (covering planning, design, tool selection, construction and
maintenance) as well as how to successfully introduce natural objects (rocks, roots, logs, etc.) and man-made features
(elevated bridges, teeter-totters, jumps, etc.) to add technical challenge to mountain biking experiences.
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Second Edition, 2012.
Presents a standardized set of innovative treatments that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable
for bicyclists.
Essentials of Bike Parking: Selecting and installing bicycle parking that works, Revision1.0, September 2015. Presents
standards for bicycle parking for different uses and sites as well as tips and guidelines for installing different kinds of
bicycle parking.
46
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Estes Valley Trail Typology
Most natural surface trails within the Estes Valley Park and Recreation District and Partner lands
are intended for use primarily as hiking trails. Some trails permit a mix of user groups sharing the
same facility, as noted below:
RMNP
Differentiates permitted
uses on trail maps as:
• hiker only trail
• horse/hiker trail
• cross-country ski
and snowshoe trail
Larimer County
• mountain biking
• hiking
• jogging
• horseback riding
• snowshoeing
• nature observation
Natural Surface Trails Multi-Use Paths
Trails (Non-Motorized)Roads (Motorized & Non-Motorized)
Natural Surface Soft Surface Asphalt
Prepared by:
Charlier Associates, Inc.
Mt. Biking Hiking Equestrian
Rugged
Trails
Graded
Roads
Paved
Roads
OHV
RoadsIn general, natural surface trails are characterized as:
• Narrow mountain trails designed as sustainable, rolling contour
trails that have minimal impact on natural systems
• Trail treads should include benching, outsloping, grade reversals,
armoring, switchbacks, and other techniques to minimize
erosion and wear by trail users
• Frequently smooth and flowing, with features like banked turns,
rolling terrain, and consistent and predictable surfaces
• Tend to wind around obstacles such as trees, large rocks and
bushes
• If intended for singletrack mountain biking, may also exhibit
technical sections with features such as roots, logs and rocks, or
man-made technical features such as elevated bridges, jumps,
teeter-totters, and drop-offs
Shared use paths designed to
accommodate non-motorized
users, including wheelchair
access.
Non-Motorized Uses:
RMNP
• all forms of self-propelled
modes of travel, except bikes
• also allows use of
mechanical mobility
assist devices
• no dogs, bikes, or equestrians
Larimer County
• all non-motorized users
• power-driven mobility
assist devices
USFS
• does not currently have any
multi-use paths
Trail tread is graded and level,
often designed to provide
accessible outdoor recreation
opportunities.
Non-Motorized Uses:
RMNP
Provides accessible trails for:
• pedestrian users
• wheelchairs
• baby strollers
• cross-country skiers
• snowshoeing
• no dogs, bikes, or equestrians
Larimer County
• mountain biking
• hiking
• jogging
• horseback riding
• snowshoeing
• nature observation
USFS
• does not currently have any
multi-use paths
Internal service roads and
U.S., State, and County
highways.
Non-Motorized Road Users:
RMNP
• on-road cycling
Larimer County
• on-road cycling
• equestrian use on
roadway shoulders
USFS
• on-road cycling
Gravel roads and other
graded dirt roads, often with
seasonal closures.
Non-Motorized Road Users:
RMNP
• on-road cycling
• mountain biking
• limited equestrian use
Larimer County
• on-road cycling
• mountain biking
• equestrian use
USFS
• on-road cycling
• mountain biking
Trails and roads that allow
Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs)
and have wide treads created
by four-wheeled vehicle use.
Allowed Users:
RMNP
• does not allow OHV use
Larimer County
• does not manage any trails
or roads for OHV use
USFS
Mix of road users include:
• dirt bikes
• off-road all terrain vehicles
• motorcycles
• highway legal four-wheel drive
vehicles
• mountain bikes
• also have singletrack trails
for motorcycle useIntended UsersDesign SpecsTread Width
• 12”-18” narrow trail tread for
singletrack experience
Corridor Width
• 5’ - 7’
Corridor Height
• 8’ vertical clearance
Width of Bridges/Features
• varies
Average Grade
• <10% grade desired for
sustainable trails
Maximum Grade
• 15% - 20% with frequent
grade reversals; or 1/2 the
grade of the sideslope
Outsloped Grade
• 5%
Tread Width
• 12”-24” rugged trail tread
• 36”-60” for accessible
segments
Corridor Width
• 3’ - 6’
Corridor Height
• 8’
Width of Bridges/Features
• varies
Average Grade
• <10% grade desired for
sustainable trails
Maximum Grade
• 15% - 20% for <100’
• 10% for <50’ for accessible
segments
Outsloped Grade
• 5%
Tread Width
• 24”-48”’ rugged trail tread
Corridor Width
• 8’ - 10’
Corridor Height
• 12’
Width of Bridges/Features
• 5’ - 12’
Average Grade
• 5% - 12%
Maximum Grade
• 15% - 20% for <200’
Outsloped Grade
• 2% - 5%
Tread Width
• 4’-10’ graded trail tread
• 8’ -10’ if allowing bicycle use
Corridor Width
• 12’ -14’+
• 2’ min. clear shoulders
Corridor Height
• 10’
Width of Bridges/Features
• trail width, +2’ on both sides
Average Grade
• 1% - 3% for finely crushed
rock surfaces
Maximum Grade
• 5%
Outsloped Grade
• 2% - 5%
Tread Width
• 10’ min. asphalt or concrete
• 10’-14’ for heavier multi-use
Corridor Width
• 14’ -18’+
• 2’ min. clear shoulders
Corridor Height
• 10’
Width of Bridges/Features
• trail width, +2’ on both sides
Average Grade
• <5%
Maximum Grade
• 5%
• 8.3% for <200’
• 12% max. for <10’
Outsloped Grade
• 2%
USFS Specs
• 8”-72” width when designed
for motorcycle use
• 72”-16’ width when designed
for larger 4-wheel drive
vehicles
• 10% -25% grade
General
• typ. 20’-22’ wide roadbed
General
• typ. 10’-12’ travel lanes
• may or may not have
shoulders
Paved
Paths
USFS
Uses term “Standard Terra Trails”
Signs in-field identifying permitted/
prohibited uses including:
• hiking
• horseback riding
• biking
Graded
Trails
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Estes Valley Trail Typologies
Acronymns:
AASHTO – American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials
CDOT – Colorado Department of
Transportation
CO P&W – Colorado Parks and Wildlife
EVDC – Estes Valley Development Code
EVRPD – Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District
NACTO – National Association of City
Transportation Officials
RMNP – Rocky Mountain National Park
(U.S. National Park Service)
USFS – United States Forest Service
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation District
47
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District In-Town Trail Typology
Paved Paths Sidewalks
Off-Road Facilities
Designated Bicycle Space Shared Roadways
On-Road Facilities
Detached
Sidewalk
Attached
Sidewalk
Local
Multi-Use
Paths
Regional
Multi-Use
Paths
Cycle
Track
Paved
Shoulder
Shared
Lane
Bicycle
Lane
Sidewalks are facilities typically
reserved for pedestrian use.
• Attached sidewalks
(constructed contiguous
with the street curb) shall be
discouraged.
• Exceptions include:
• corridors with commercial
ground floor uses to
provide a hard surface
furnishing zone between
on-street parking and
businesses
• in select areas with severe
topographical constraints
Regional facilities are longer
distance, multi-jurisdictional
paths that may be used for
a variety of recreation and
non-motorized transportation
needs.
Are often located in the vicinity
of linear features such as:
• river and stream corridors
• roads
• railroad grades
• utility corridors
• irrigation canals
Multi-use or shared use
paths are bikeways physically
separated from motor vehicle
traffic that allow use by:
• adult bicyclists
• child bicyclists
• in-line and roller skating
• skateboarding
• kick scootering
• horseback riding
• walking
• jogging/running
• wheelchair use
• baby strollers
• dog walking
Local facilities connect local
destinations such as:
• schools
• shopping
• employment
• parks and open space
A cycle track is an exclusive
bike facility that combines the
user experience of a separated
path with the on-street
infrastructure of a conventional
bicycle lane.
• Cycle tracks have different
forms but all share common
elements of:
• space intended to be
exclusively used for
bicyclists
• separated from motor
vehicle travel lanes, parking
lanes, and sidewalks
• where on-street parking
is present, are located
curbside of the parking (in
contrast to bike lanes)
Detached sidewalks are
separated from the motor
vehicle travelway by a
landscape planting strip or
buffer zone.
• Detached sidewalks that
are 8’-10’ wide are typically
considered sidepaths
(multi-use paths parallel
to and within street rights-
of-way) and may be used
by cyclists and other non-
motorized users in addition
to pedestrians
All streets and roadways,
unless specifically prohibited
by law, shall permit use by
both bicycles and motor
vehicles.
• No designation is needed for
bicycle use unless street is a
key corridor in bicycle system
• May be identified by Bike
Route signing and/or use of
shared pavement marking
symbols (sharrows)
• Most cyclists will prefer to
ride on lower volume streets
and corridors with traffic
calming measures
• Higher speed roadways may
use Share-the-Road warning
signs instead of Bike Route
wayfinding signs
Paved shoulders are used on
rural roads to extend roadway
maintenance life, provide
space for temporary storage of
disabled vehicles, and improve
bicyclist accommodation.
• May use Share-the-Road
warning signs
• Should not use longitudinal
rumble strips; may use
bicycle-tolerable rumble
strips (with periodic gaps) if
4’ min. width between rumble
strip and pavement edge
• Paved shoulders may also
be used to accommodate
pedestrian use in rural and
less developed areas
Bike lanes are a portion of
the roadway designated for
preferential use by bicyclists.
• One-way facilities striped
on streets that carry bicycle
traffic in the same direction
as motor vehicles
• Most appropriate and
needed on arterial and
collector streets
• Require proper roadway
placement through
intersections to minimize
conflicts with motor vehicles
• May include NACTO
treatments such as bike
boxes, colored pavements,
bike lane pockets, and
innovative intersection
designIntended UsersDesign SpecsTown of Estes
• refers to Larimer County
standards
Larimer County
• 6’-14’ paved width
CDOT
• 10’ min. path width
AASHTO
• 10’ min. path width if to be
used by bicyclists
Town of Estes
• refers to Larimer County
standards
Larimer County
• 8’-14’ paved width
CDOT
• 10’ min. path width
AASHTO
• 10’ min. path width
• 12’-14’ recommended where
high user volumes and/or
heavy pedestrian use
Town of Estes
Location of sidewalk determined
on a case-by-case basis.
• 5’ min. width in all residential
districts and the A-1 zoning
district
• 8’ min. in all other non-
residential zoning districts
Larimer County
• not specified
CDOT
• not specified
AASHTO
• Detached sidewalks are
desired, but where no buffer
is provided, sidewalks must
be 6’ min. width
• In commercial areas or along
busy arterial streets, an
8’ min. width is desired
Town of Estes
Location of sidewalk determined
on a case-by-case basis.
• 5’ min. width in all residential
districts and the A-1 zoning
district
• 8’ min. in all other non-
residential zoning districts
Larimer County
• not specified
CDOT
Sidewalks shall be provided
on all CDOT facilities when the
design year land use is urban.
• 5’ min. width sidewalks along
arterials, with 6’ min. setback
• 5’ min. width sidewalks along
collectors and local streets,
with 4’ min. setback
• or 5’ min. setbacks along
roadways with shoulders
Not currently in use locally.
NACTO
• desired 5’-7’ min. width for
one-way facilities
• desired 12’ min. width for
two-way facilities
• additional desired buffer
of 3’ min. if adjacent to
parking lane, and 1’ min. if a
raised cycle track adjacent to
a travel lane
Town of Estes
• 6’ min. bike lanes on
collectors and arterials
Larimer County
• 5’-8’ bike lanes on collectors
and arterials
CDOT
• 5’-6’ bike lanes
AASHTO
• 5’ min. measured from curb
face
• 4’ min. measured from gutter
pan seam
• 5’-7’ width when adjacent to
on-street parking
NACTO
Buffered Bike Lanes:
• 5’ min. width for bike lane,
plus an 1.5’ buffer space
Town of Estes
• 4’ min. paved shoulders on
collectors and arterials
Larimer County
• 6’ paved shoulders on
collectors and arterials
• 4’ paved shoulders on local
roads
CDOT
• 4’-8’ paved shoulders
Town of Estes
• 13’ lanes typ. on collectors
• 12’ lanes typ. on local streets
• 10’ lanes typ. on sub-local
streets
Larimer County
• 12’ lanes typ.
• 10’ lanes on low-volume local
CDOT
• 12’ lanes typ.
• 10’ -11’ lanes allowed
Acronymns:
AASHTO – American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials
CDOT – Colorado Department of
Transportation
CO P&W – Colorado Parks and Wildlife
EVDC – Estes Valley Development Code
EVRPD – Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District
NACTO – National Association of City
Transportation Officials
RMNP – Rocky Mountain National Park
(U.S. National Park Service)
USFS – United States Forest Service
Estes Valley Trails Plan
In Town Trail Typologies
Acronymns:
AASHTO – American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials
CDOT – Colorado Department of
Transportation
CO P&W – Colorado Parks and Wildlife
EVDC – Estes Valley Development Code
EVRPD – Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District
NACTO – National Association of City
Transportation Officials
RMNP – Rocky Mountain National Park
(U.S. National Park Service)
USFS – United States Forest Service
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
48Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictUNDERSTANDING THE USERS
Trail users in the Estes Valley include bicyclists of varying skill and
comfort levels as well pedestrians walking for utilitarian purposes,
for exercise, or to stroll and linger at the Downtown Estes Park
shopping district. Trail users also include hikers, mountain bikers,
and equestrians, primarily using trails for recreation. This section
defines the different user types typically seen on trails and paths
and describes the types of trails and facilities that are appropriate
for each type of user. It also recognizes those users with mobility
challenges and addresses ways to accommodate those users.
BICYCLISTS
This plan recognizes that people desire to use trails and bicycle
facilities for different purposes and have varying comfort levels
and expectations for their cycling experiences. There is a nationally
recognized “design bicyclist” concept in which the planning and
design of facilities considers the needs of three distinct classifications
of users, as follows:
Type A: Advanced Bicyclists
These are experienced riders who can operate under most traffic
conditions. They include road cyclists comfortable riding in traffic,
who will ride with or without bicycle facilities present, often ride
long distances, and prefer direct, safe routes for utilitarian trips and/
or long-distance loops for recreational outings. Type A bicyclists
comprise the majority of the current users of collector and arterial
streets and rural highways, and are best served by the following:
• Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street and
highway system.
• The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with minimum
delays.
• Sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder to reduce the
need for either the bicyclist or the motor vehicle operator to change
position when passing.
Type B: Basic Bicyclists
These are casual or new adult and teenage riders who are less
confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special
provisions for bicycles. They are intimidated by motor vehicles,
tend to make short trips close to home, and prefer designated
bicycle facilities. Some will develop greater skills and progress to
the advanced level, but there will always be many millions of basic
bicyclists. They prefer:
• Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct
route, using either streets with slow speeds and low traffic
volumes and/or designated bicycle facilities.
• Well-defined separation from motor vehicles by providing
space for bicycle lanes or developing separate bike paths.
AdvAnced Bicyclist BAsic Bicyclist child Bicyclist MountAin Bikers
49 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanType C: Child Bicyclists
These are pre-teen riders whose roadway use is initially monitored
by parents. Eventually they are accorded independent access to the
bicycle system and will begin to ride farther from home. They and
their parents prefer the following:
• Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas (schools,
recreation facilities, shopping, etc.).
• Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and volumes.
• Well-defined separation from motor vehicles on bicycle lanes or
paths.
Most bikeway and trail planning initiatives combine Type B/C riders
into a single user group that prefers access to off-road paths, a
network of lightly traveled neighborhood streets, and bicycle lanes
on streets with moderate traffic volumes and speeds.
In contrast, Type A cyclists are generally best served by designing all
streets and roadways to accommodate shared use by bicycles and
motor vehicles, with select corridors enhanced with wide outside
lanes, paved shoulders, striped lanes, and/or multi-use paths
designed to bicycle facility standards.
In addition, a unique recreational user group is comprised off-road
cyclists who seek out soft-surface trails specifically for the sport of
mountain biking:
Mountain Bikers
These cyclists are adults and children of varying skill levels who ride
off-road on rugged, natural surface trails. To find desirable riding
conditions, they often drive to a trailhead and unload specialized,
heavy-duty bikes designed for durability and performance in rough
terrain. Mountain bikers may ride on country back roads, fire roads,
or off-road trails shared with all-terrain vehicles, but most prefer
separation from motorized users, equestrians, and pedestrians on
systems designated specifically for mountain biking use. These
cyclists desire the following:
• Trails that traverse varied terrain, laid out in “stacked loop” systems
that offer a variety of interconnected trails of different lengths and
abilities originating from a common trailhead.
• Sustainable trails that create good experiences for visitors, minimize
user conflict and environmental damage, and hold up over
time. Trails need to be able to sustain tread compaction and soil
displacement created by trail users, as well as erosion created by
natural forces.
• Relatively narrow trails called “single track” that are laid out
following the natural contours of the land. Properly designed single
track will incorporate gentle undulations, grade reversals, corrals,
chokes, and turns to slow mountain bikers to desired speeds and
create interesting, challenging rides. Natural objects and technical
trail features may additionally be introduced to add technical
challenge.4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
50Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictPEDESTRIANS
Creating a pedestrian-friendly community entails more than just
providing trails. It is important to recognize that people walk for
different reasons in various types of places, and that a number of
specific components combine to create safe and inviting pedestrian
environments. Types of walking to be accommodated through the
recommendations of this plan include:
Utilitarian Walking
People walk to destinations such as work, school or shopping areas.
Most auto and transit trips include utilitarian walking to reach the
final destination.
• Continuous sidewalk systems, frequent crosswalks, and mid-block
pedestrian access-ways are facility types that promote short trips
and high levels of utilitarian walking.
• Segments of off-road multi-use paths can also encourage
utilitarian walking if they make safe and convenient connections to
destinations.
Rambling
People ramble as a recreational activity, typically for exercise or
enjoyment. Rambling may include walking the dog, pushing a baby
stroller, jogging, running, or walking briskly for exercise.
• Rambling typically occurs on sidewalk networks and multi-use trail
systems.
• However, most neighborhoods in Estes do not have sidewalks or
trails, so a significant amount of rambling activity currently occurs on
streets and roadway shoulders.
Strolling and Lingering
In certain settings, people stroll and linger. They may stand on the
sidewalk and talk with others they meet, sit on a bench, or people-
watch during an outing. This specialized type of pedestrian activity
occurs only within special places. People stroll and linger past store
fronts and urban landscape features, walking for both utilitarian and
recreational purposes.
• Downtown Estes Park is a destination that attracts high levels
of strolling and lingering activities and hosts special events for
pedestrians (farmer’s markets, public concerts, parades, arts
festivals, etc.).
• The size of a district that will sustain strolling and lingering is limited
(generally less than ¼ mile) and should have retail street front
uses, mixed-use land development, moderate to high densities,
good transit service, great streets, and extensive pedestrian
accommodation in the form of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other
facilities.
• Pedestrian access into the Downtown district from nearby lodging
areas and surrounding neighborhoods should be encouraged by
providing continuous sidewalks and/or multi-use path systems.
PedestriAn hiker MoBility chAllenged other non - Motorized user
51 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanHiking
Hiking is a recreational pursuit that connects people with nature –
most often a long, vigorous walk on a natural surface trail through
pristine natural areas.
• The Estes Valley and surrounding wilderness lands are a national
destination for hiking, with numerous trails maintained by the
National Park Service, US Forest Service, and state and regional
agencies managing open space lands.
Mobility Challenges
All of the above types of walking should accommodate pedestrians
with disabilities and mobility challenges, including but not limited to,
wheelchair users and people with vision impairments.
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a civil rights
law that prohibits public entities from designing new facilities or
altering existing facilities, including sidewalks and trails, that exclude
accessibility by people with disabilities.
• Levels of accommodation to comply with provisions in the ADA
regulations vary for different facility types (sidewalks, curb ramps,
street crossings, multi-use paths, access to outdoor recreation,
primitive long-distance trails, etc.) but ADA access shall be
considered in the design of all public pedestrian facilities.
Other Non-Motorized Users
When planning and designing multi-use paths and greenway
systems, the following non-motorized users are typically considered
and accommodated under the pedestrian umbrella:
• In-line skaters
• Skate boarders
• Cross-country skiers
• Bird watchers
• Dog walkers
EQUESTRIANS
Equestrians, also known as horseback riders, are a unique trail user
group within the Estes Valley. They have a stated preference for the
ability to trailer-out from area stables or trailer-in to complete day-
use, loop rides.
• Horses travel 4-5 mph; equestrians thus prefer trail loops that are
10-15 miles in length.
• Hard surfaces (asphalt and concrete) and coarse gravel can
injure horse hooves, so equestrians have preference for loose or
compacted dirt trail treads.
• Popular equestrian sites need staging areas where it is easy and safe
to unload, groom, and saddle stock.
equestriAns
4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
52Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictTRAIL STANDARDS
The trails included in this plan are designed for a milieu of user experiences
and purposes. Each type of trail is therefore subject to a different set of
standards and practices that will best accommodate the users on that
trail. Multi-use paths should be wide-enough to accommodate the many
users and user types that may be on the trail simultaneously, while natural
surface trails should be designed in a manner that provides a more natural
experience and follows the contour of the land. For bicyclists using the
road, there are different sets of standards for bicycle facilities that share
roadway space with cars, or have dedicated space in the form of a bike
lane, paved shoulder, or cycle track. These standards express the desired
width for a particular facility as well as design guidelines for signing and
striping these facilities in order to provide safe interaction with cars,
especially at intersections. Sidewalks, as dedicated paths for pedestrians,
should be designed to meet minimum criteria but can also be designed in a
way that enhance the pedestrian experience.
MULTI-USE PATHS
Off-road trails are desired by Type B/C bicyclists to offer alternative routes
removed from traffic. Trail segments also offer opportunity to make
connections in areas where the street system is not continuous due to
challenging terrain and other travel barriers. Expansion of the Estes Park
trail system can thus serve both utilitarian and recreational bicycling needs,
if appropriate segments are designed to national standards for multi-
use bike paths. Appropriate curb cuts, crosswalks, and signage shall be
provided to ensure seamless transitions between interconnecting on-street
and off-road bicycle facilities.
Multi-use paths may be paved or soft-surface, but should be developed
to widths that will allow bicyclists to meet and pass other cyclists,
pedestrians, and other users of the trail system. Pedestrians tend to use
paths in groups and may walk side-by-side and/or meander laterally. Pets
on leashes and in-line skaters will take up additional lateral space on a
multi-use facility. Joggers and equestrians prefer to travel on soft-surface
path shoulders. Design and maintenance considerations shall therefore
include:
• Multi-use paths are an appropriate facility type to be developed
in linear open spaces, or parallel to higher volume roadways when
adequate separation can be provided between multi-use path and
road.
• Design to accommodate activity levels by a variety of non-motorized
users including pedestrians, bicyclists, in-line skaters, joggers, etc.
• The AASHTO Bike Guide shall be followed for designing all multi-use
paths.
• The trail tread may be soft surface (crusher fines) or paved (asphalt
or concrete). Trail width is 10’ min. with a 5% grade. However, a 12’
width is preferred to accommodate higher levels of multiple use.
• Standard MUTCD signage and pavement markings, including ladder-
style crosswalks, shall be installed at all street crossings.
• Widths and structural loadings of bridges and other trail structures
are encouraged be designed to accommodate small emergency and
maintenance vehicles.
53
clear zone
10’-12’2’
shy
dist. 5%grade2%
cross-slope 8' min.2’-4’2’
shy
dist.
6'- 8' clear zone8'-12’ clearing1'- 4’10-15%gradebench trail if 15%-50
% cross-slopeEstes Valley Master Trails Plan• Where equestrian use is desired in a corridor with a paved multi-use
path, provide a softer, separate tread for horses alongside the main
path.
• Clear vegetation and maintain a 2’ min. shy distance for lateral
clearances and an 8’ min. for vertical clearances (10’ min. for
equestrian use)
• On paved, multi-use paths, a striped centerline is recommended. A
striped centerline has been found to have a strong impact on the
perception of where it is appropriate to walk or ride, and when it is
appropriate to pass. Especially when trails get crowded during peak
periods, a centerline helps keep travelers on the right side of the
path, safely sharing it with others. In addition, symbols indicating
direction of travel on the path should be located every half mile or
anywhere the trail intersects a road or another trail where users may
be entering or exiting the trail facility.
NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS
In contrast, natural surface trails should not be developed to wide
standards in an effort to provide high-quality nature experiences and
discourage use by motorized ATV users. Narrow trails laid out following
the natural contours of the land are desired, with careful attention paid to
slopes, tread compaction, and water drainage to promote sustainable trail
design and maintenance.
• Rugged, natural surface trails are called single-track when used by
mountain bikers, or hiking trails when used by pedestrians.
• Appropriate to be developed in open space areas as a series of
stacked loop trails of varying lengths.
• The trail tread is compacted soil typically 12”- 48” wide and defined
by using vegetation, boulders, and other natural features to create
chokes and corrals that create an interesting, meandering hike or
ride.
• All natural surface trails should be designed as rolling contour trails
- characterized by gentle grades, undulations called grade reversals,
and an outsloped trail tread that allows water to drain off the surface
without causing erosion.
• With proper design, a natural surface trail can accommodate
equestrians while minimizing user conflicts and damage to the trail
surface. Vertical clearance for equestrian use should be at least 10
feet, with a horizontal clearance of at least 5 feet. Sight distance
should be at least 100 feet, and proper signage is needed to indicate
which user has the right-of-way priority.
• Horses often prefer water crossings to bridges. If this isn’t practical,
provide mounting blocks at the ends of bridges so that riders can
dismount and lead their horses across the structure. In addition to
the standard amenities for human users, parking and staging areas,
water for horses and hitching posts at any area where the rider may
stop to take a break (rest areas, restrooms, etc.) should be provided.4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESMulti - use trAil nAturAl surfAce trAil
54Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictSHARED ROADWAY LANES
This plan assumes that, depending on personal comfort level, area
cyclists will ride on all existing streets and roadways. The majority
streets and roadways within and around Estes Park are “shared
roadways” with no special accommodation or signing for bicycle use.
This includes rural roadways with good sight distance that carry low
volumes of traffic operating at speeds of 55mph or less.
• Following guidance of the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD), shared roadways are usually not signed.
• Yellow MUTCD “Share the Road” warning signs may be used to alert
motorists that bicyclists may be encountered and they should be
mindful and respectful of cyclists. This sign is not a substitute for
appropriate roadway design geometry to accommodate bicycles, and
should not be used to indicate a bike route.
Designated Bike Routes
If providing a desired connection between other designated bikeway
facilities, shared roadways may be signed as bicycle routes. Green
MUTCD “Bike Route” signs are used, which often include directional
arrows and supplemental destination identification.
In situations where it is desirable to provide a higher level of
guidance to bicyclists and motorists, shared lanes may be marked
with a pavement marking symbol called a “sharrow.” This treatment
is appropriate on skinny streets with speed limits less than 35mph.
• Select shared use roadways may be designated as bicycle routes to
identify key connections within a community’s overall bicycle system.
• Appropriate for use on skinny streets with low traffic volumes and
speeds.
• Designation uses bike route signing with supplemental directional
arrows, and shared use pavement markings or “sharrows.”
• Sharrows shall be placed on the pavement to indicate correct
bicyclist roadway positioning. Preferred location is in the center of
the shared travel lane, but markings shall be located no closer than
4’ min. from curb face, or 11’ min. if on-street parking is present.
PAVED SHOULDERS
On rural roadways (without curb and gutter) paved shoulders are
the recommended AASHTO accommodation. Shoulders provide
additional operating space for cyclists, benefit motorists, and extend
the service life of the road.
• Appropriate facility treatment for roadway cross-sections without
curb and gutter.
• Shoulders should be 4’ - 6’ paved width, free of loose gravel.
• Use of rumble strips is not recommended, but where used, shoulders
must maintain 4’ of rideable space and provide periodic gaps for
cyclists to move across the rumble strip pattern as needed.
55
11’ - 12’ shared lane 11’ - 12’ shared lane
3’
min.
recommended
sharrow pavement
marking placement
within center of
travel lane
112”
72”
4’ min.
3’
min.
11’ - 12’ travel lane 11’ - 12’ travel lane 4’ min.4’ min.Estes Valley Master Trails Plan• Shoulder facilities within urban areas may be signed and marked as
bicycle lanes, or rural routes may use share-the-road warning signs.
• Bicycle lane pockets may be delineated at intersections to minimize
potential conflicts with right turning motor vehicles.
BICYCLE LANES
Signing and marking shared roadways as bicycle routes does not
create designated space for bicyclist use. Thus, wherever possible,
on-street bicycle lanes are the preferred treatment to create major
cross-town bicycling corridors that will benefit both Type A and Type
B/C riders.
Bicycle lanes are typically located on collector and arterial streets,
which provide convenient and direct routes of travel, and where
additional bicycle operating space is most needed to enhance
cyclist safety and comfort levels. Special attention to bike lane
positioning at intersections is required to minimize potential conflicts
with turning vehicular movements. Design guidance for bike lane
placement within a variety of intersection configurations is provided
in the AASHTO and MUTCD guides.
• Used to delineate available roadway space for preferential use by
bicyclists, place cyclists in motorist’s field of vision, and discourage
wrong-way riding.
• Appropriate for use on streets with moderate to high levels of
vehicular traffic, where designated lanes are desired to provide
separation from motor vehicles.
• Bike lanes may be 4’ - 6’ wide. Where on-street parking is present,
width is 5’ min.
• When bicycle lanes approach intersections, care should be taken
to minimize conflicts with turning vehicles. The bike lane should
always be located to the left of any right-turn lanes, with dashed lane
striping provided through vehicular merge areas.4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESshArrow Bike shoulder
56
5’ min.4’ min.11’ - 12’ travel lane 11’ - 12’ travel lane
RIGHTLANE
ONLY
3’
min.
6”
bike
lane
stripe
6”
bike
lane
stripe
72”
72”
72”
11’ - 12’ shared lane 11’ - 12’ travel lane 5’ min.
6”
bike
lane
stripe
RIGHTLANE
ONLY
3’
min.
optional use of
sharrow pavement
marking on local
streets within
down-hill lane
or may sign with
Share-the-Road
warning signs provide a
designated
bicycle lane
for the up-hill
climb on
steep grades
where cyclists
travel much
slower than
vehicles
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictClimbing Lanes
In most cases, bicycle lanes should be provided on both sides of
two-way streets. However, on streets with appreciable grade, the
preferred AASHTO design treatment is a designated up-hill bicycle
lane for slower climbers, and a shared lane for down-hill cyclists
traveling at faster speeds.
• For use on steep grades where space is too constrained to
provide standard bike lanes.
• Provide a designated 5’ bicycle lane in the uphill direction to
provide additional operating space for slower moving cyclists.
• A shared lane marking may be placed in the downhill direction
on local streets where cyclists are traveling at vehicular speeds
and can easily share the lane. Place sharrow marking in the
center of the shared travel lane.
On-Street Parking
Bicycle accommodation may be implemented on streets with or
without on-street parking. On streets with moderate to few parked
vehicles, on-street parking may be limited to one side of the street
to create space for striping bicycle lanes. Working with adjacent
property owners to assess parking demand will be necessary for
successful roadway reconfiguration.
• Both bicycle lanes and sharrow bike route treatments may be
implemented in corridors with on-street parking.
• Bicycle lanes must always be striped between the parking
and travel lanes. 6’ wide bike lanes are preferred adjacent to
parked cars, with 13’ preferred for the combined bike/parking
lane.
Bike lAne cliMBing shoulder
57
11’ - 12’ travel lane 6’ (5’ min.)
6”
bike
lane
stripe
7’- 8’ parking 7’- 8’ parking
4”
stripe
4”
stripe
6’ (5’ min.)
6”
bike
lane
stripe
11’ - 12’ travel lane
11’ - 12’ shared lane7’- 8’ parking 11’ - 12’ shared lane 7’- 8’ parking
4”
stripe
4”
stripe
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan• Pavement markings should be used between bike lane and
parking lane to discourage encroachment of parked cars into
the bicycle travelway.
• When bicycle lanes approach intersections, the bike lane
should continue to the left of any right-turn lanes, with dashed
striping provided through merge areas.
• On streets where sharrow pavement markings are used,
preferred placement is in the center of the shared travel lane
to avoid the “door zone” adjacent to parked cars. At minimum,
the center of the sharrow shall be placed at least 11’ from the
curb face.
CYCLE TRACKS
A cycle track is a special treatment that is an exclusive bicycle facility
which combines the user experience of a separated path with the
on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Cycle tracks
are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and also distinct
from the sidewalk, most often implemented in urban settings such
as Downtown Estes. Since they represent innovative ways to retrofit
urban conditions to provide greater levels of bicycle accommodation,
designs can be complicated and numerous site-specific details need
to be addressed, including:
• Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way facilities, and may be
at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level.
• Often called a protected bike lane when located at street level,
they may be physically separated from passing traffic by raised
medians, on-street parking, bollards and/or painted buffer
striping.
• Special design details need to be considered at intersections to
minimize conflicts with both motor vehicles and pedestrians.
• A minimum 5’-7’ width is desired for one-way facilities; 12’
min. width for a two-way facility.
• The NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide shall be followed for
designing all cycle track facilities. 4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESBike lAnes with PArking
58Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictSIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are a network of facilities that provide for pedestrian
access and mobility throughout a community. Sidewalks are not
considered to be bicycle facilities, but multi-use paths may substitute
for sidewalks within select street right-of-ways.
Sidewalks should be designed to meet criteria of a Pedestrian
Access Route (PAR) as defined by ADA requirements. However,
good pedestrian design practice should consider the full pedestrian
realm (the space located between the back-of-curb and the edge of
the public right-of-way) and address design needs that exceed the
minimum PAR requirements, as follows.
Attached Sidewalks
When a sidewalk is located immediately at the back-of-curb,
it is called an attached sidewalk. Attached sidewalks should be
discouraged because they do not buffer pedestrians from adjacent
vehicular traffic, nor provide space for a sidewalk furnishing zone
that accommodates utility placement, snow storage, street signage,
tree planting, etc.
• In select locations where there are topography constraints
or inadequate right-of-way to construct detached sidewalks,
attached sidewalks shall be a minimum 6’ wide, with 7’ width
encouraged.
Detached Sidewalks
Locating the sidewalk away from the street edge provides many
benefits, including creating a more safe and comfortable pedestrian
experience. Basic design considerations include:
• Provide a minimum 6’ furnishing zone or landscape
strip between street and sidewalk. This minimum will
accommodate a 1:12 slope for pedestrian ADA curb ramps
and provide space for utilities, winter snow storage off of the
sidewalk, and space for root growth for healthier street tree
plantings.
• Sidewalk widths should vary by context - from 5’ min. in
residential neighborhoods, to 8’ min.width in commercial areas
(minimum space for two pair of pedestrians to meet and pass).
• Sidewalks within the downtown should additionally provide
a minimum 2’shy zone or frontage zone between the through
walkway and building façade. Including an adequate frontage
zone as part of the sidewalk provides space for opening doors,
planters, merchandise displays, and outdoor dining without
encroaching into the space of the through walkway.
59
6’ min.5’ - 8’6’ min.5’ - 8’Estes Valley Master Trails Plan• Frontage zones within the downtown and commercial areas
shall be hardscape, with street trees planted in tree wells.
Benches, trash receptacles, bicycle parking racks and other
streetscape amenities shall also be provided within the
frontage zone.
• All sidewalks should follow ADA guidance for a clear access
route free from obstacles and protruding objects, grades <5%,
cross slopes <2%, and 5’x5’ level landings at transitions.
• A pair of perpendicular sidewalk curb ramps or a blended
transition (depressed corner) is the preferred design treatment
to transition from sidewalk to crosswalk at street corners.
• Single diagonal curb ramps (located at the apex of a street
corner on a 45-degree angle) shall be avoided whenever
possible since they direct users into the center of the
intersection, rather than the crosswalk.
BEST PRACTICES
Best practices are methods, standards, or guidelines that, through
experience and research have proven to reliably lead to results of
high quality. The section pulls together best practices on a variety of
trail-related subjects: etiquette and safety, signage, bicycle parking,
maintenance of facilities. It also includes the tenets of building trails
in a sustainable manner. These best practices are intended to apply
to all current and future trails in the Estes Valley, and should be
consulted before, during, and after the construction of any type of
facility.4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESsidewAlks
60Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictTRAIL ETIQUETTE AND SAFETY
The planning and design of a multiple use trail system entails facility
design that takes the needs of each user into consideration while
also balancing the manner in which these different users encounter
one another. Trail safety remains a priority concern while high
quality visitor experience for all users is the ultimate goal. Despite
all efforts at designing to prevent user-conflict, it is important to
communicate expectations for trail etiquette in order to minimize
negative experiences. By providing information through programs,
media and signs, trail users become accustomed to how best to
interact with other users, land owners and land managers which
enhances the trail experience for everyone.
Following are guidelines for trail etiquette for multiple-use trails,
developed by the Montana Chapter of the Continental Divide Trail
Alliance. A broad coalition of user groups supported the effort:
Advice for All Shared-Use Trails
RESPECT: Education about friendly respect for all users will diminish
negative encounters on the trail for all users. It’s a simple concept: if
you offer respect, you are more likely to receive it.
COMMUNICATION: Let folks know you’re there — before you’re
there. Riding up on horses and stock can be dangerous even for the
best-trained critters. For bikers and hikers; 1. Make yourself known
to stock and rider. A simple “Howdy” works to get attention. 2. Step
downhill and off trail.
HORSES UPHILL: Horses and mules are prey animals. That means
they think everything wants to eat them; even the hiker with a
large, scary backpack and especially the fast-moving biker “chasing”
them. When startled, frightened critters go uphill. You should move
downhill to avoid an encounter with a 1,000 pound panicked animal.
YIELD APPROPRIATELY: Do your utmost to let your fellow trail
users know you’re coming - a friendly greeting is a good method.
Anticipate other trail users as you ride around corners. Bicyclists
should yield to other non-motorized trail users, unless the trail is
clearly signed for bike-only travel. Bicyclists traveling downhill should
yield to ones headed uphill, unless the trail is clearly signed for one-
way or downhill-only traffic. In general, strive to make each pass a
safe and courteous one.
RESPECT THE RESOURCE: Help protect your accessibility by playing
nicely with your neighbors and treating trails with reverence. Always
practice Leave No Trace ethics and pitch in to give back - pick up
trash, volunteer on a trail project or become a member of your local
trail club.
61 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanAVOID SPREADING SEEDS: Help keep weeds out of our forests.
Noxious weeds threaten our healthy ecosystems and livelihoods.
Stay on trails and designated roads, use weed seed free hay, check
your socks, bikes and horse tails for hitchhikers when you get back to
the trailhead.
BE INFORMED: Questions about where to ride, trail closures,
outdoor ethics and local regulations are important to know before
you head out on the trails. Contact your local land manager if you
are unsure about what you can and can’t do in a given area.
SIGNAGE
A goal of any connectivity plan is to create a more complete,
connected and user-friendly network of community trails. Trails
serve a critical role in the overall health of a community when trails
are spatially equitable and accessible and create safe connections to
recreation areas and natural areas. They also provide an important
transportation network for walkers, bikers and runners, and are
often used as secondary transportation corridors that supplement
auto and transit movements. But even when trails are accessible and
close to home, that doesn’t guarantee that trails will be utilized to
their fullest degree.
Some barriers that keep people from using neighborhood trail
connections include:
• Lack of navigation tools such as signs and maps.
• Lack of awareness about what facilities are available.
• Lack of people similar to them to go with.
• Perceived lack of safety.
• Fear of getting lost or being unprepared
20% of survey responses in the Estes Valley found that lack of
awareness of trails and trail options was a primary barrier to
people using trails more often.
Creating trails and trail connections is a critical priority in the Estes
Valley, but providing the community with the tools to utilize the trails
is an important and separate effort. A community must be provided
the tools to be able to use the trail system without hesitation. These
“tools” are the essence of a trails wayfinding program, which are
made up of trail maps and signs guided by the following elements:
• Establishing a naming system for long continuous corridors.
• Establishing a hierarchy of trails to differentiate between corridors
and shorter connections.
• Establishing a hierarchy of signs to differentiate between corridors
and connections.
• Identifying and signing safe on-street routes to and from important
destinations.4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
62Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictBIKE PARKING
Adequate and secure bicycle parking is an important component of
the bicycle facility network. Without it, bicyclists will be deterred
from biking to destinations where they cannot find parking or do
not feel safe leaving their bicycles. Bicycle parking can be divided
into short-term and long-term installation types. Short-term parking
prioritizes convenience, and long-term parking prioritizes security
and shelter.
Short-term Parking
Short-term parking meets the needs of bicyclists stopping at a
destination for less than a few hours. Examples of this include:
a trip to the grocery store or similar errand, a business or lunch
meeting, or a recreational ride where bicyclists stop for ice cream
at the completion of the route. The priorities for short-term parking
are proximity to the destination and ease of use. In addition to
proximity, visibility and lighting are also important. Bicyclists feel
safer leaving their bikes in view of the public, where it is less likely
to get stolen. The design recommendation for short-term parking
is a metal rack, often in the shape of an inverted U. The quantity of
racks needed at a particular location is often a response to demand.
A recommendation for quantity would be to identify top destinations
with local cyclists, and put racks there. Over time, observe how they
are being used, how full they are, and whether there is demand at
other destinations along the bicycle network.
Long-term Parking
Long-term parking meets the needs of bicyclists that leave
their bikes at a location for several hours or more. This includes
commuters, especially those that leave their bike to take transit to
their final destination. These users often have a routine, leaving their
bicycles at the same destination each time. The priorities for long-
term parking are security and shelter. Security for long-term parking
means more than a well-anchored rack. Long-term parkers desire
secure rooms in a building, or a locker that only they can access.
These types of parking facilities also have the benefit of sheltering
the bicycle from weather while its owner is away. Long-term parking
is often planned for transit stops or buildings where multiple bike
commuters can leave their bike securely for the entirety of the day.
In Estes Park, long-term parking is recommended at the Visitor’s
center where the free shuttle stops as well as a location downtown
where multiple businesses could work together to manage a secure,
sheltered facility.
63 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanTRAIL MAINTENENCE
Routine maintenance and assessment of the entire trail network on
a seasonal basis will keep trails clean, safe, and maintained at a high
standard in both the short and long-term. Maintenance can include
everything from removing downed trees to installing new drainage
structures, to repairing steps or bridges. It also includes the upkeep
of trail signage and parking, the removal of trash, and an assessment
of trail conditions. This assessment is best kept in a database that
also includes a list of short-term and long-term projects and repairs.
Vegetation
The following should be completed each season:
• Remove blowdown
• Brushing/clearing of overgrown sections
• Remove hazard trees
• Brush in herd paths/switchback cuts
• Remove leaf litter and weeds in tread
• For mountain bike trails this should be done in the Spring and Fall
• Mow and weed a two-foot buffer on each side (on appropriate trails)
• Remove invasive species
Drainage/Tread
The following should be completed each season:
• Clean waterbars, ditches, and dips (only in Spring and Fall)
• Clean culverts (only in Spring and Fall)
• Replace damaged drainage structures
• Install new drainage structures where needed
• Repair damaged tread, such as washouts, slumping, spot surfacing
(only in Spring and Fall)
• Knock down outslope berms to maintain drainage (only in Spring and
Fall)
• Restore backslope
• Remove markings on pavement trails
• Clean up transition areas where two types of surfaces meet
• Repair turnpikes and heckdams
• Repair frost heaves and cracks on paved trails
• Clear hazardous roots, stumps, and rockfall debris 4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
64Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictStructural Maintenance
The following should be assessed yearly, and completed as needed:
• Repair or replace railings and guardrails
• Repair bridges and boardwalks
• Examine tread, railings, and ramps on these structures
• Replace bridges that exhibit structural damage
• Repair cribbing and retaining walls
• Repair or replace any steps that exhibit damage
• Repair or replace bicycle racks and parking that exhibit damage
• Clean any vandalized structures
• Repair light fixtures and replace light bulbs in fixtures
• Repair or replace gates, fences, fence posts, and sign posts that
exhibit damage
• Repair or replace shelters that exhibit damage
Signage
The following should be completed each season:
• Replace any missing trail markers or signs
• Repair or replace damaged signs and sign posts
• Mark or blaze trails where needed
• Repair cairns where needed
Trailhead Parking
The following should be completed each season:
• Assess drainage and repair where necessary
• Repair and update maps and kiosks
• Replace missing or damaged signs
• Ensure trail can adequately be accessed from the trailhead
Trail Clean Up
Each season it is advised to get a volunteer crew out on the trail network
to pick up litter. This can be done in conjunction with assessing damage
and repair needs for the other maintenance categories.
CREATING SUSTAINABLE TRAILS
A best practice for trails is to build them sustainably. On a grand level,
this means providing recreational trail opportunities while limiting impact
on natural and cultural resources especially of protected landscapes. On
the ground, this means building trails that are long-lasting, at grades that
will not erode easily, do not impact existing drainages, and are not easily
affected by runoff. Trails can meet these conditions through elements of
proper location, design, and structures that mitigate the impact of water.
65 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanPrinciples of Sustainable Trail Building
The following principles are high-level guidelines for building sustainable
trails:
• Features and structures are in scale with the natural environment
• The visual quality of the landscape or specific landscape features is
not diminished
• Soil resources are protected from human-caused erosion
• The introduction of invasive species is avoided
Choosing Locations for, and Designing Sustainable Trails
Building a trail in the proper location can reduce maintenance costs far into
the future. Elements of proper location and routing include a sustainable
grade, an optimal cross slope, a curvilinear alignment, and other location
considerations.
There is an optimal cross slope range and profile grade combination for
building sustainable trails. Trails that climb at gentle grades and are less
than one quarter of the prevailing cross slope will last longer and have
lower impact on soils. Many trail teams consider 8% to be an optimal
profile grade. Above 12%, trails are prone to erosion. In areas where the
cross slope is less than 20%, water can pool and drainage improvements
may need to be considered. Drainage is less of an issue for cross slopes
between 20% and 70%.
Routing trails on a curvilinear route that matches the terrain not only
helps the trail blend into the landscape, it helps water flow over trails,
lessening the impact to both the existing drainage and the trail. Where
there are drainages crossing the trail, the trail should dip into and out of
the drainage, not block it.
Other location considerations include soil types, the slope aspect of the
trails, and the vegetation types encountered on the trail. Soil types that
have a lot of clay contribute to muddy conditions during shoulder season.
Those with too much sand are prone to erosion. Trails on south-facing
slopes are preferred as they dry out more quickly. Trail builders should
avoid building trails in areas with lots of weeds or invasive species. If this
cannot be avoided, alleviating the trail corridor of weeds and invasive
species will prevent these plants from spreading along the trail corridor.
Using Structures in Sustainable Trail Building
Structures should be considered a last resort in sustainable trail building.
Not only do they add to future maintenance costs, they take away from
blending the trail into the scenery. However, they can contribute to the
enjoyment of the trail, provide safe crossing of waterbodies, and help
mitigate drainage issues.
Types of structures built on trails include:
• Bridges
• Retaining Walls
• Waterbars – made of rock or log
• Drainage dips 4. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Chapter 5:
Trail Use And
Economic Impact
67 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanTRAIL COUNT SUMMARY
Collecting trail count data allows for the evaluation of trail facilities,
policies and programs. Counts can be used to evaluate the impacts
of specific improvement projects or to measure progress towards
a goal, such as an increase in the number of walking and bicycling
trips. Furthermore, quantifying the benefits of trail investments is
often required as a part of grant applications to fund non-motorized
transportation projects and can be a powerful force in creating the
case for funding and implementation at any level.
A trail counting process, including counting forms and extrapolation
tools, specifically tailored to the local conditions in Estes Park was
created as part of this effort. This process is based on the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project methodology, with
an extrapolation algorithm based on the unique visitation and trail
use patterns in the Estes Valley. The following charts represent the
estimated annual trail traffic volume for all trails on which counts
were conducted as part of the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan
process. Using the process established in this plan, counts on these
and other trails in the Estes Valley can continue into the future to
continually improve the understanding of trail use in the valley. The
tools can also be used to assess sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The
counting form and process instructions are found in Appendix C.
The trail count estimates presented below are based on trail counts
conducted by generous volunteers during August 2014. These
volunteers include Gary Matthews, Heidi Tryon, Haldean Dalzell, Lisa
Plaut, Herb Loveall, Kim S., Amy Plummer, and Todd Plummer. Thank
you to all our trail count volunteers!
Volunteers were asked to count for two consecutive hours during the
period they felt would be the peak time of trail use, based on their
local knowledge of the trail and in consultation with Kim Slininger at
the EVRPD. To ensure a sampling of weekday and weekend activity
levels, volunteers were asked to conduct two counts at each trail
location for both weekdays and weekends, totaling four counts (2
weekday sessions and 2 weekend sessions). To ensure accuracy,
weekday counts were taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday,
and not on a holiday, Monday, or Friday. Weekend counts were taken
on either Saturday or Sunday. Bicycle counts include the number of
people on the bicycle, not the number of bicycles (i.e. children in
rear seats, tandem bicycles, etc.). Walkers/Hikers include people in
wheelchairs or others using assistive devices, children in strollers,
etc. People using equipment such as skateboards or rollerblades are
included in the “Others” category.5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
68Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictGENDER
In addition to total trail volume, the gender and activity of trail users was also recorded and analyzed. An approximately equal
split of males and females were recorded in the trail counts, with 661 males recorded and 649 females recorded.
Male50%
Female50%
GENDER OF USERS ON ALL TRAILS
69 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACTLAKE ESTES TRAIL
Annual trail traffic volume for the Lake Estes Trail is estimated at nearly 200,000 annual visits. The Lake Estes Trail is primarily
used by walkers/hikers, but also experiences significant use by joggers and bicyclists. Most of the “other” trail users observed
were fisherman using the trail to access various fishing points along the lake shore. A significant amount of dogs were also
observed along the Lake Estes Trail.
Bicycles20%
Walkers/Hikers57%
Joggers18%
Other5%
LAKE ESTES TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
199,500
70Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictEAST PORTAL TRAIL
Annual trail traffic volume for the East Portal Trail is estimated at approximately 41,100 annual visits. All of the use observed
on the East Portal Trail were walkers/hikers. Bicycles and all other vehicles are prohibited on the East Portal Trail.
Walkers/Hikers100%
EAST PORTAL TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
41,100
71 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACTJURASSIC PARK TRAIL
Annual trail traffic volume for the Jurassic Park Trail is estimated at approximately 34,300 annual visits. All of the use observed
on the trail were hikers/walkers, but most of these were actually rock climbers using the trail to access to the rock climbing
opportunities at the end of the trail.
Walkers/Hikers
100%
JURASSIC PARK TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
34,300
72Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictHOMER ROUSE TRAIL
Annual trail traffic volume for the Homer Rouse Trail is estimated at approximately 7,900 annual visits. The majority (67%) of
this use was walkers/hikers with the remaining being joggers. Although mountain biking is allowed on the trail, no bicycle use
was observed during the trail counts.
Walkers/
Hikers
67%
Joggers
33%
HOMER ROUSE TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
7,900
73 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACTRIVERWALK TRAIL
Annual trail traffic volume for the Riverwalk Trail is estimated at approximately 245,600 annual visits. The vast majority (95%)
of this use was walkers/hikers with the remaining being joggers (2%) and bicyclists (3%). Bicyclists are asked to walk their
bikes along the Riverwalk Trail, so this count data suggeests there may be a small issue with adherence to this rule.
Joggers2.5%
Walkers/Hikers
95%
Bicycles2.5%
RIVERWALK TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
245,600
74Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLILY MOUNTAIN TRAILHEAD
Annual trail traffic volume for the Lily Mountain Trailhead is estimated at approximately 31,900 annual visits. All of the use
observed on the trail were hikers/walkers, and no dogs were observed on the trail during the trail counts. Bicycles and all
other vehicles are prohibited on the Lily Mountain Trail.
Walkers/Hikers
100%
LILY MOUNTAIN TH TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
31,900
75 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanLILY LAKE TRAIL
Annual trail traffic volume for the Lily Lake Trail is estimated at approximately 35,500 annual visits. The majority (81%) of
observed trail users were hikers/walkers, followed by joggers (15%) and “other” users (4%). “Other” users in the case were
electric wheelchair users. Bicycles and all other vehicles are prohibited on the Lily Lake Trail.
Walkers/Hikers
81%
Joggers
Other4%
15%
LILY LAKE TRAIL USE
Annual Trail
Traffic Volume:
35,500
5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
76Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictTRAILS MEAN BUSINESS
ECONOMIC VS FISCAL IMPACT
While economic impact analyses have been widely used in the fields
of economic development and tourism, the tradition in parks and
recreation planning has always been to provide financial reports for
an agency’s projects and operations. The difference between these
two reporting methods is significant, and illustrates a fundamental
divide between the way recreational and tourism assets are being
considered and developed in many communities around the
country. Financial reports focus on capital and operational costs
compared against the revenues generated by the recreation agency,
while economic impact analyses consider these same costs and
benefits while also acknowledging the role these resources play in
drawing additional visitors and tourism revenues into the broader
community.
Trails, particularly trails in tourism-based communities, are a perfect
example of how financial reporting fails to capture the true benefits
of a recreational resource. Trail development and maintenance
can be costly, and often trail user fees are minimal. As a result,
financial reports often show trails as relatively high-cost centers in
communities’ annual budgets because operational costs generally
exceed revenues. However, trails are absolutely critical attractors
for tourists and can be a powerful tool for economic development,
especially in mountain communities like Estes Park. While the
recreation agency often receives little or no direct revenue from
trail users, the local economy benefits immensely from bringing
these new visitors into the community. Trail users may not always
pay to be on the trail, but they typically buy goods, gas, food, and
lodging. It is this visitor spending that is tracked in an economic
impact analysis. The financial and economic implications of
trail development must be well understood in order to properly
leverage these assets for the greatest benefit to the community.
To better understand the role trails play in the economic fabric of
the Estes Valley, an economic analysis of the Lake Estes Trail was
conducted as part of this trails planning process. The ongoing
financial analysis of development operation costs and revenues
is contained in the implementation chapter, Chapter 7: Making it
Happen. These financial and economic analyses provide insight into
the implementation and phasing strategies, and can greatly increase
the competitiveness of trail projects for grants and other funding
opportunities by demonstrating the immense return on investment
these projects can provide.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE LAKE ESTES TRAIL
The economic analysis of the Lake Estes Trail demonstrates the
powerful role trails play in the economic fabric of the Estes Valley.
Trail user spending associated with the Lake Estes Trail alone
generates approximately $7 million in sales, 105 jobs and $945,000
77
Lake Estes Trail User Spending
9%
2%
2%
6%
4%
30%
4%
32%
Total Sales: $7 Million
Annual Visits: 199,500
Total Jobs: 105
Total Taxes: $945,000
Total Impact
Federal, State and Local
Lodging
45%
Transportation
3%
Retail and
Souvenirs
15%
Restaurants
& Bars
25%
Groceries
and Snacks
2%
34%
11%
4%
32%
8%
2%
9%
Entertainment
10%Estes Valley Master Trails Planin federal, state and local taxes in the Estes Valley economy each
year, including direct and secondary effects. Trail user spending
in this case refers to both local and non-local spending at local
businesses, although locals spend significantly less per trip on
average ($11.31) than do non-local day users ($23.67) and non-
local overnight users ($79.84). While the Lake Estes Trail is a very
important, easily accessible trail for both locals and visitors, it only
represents 3.75 miles of a trail system that extends many hundreds
of miles in the Estes Valley, suggesting the economic impact of the
complete Estes Valley Trail System to be much higher.
A powerful computer-based model—the Money Generation Model
(MGM2)—was used to project this economic impact of the Lake
Estes Trail. The MGM2 model was developed by the National Park
Service and is used at RMNP and at other national parks across the
country. The model demonstrates the immense value of trails as an
economic engine in the Estes Valley, by estimating the economic
impact of spending associated with trail use on the Lake Estes Trail
in terms of changes in jobs, tax impacts, and sales (gross regional
product). Two primary inputs are required for the model: trail user
counts and visitor spending profiles. The trail count estimated an
annual trail traffic volume of 199,500 visits per year for the Lake
Estes Trail.
Visitor Spending Profiles were derived from various sources. The
estimate of local day user spending was calculated by taking the 5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
78Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtaverage of 16 recent trail studies that included a trail user spending
survey. These studies were all from the United States, with a
preference for studies from the Rocky Mountain region. For day
and overnight visitor spending this analysis utilized the weighted
average spending profiles calculated by Summit Economics for the
August 2012 Visit Estes Park Tourism Study. The Tourism Study was
commissioned by Visit Estes Park with the objective of providing
information on tourism in the Estes Valley and represents the best
estimate of tourism spending in the valley.
The spending profile of these user groups is presented below. Most
of the spending associated with local day user is on retail items,
restaurants and bars, and snacks, as the most common purchases for
locals trail days are meals and other food. Similarly, most of the day
visitor spending is attributed to these same categories, with higher
spending on gas and other transportation costs. Finally, overnight
visitors largest spending category is lodging, followed by restaurants
and bars and the retail.
An interesting analysis of these results is to compare the percent of
visitation by trail user category with the percent of spending by trail
user category. For example, local day users make up approximately
55% percent of the use on the Lake Estes Trail, but only constitute
18 percent of the total spending associated with the trail. Likewise,
overnight visitors make up only 30 percent of the trail visitation,
Spending Catagory Overnight Visitors Day Visitors Local Day Users
Retail and Souvenirs $10.77 $10.16 $4.86
Restaurants and Bars $12.01 $6.62 $3.17
Entertainment $4.89 $2.61 $1.25
Gas and Other Transportation
Costs
$5.74 $1.34 $0.57
Grocery and Snacks $8.25 $2.94 $1.47
Lodging $38.18 $0.00 $0.00
Total Average Spending $79.84 $23.67 $11.31
while they generate over 70 percent of the spending. Increasing
the number overnight trail visitor stays in the Estes Valley, either by
generating new visits or by extending the length of stay of existing
visitors, should be a key effort of the trail tourism efforts in the
valley.
79 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanCREATING SYNERGY BETWEEN THE
ECONOMY AND RECREATION
Being a recreation-oriented community, there are unique
opportunities for Estes Valley to create synergies between trails
and economic development. First and foremost, these important
recreational resources benefit local residents. They also contribute
to the tourism experience as destinations for recreation and
events, and by encouraging visitors to stay at local hotels or explore
downtown while being drawn to the community for recreation. The
former may lead to direct revenue through user fees, while the latter
is a driver of secondary revenue (i.e. sales tax) that is a result of
increased visitation.
As noted in Chapter 1, the tourism industry is Estes Park constitutes
a significant portion of the regional economy, providing more than
half the jobs in the town (Visit Estes Park, 2015). To promote this
tourism, Visit Estes Park markets the community based on the
following concepts: real wildlife, exceptional outdoor adventures,
extraordinary beauty, majestic mountain village and a welcoming
community. All of these concepts are enhanced and supported by a
robust, inter-connected trail system: trails allow you to get out into
nature to experience the beauty, wildlife and outdoor adventure
the Estes Valley has to offer. A cohesive, easy to navigate system of
trails also improves the quality of life within the Valley and makes
the community more welcoming to all its residents and guests. Trails,
and the access to the outdoors and nature they provide, are also a
large factor in the decision for tourists to visit Estes Park. All of the
top four reasons for deciding to visit Estes Park are related to trails:
1) relaxing mountain getaway; 2) Rocky Mountain National Park; 3)
wildlife viewing; and 4) outdoor recreation.
There are a variety of opportunities that are included in the Estes
Valley Master Trails Plan that recognize and promote the important
relationship between recreation and the Estes Valley Economy, such
as:
• Cohesive wayfinding and signage
• Marketing as a trails destination
• Crating a connected system for travel without a car, as
convenience to recreation increases the attractiveness of
destination
• Allowing residents and visitors to get out into nature to
experience the beauty, wildlife and outdoor adventure the
Estes Valley has to offer
• Creating cohesive, easy to navigate system of trails to improves
the quality of life within the Valley and makes the community
more welcoming to all its residents and guests 5. TRAIL USE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
Chapter 6:
The Master Plan
81
KEY
TrailTypology:
Paved Surface Pedestrian Other Non
Motorized
Advanced
Bicyclist
Trail Head
Paved or Soft
Surface
Hiker Equestrian Child BicyclistTrail Corridor
Soft Surface Mobility
Chalenged
Basic Bicyclist Mountain
Biker
User groUps
naPS naTH
naP/S naCO
SS
Estes Valley Master Trails PlanIntroduction
The Estes Valley Trails Plan includes the following Future Opportunity
projects, which are graphically depicted on the Trails Plan figures
and described below. These projects are the result of the issues
and opportunities raised during the citizen outreach events, the
community survey and by stakeholders and partners. Each Future
Opportunity project describes the existing condition, purpose and
need for improvement, future user groups and surface type, and
recommended improvements. Refer to Chapter 4: Standards and
Guidelines for discussion on typology, trail type and user groups.
It is important to note that additional planning may be required
prior to implementation of some of these projects. For example,
Future Opportunity trail alignments are generalized and only meant
to demonstrate the need for a connection between two trails or
destinations. Some trails will require partnerships or acquisition to
construct and maintain.
The Estes Valley Trails Plan is meant to be a reference guide
in order to prioritize trail construction and maintenance. In
Chapter 7: Implementation, the projects are listed by priority and
implementation strategies are discussed.
OVERALL VISION: WHERE ARE WE
HEADING
The overall vision of the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan was to
develop an integrated, connected trail network for a diverse number
of users. Key components of a trails network need to include:
• Accessibility (parking, signage)
• Diversity (surfaces, ability, user group)
• Sustainability (long-lasting trail network, minimal maintenance)
• Connectivity (to Town, to RMNP, to USFS lands, to other trails,
to neighborhoods, to hotels/YMCA)
• Safety (decrease high risk zone and recommend treatments)
Other trail planning projects are simultaneously occurring in the Estes
Valley during the Estes Valley Trail Plan process. These projects include
the Highway 34 Trail, Rocky Mountain Greenway, Rattlesnake Trail
(Larimer County), RMNP Multi-Use Trail, Fall River Trail, Fish Creek
Trail, and other on-going restoration efforts. Each of the projects are
at varying phases from initiation to completion. With the exception of
the Fish Creek Trail, which is under construction, the projects are multi-
year projects or are in conception. Refer to Chapter 3 for a description
of these projects.6. The Master Plan
82
The Lake Estes Trail is a 4-mile, 9-feet wide paved, multi-use trail that circumnavigates Lake Estes. With nearly 200,000
annual visits, the Lake Estes Trail is an important recreational resource for locals and visitors for biking, walking, running
and fishing access. Users can access the trail on foot or by bike from Town and Riverwalk via the Highway 36 underpass
and from Fish Creek Trail and the school zone via the Highway 7 underpass; or users can park at the number of parking
and picnic areas around the Lake.
The Lake Estes Trail is the heart of Estes Valley’s trail network and should be utilized as an “arterial” trail to generate
connectivity throughout the Town and Valley. Current connections to the Lake Estes Trail are from the west (Visitor’s
Center and Town via the Highway 36 underpass). Additional connections proposed as Future Opportunities include Mall
Road (east), Fish Creek Road (south) and Dry Gulch Road (north). Improved crossings should be enhanced on Highway
34 (Big Thompson Avenue) to connect to the Dry Gulch Road.
Because this trail is so heavily used, regular maintenance as described in Chapter 4 is of the utmost importance. One
recommendation heard throughout the planning process was the need for a natural surface side path around Lake Estes
for runners and equestrian use. When resurfacing or repaving occurs, this improvement should be considered.Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLAKE ESTES TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
4 MILESnaPS1
EVRPD CORE TRAIL NETWORK
83
Fish Creek Trail, a 4.7- mile natural surface, multi-use trail, runs up the Fish Creek drainage from the Lake Estes Trail
(via the Highway 26 underpass) east of the Estes Park Golf Course and connects to Homer Rouse Trail. The Fish Creek
Trail and Fish Creek Road sustained extensive damage during the September 2013 floods. The trail is planned to be
reconstructed in 2016. The current plan is to construct a paved trail from Scott Avenue north to Lake Estes Trail and
the remaining segment south as a natural surface trail. The reconstruction is a key link the Estes Valley Trail Plan because
the Fish Creek Trail creates greater accessibility to the south to the Lily’s Lake area and to USFS lands. A natural surface
shoulder should be incorporated for the paved segment for equestrian users to be able to traverse the eastern edge of
Town. Given its alignment, erosion management will be critical in both reconstruction and on-going maintenance for the
trail. During reconstruction and afterward, the Fish Creek Corridor Plan for Resiliency should be considered, and the Fish
Creek Coalition, the Town of Estes Park, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board should be engaged as partners on
the trail.
The Homer Rouse Trail is a 1.7-mile natural surface, multi-use trail from the end of the Fish Creek Trail on Fish Creek
Way to the Lily Lake area. The trail is heavily-used by locals and the nearby Cheley Camp, and was raised a number of
time during the public outreach process. To improve access to equestrian users, parking should be improved on Fish
Creek Way to accommodate horse trailers. Because this trail is so heavily used, drainage concerns should be addressed
and regular maintenance should be performed. Some waterbars and other trail features that will require maintenance or
reconstruction; see the Homer Rouse Trail Assessment in Appendix B for list of specific recommendations on maintenance
and reconstruction. A reroute on the upper portion of the trail is currently in the design stage. This new alignment will
avoid the Baldpate Inn parking lot, climbing closer to CO Route 7 and still ending at the Twin Sisters trailhead. There is
also an unsanctioned social trail spur forming along the trail with some erosion occurring that should be addressed as on-
going trail work is completed on the Homer Rouse Trail.Estes Valley Master Trails PlanFISH CREEK TRAIL
HOMER ROUSE TRAIL
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
4.6 MILES
1.7 MILES
naP/S
SS
2
3 6. The Master Plan
84
Otie’s is a 1-mile natural surface multi-use trail connecting Town with the NPS Lumpy Ridge Trail. The trail is well-known
to many locals, but not as well known to many visitors partially because the trail starts behind the Stanley Village shopping
center and contains no very limited signage, and partially because the trail is not well defined in locations. Improved
signage and maintenance of the trail would increase exposure and offer a link north from Town, Estes Park Visitor’s
Center and Stanley Village to NPS lands. The trail currently passes through private property in a few locations and all
easements have not been obtained. EVRPD should work to develop natural surface trail segments in locations where
the trail is currently on the road. Further developing this link could alleviate some of the parking problems at the popular
Lumpy Ridge Trailhead. A full trail inventory and assessment of Otie’s Trail, including recommended trail prescriptions is
provided in Appendix B.Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictOTIE’S TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
1 MILESS4
EVRPD CORE TRAIL NETWORK
85
Aspen Brook Trail is an historical NPS trail located along the Wind River between RMNP’s East Portal and Lily Lake.
The trail was used by equestrian riders and hikers until it was destroyed during the September 2013 flood. The repair and
redevelopment of Aspen Brook from RMNP’s East Portal to the Lily Lake area will take coordination from a number
of different entities including the Town of Estes Park, RMNP and YMCA of the Rockies. Easements may need to be
acquired to complete the connection from East Portal to Lily Lake. The trail would provide an excellent connection to
RMNP from the popular Lily Lake and Twin Sisters area and reestablish an equestrian route from nearby YMCA of the
Rockies.
Moraine Avenue (Highway 36) is located southwest of Town and is one of two access roads from Town to RMNP.
Improvements to Moraine Avenue were raised throughout the public outreach process. Currently some segments have
a paved shoulder while others have a paved sidewalk; some segments are narrow and have no adequate shoulder for
pedestrian or bikers. A consistent shoulder or sidewalk network would provide for much needed connectivity from Town
to RMNP and the number of hotels located along Moraine Avenue. Estes Valley Master Trails PlanASPEN BROOK TRAIL
MORAINE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
2 MILES
2.2 MILES
SS
naPS
5
6
SHORT TERM OPPORTUNITIES6. The Master Plan
86
Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue) is one of the major roads into Estes Park. It is a higher speed 2-lane highway entering
Town from the south. It provides access to the Lily Lake and Mary’s Lake areas, the Homer Rouse Trail and the Estes Park
school zone. A path or sidewalk exists from the junction of Highway 7 and Highway 36 to Carriage Drive. Cyclists, walkers
and runners use this detached path frequently. Only experienced cyclists use the roadway due to a minimal and varying
shoulder. To increase safety to Estes Park schools, highway crossings should be improved and the sidewalk widened to
extend the existing sidewalk north from Graves Avenue to Manford Avenue to connect to the Manford Avenue corridor
(School Zone Improvements). When Highway 7 is repaved, a shoulder should be added for cyclists to ride Highway 7
to Mary’s Lake Road to Moraine Avenue/Riverside Drive. Improved crossings and shoulder on Highway 7 need to be
coordinated with CDOT and Larimer County.
In Estes Park, the grade school, middle school and high school are located on a 1,800 square-foot property between
Highway 7 and 36. This area is particularly important to create safe connectivity to neighborhoods and popular destinations
in Town. Currently sidewalks and a couple of crossings exist on Highway 7, Manford Avenue and Community Drive.
A connection to Fish Creek Trail from the school property should be developed for students to use the Lake Estes
Trail and Fish Creek Trail as potential routes to school. Pavement markings and signage for a bike lane should also be
added on Manford Avenue. These two projects would create safer routes for students to access school from Town and
neighborhoods. Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictHIGHWAY 7 IMPROVEMENTS
SCHOOL ZONE IMPROVEMENTS
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
1.2 MILES
1 MILE
naPS
naPS
7
8
SHORT TERM OPPORTUNITIES
87
Stanley Park currently offers three ball fields; a skate park; an in-line hockey and ice skating rink; a playground; six tennis
courts; an outdoor basketball and sand volleyball court; an indoor shooting range; a pedestrian trail; a dog park; picnic
areas, restrooms, and two group picnic shelters. A Master Plan for Stanley Park is currently underway, which includes a
proposed pump track, an internal mountain bike and rugged trail system, and connectivity trails to link the school site with
Stanley Park and the Estes Lake Trail. A realignment of trails in the community garden area is also considered. These trails
will provide important in-town recreational opportunities for hiking and mountain biking, as well as learning terrain for
mountain and off-road bicycling. Connectivity with the school and adjacent proposed community center will be critical
moving forward in this area.
The Estes Park Loop was originally proposed in the Estes Valley Area Trails Plan (May 2005) and was heard throughout
the public outreach process as a great opportunity for a moderate grade, multi-use trail from Town. The loop follows
Dry Gulch Road to Devils Gulch Road (with a small segment on H Bar G Road) to MacGregor Avenue. The majority of
the route is 2-lane, 11-foot wide roads with no shoulders or sidewalks. Plans are underway to construct a sidewalk from
Big Thompson Avenue (Highway 34) to the Estes Park city limit (Stone Gate Road) and a Highway 34 underpass from
Dry Gulch Road to the Lake Estes Trail. This is much needed access for the neighborhoods and the Salud Family Health
Center on Dry Gulch Road. The proposed loop trail is recommended to be an 11-mile paved or soft surface, multi-use
trail that parallels the road. Share-the-Road signs are also recommended for on-road cyclists. Estes Valley Master Trails Planstanley park trails
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
N/AnaP/S8.5
ESTES PARK LOOP
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
11 MILESnaP/S9 6. The Master Plan
88
This natural surface NPS trail is very popular trail with locals and visitors. It is located north of Town. The trail circles
around Lumpy Ridge, a massive granite rock outcropping. Improved parking would help alleviate congestion on busy
weekends and on-going maintenance should be a priority for this heavily-used trail. Since the relocation of the trailhead
access to its current location, the steep grade is an impediment to hikers approaching on foot and should be considered
when parking is addressed.
To increase neighborhood connectivity, the Peak View Drive corridor was identified to link Country Club Drive and the
proposed Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock Trail. A short segment should also be constructed on the west side of St. Vrain
Avenue. This would create needed east to west access in the southern portion of the Estes Valley. To slow traffic on
Highway 7, a gateway treatment is recommended in advance of the trail crossing across on Highway 7.
Peak View Drive
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
1.7 MILESnaPS10
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLUMPY RIDGE TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
N/AnaTH11
SHORT TERM OPPORTUNITIES
89
Stanley Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Fir Avenue and Moccasin Circle Drive comprise an east-west corridor south of
Downtown Estes Park. Estes Park Medical Center is located along this corridor and is often used for neighborhood
connectivity. This route provides an excellent alternative connection through Town and should be formalized and promoted
on maps, and possibly signed. Sidewalks exist on all roads except for parts of Moccasin Circle Drive. This final gap should
be completed and a crosswalks should be added where necessary.
Coupled with the Fall River Trail plans of the Town of Estes Park (trail # 13) and the RMNP Multi-Use Trail (trail #15)
improvements to the existing Fall River Trail would complete the connections between Town and RMNP providing a
consistent trail surface and experience. Plans for these improvements should be done in concert with the other work on
in the Fall River network.
The Town of Estes Park is currently working with a consultant to plan and design a paved extension of the Fall River Trail
to the Fall River Entrance of RMNP. Final design of the 2.5-mile trail is expected to be approved later in 2016, with
implementation occurring once funding is identified and secured. Once complete, the trail will provide an important
multi-use connection between the Town and RMNP.
STANLEY AVENUE AND MOCCASIN/FIR/PROSPECT
FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
FALL RIVER TRAIL
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
trAil #:
1.5 MILES
0.5 MILES
2.5 MILES
naPS
naPS
naPS
12
14
13
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master Plan
90
This trail opportunity is proposed on Bureau of Reclamation lands on the west side of Mary’s Lake. This trail would
provide for a loop opportunity around Mary’s Lake for locals and for visitors to the EVRPD’s campground at Mary’s Lake,
improving the amenities the district is able to offer there. The trail would also create an opportunity to integrate with the
proposed connection between Mary’s Lake and the YMCA (see trail #46).
The National Park Service considering two options for providing a multi-use trail system on the east side of the park
along existing road corridors. This trail would provide up to 15 miles of multi-use trail within the park with the northern
terminus at the Fall River Entrance to RMNP and the southern terminus at Sprague Lake. If approved, the multi-use trail
will become a key link within the park, ultimately connecting to the Estes Valley trail network; the Aspenglen, Moraine
Park, and Glacier Basin campgrounds; the Fall River, Beaver Meadows, and Moraine Park visitor centers; the Lawn Lake,
Hollowell Park, and Sprague Lake trailheads; and hiker shuttle stops and Park & Rides in the park.
RMNP MULTI-USE TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
1.5 MILESnaP/S15
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictSHORT TERM OPPORTUNITIESMARY’S LAKE TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
0.7 MILESSS16
91
This trail opportunity is proposed along a newly acquired trail easement that would allow for a better connection from the
Fish Creek Trail across St. Vrain Ave to the Lake Estes Trail east of the existing underpass and inlet near where Mall Roads
meets St. Vrain Ave. The connector would improve the transportation functions of both the Fish Creek Trail and the Lake
Estes Trail and aid in creating safer routes to schools in the Estes Valley.
This trail opportunity is proposed as a short soft surface interpretive trail on the eastern end of Lake Estes near the Mall
Road/Highway 34 intersection. The trail should be designed for both exercise and education, to provide users with a
greater understanding and appreciation for the history, ecology and other various features of the Lake Estes area. The trail
should include interpretive signs and boards, explaining the flora and fauna, ecological processes, and historical elements.
FISH CREEK CONNECTOR
LAKE ESTES INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
0.2 MILES
0.5 MILES
naPS
SS
18
17
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master Plan
92
Larimer County Open Space will be constructing a new soft-surface trail on the west side of Hermit Park Open Space
beginning in 2016. This trail will connect all existing trails in Hermit Park to one another, as well as to USFS trails south
of the open space. As it is located close to Town, it is sure to become a key connector in the Estes Valley trails system as
well as a destination for locals and visitors.
This trail opportunity is proposed behind the businesses along Elkhorn Ave between Virginia Drive and Big Horn Drive.
Along with on-street accommodations this path would help create a route through downtown off of Big Thompson/
Elkhorn Ave. This trail connection would also provide additional foot traffic and exposure to these businesses.
BIG THOMPSON BUSINESS PATH
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
0.3 MILEnaPS19
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictSHORT TERM OPPORTUNITIESHERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE WEST PERIMETER TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
6.3 MILESSS20
ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE WINTER ACCESS
The Estes Park Golf Course is managed by the EVRPD and
lies to the south of the school area between South St. Vrain
(Highway 7) and Fish Creek Road. The Estes Park Golf Course
provides world-class golfing opportunities in the warmer
months, but it may also provide a potential trail opportunity
in the off-season when not in use by golfers. The possibility
of using the cart paths as public multi-use paths for walking,
snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing in the winter months
should be explored. The possibility of grooming or packing
snow along the cart paths – while being respectful to the
sensitive grasses of the golf course – should also be pursued.
93
Highway 66, or Spur 66, extends southwest from Highway 36 which travels from Town to RMNP. A number of lodging
options are located off of Spur 66. An existing social trail parallel to the road is present along portions of the road;
however a formalized natural or paved surface, multi-use trail would greatly improve connectivity from these lodges to
Town and RMNP, and provide visitors with a safe route into Town.
Mary’s Lake Road connects two major southern access routes into Town, Highway 7 and Highway 36. Locals currently
use this route as a loop for cycling and jogging. The existing road has no shoulder to safely accommodate pedestrians and
cyclists. In order to do so, a parallel multi-use trail would be a beneficial connection between the two major roads and
provide safer recreation options for visitors and locals.
Deer Ridge is an area west of RMNP and east of Town. A number of social trails exist in this area, making up a network
of 3 miles of natural surface, multi-use trails that connect to Deer Mountain trails within RMNP. One of the trails starts
from Old Man Mountain Lane and another on Elm Road. These social trails should be formalized and maintained to
further connect the Town and RMNP.
SPUR 66 IMPROVEMENT
MARY’S LAKE ROAD IMPROVEMENT
DEER RIDGE CONNECTION
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
trAil #:
3.2 MILES
2.5 MILES
3 MILES
naP/S
naPS
SS
22
23
21
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master PlanLONG TERM OPPORTUNITIES
94
Lake Estes and Fish Creek trails are two critical pieces of the Estes Park trail network. The connection along Fish Creek
Road would allow users to access Fish Creek Trail from the east and removing the need to go a half-mile out of the way to
connect to Fish Creek. This connection is a missing link for equestrian users to traverse the eastern edge of Town and is
also likely to be used by cyclist and runners. It is recommended a natural surface trail be constructed from Brodie Avenue
north (or until it connects with Fish Creek Trail) to parallel to Fish Creek Road to connect Fish Creek Trail with Mall Road
and Dry Gulch Road.
Riverside Drive runs parallel to Highway 36 (Moraine Avenue) between Town and RMNP on the south side of the
Big Thompson River. Currently no shoulder exists for pedestrian and cyclists. This route could be an alternative to the
Highway 36 (Moraine Avenue) path to connect pedestrians and cyclists from Town to RMNP or could become a loop
from Town out Highway 36 to Mary’s Lake Road and back to Town on Riverside Drive.
With the improvement to Mary’s Lake Road, trail improvements should also be made to connect Mary’s Lake Road to the
Homer Rouse and Fish Creek trails by developing a parallel natural or paved surface, multi-use trail on a small segment
of Highway 7 and Fish Creek Way.
RIVERSIDE DRIVE CONNECTION
MARYS LAKE ROAD TO FISH CREEK TRAIL CONNECTION
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
1.5 MILES
0.5 MILES
naPS
naP/S
25
24
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLONG TERM OPPORTUNITIESFISH CREEK ROAD ACCESS
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
0.5 MILESnaP/S26
95
The West Creek Trail was originally proposed in the Estes Valley Area Trails Plan (May 2005) and would provide access
to the USFS’ West Creek, Piper Meadow and Crosier Mountain trails from Town. While existing “trail access” in this
area is for administrative and private landowner access only, further investigation should be pursued to expand future
connectivity to offer pedestrians and cyclists increased opportunities to recreate on USFS lands with greater safety.
Country Club Drive is a low-volume local street on the southwestern side of Estes Park. It is ideally located to improve
connectivity to Fish Creek Trail from the improved St. Vrain Avenue. Short-term improvements should include sharrows
and signage to connect pedestrians and cyclists to Fish Creek Trail, longer term improvements could be a soft or paved
surface trail paralleling the road.
Kruger Rock and Hermit Park (Larimer County Open Space) are popular areas to recreate in the Estes Park area; however,
they can only be accessed from Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue). In the future, a connection from the Fish Creek
Trail to the Kruger Rock Trail in the Hermit Park Open Space should be developed. Instead of locals and visitors getting
into their vehicles to drive to Hermit Park, they would have an alternate opportunity to access the trails from Fish Creek
Trail.
WEST CREEK TRAIL ACCESS
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE CONNECTION
FISH CREEK TRAIL TO KRUGER ROCK
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
trAil #:
2 MILES
0.5 MILES
N/A
SS
naP/S
naCO
29
27
28
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master Plan
96
The Johnny Park Trail was developed with regional connectivity in mind. It would connect Highway 7 and Highway 36
through a series of existing roads including CO Road 82E and CO Road 47. About a 2 mile trail segment on USFS land
would need to be developed to link these roads. This trail would be natural surface, multi-use trail, but would be a great
opportunity to increase interest and options for mountain bikers in the Estes Valley.
Homer Rouse to Little Valley Road connection would link the Lily Lake area with Homestead Meadows through USFS
lands, providing access to these popular recreation areas. The trail also presents a good opportunity for mountain bike use.
The Fish Creek Trail to Homestead Meadows connection would provide an additional opportunity for users to access
Hermit Park Open Space and the Homestead Meadows area. The route could utilize Little Valley Road and Jacob Road
to access USFS lands and then climb to Hermit Park and Homestead Meadows trail networks. This would allow users one
more access route to these popular recreation areas.
HOMER ROUSE TO LITTLE VALLEY ROAD
FISH CREEK TRAIL TO HOMESTEAD MEADOWS
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
3.5 MILES
3 MILES
SS
SS
31
30
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLONG TERM OPPORTUNITIESJOHNNY PARK TO HIGHWAY 36
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
14 MILESnaP/S32
97
Wonderview Avenue (Highway 34 Bypass) is an existing paved road with paved shoulders. Cyclists will need a way to
connect with the Fall River Trail where Wonderview Avenue merges with Fall River Road. To mitigate any potential
problems for cyclists, designating shoulders as bike lanes should be considered or Share-the-Road signs should be posted.
Mall Road provides an important connection between the Lake Estes Trail, the Fish Creek Trail and Highway 34 and areas
to the north. An existing social trail exists in this area, and a paved trail opportunity along Mall Road should be formalized
with a parallel natural surface trail for running and equestrian use.
WONDERVIEW AVENUE
MALL ROAD
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
1.5 MILES
0.2 MILES
naPS
naP/S
33
34
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master Plan
98
The Pawnee Trail was originally proposed in the Estes Valley Area Trails Plan (May 2005) and was referenced during the
current public outreach process. The Pawnee Trail is recommended to connect the 8-foot paved sidewalk on Carriage
Drive across Highway 7 to Mary’s Lake. The multi-use trail would connect with the proposed Peak View Drive path (see
Trail #10) to connect with Mary’s Lake campground. This trail, in conjunction with the Carriage Drive path and proposed
Fish Creek to Kruger Rock connection would create improved connectivity from St. Vrain Avenue to Mary’s Lake, adding
additional east to west access in the southern portion of the Estes Valley.
Environmental impacts and context-sensitive design of this trail must be considered prior to implementation, as there is
the potential for wetlands and sensitive habitat in this area. Care should be taken to avoid any unacceptable impacts to
soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife, as well as to the surrounding neighborhood. Residents of the neighborhood and
CPW should be involved in further planning regarding this trail opportunity.
PAWNEE TRAIL
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
1 MILESS35
This connection was identified to link Riverside Drive with the proposed Peak View Drive path, adding a north-south
connection between two major east-west connections. This trail also presents a good opportunity for mountain biking and
more rugged trial opportunities close to Town. Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLONG TERM OPPORTUNITIESPROSPECT MOUNTAIN CONNECTOR
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
2.1 MILESSS36
99
Sullivan Gulch Trail was an existing social trail located northeast of Estes Park near Glen Haven, which is in the process
of being reclaimed by the USFS. The trail started on Highway 34 (Big Thompson Canyon Road) and connects to the
Crosier Mountain Trail. This hike was popular with locals; however, extensive erosion problems due to the steep grade
made it unsustainable. In order to develop a sustainable trail, EVRPD should work with the USFS to realign the trail to
a sustainable grade, following the Master Plan trail guidelines. Parking on Highway 34 is also a known issue and should
be addressed when reconstruction of Highway 34 is assessed and when the Big Thompson Restoration Master Plan is
implemented. As this trail is located on USFS land, mountain biking opportunities should also be explored.
Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) is the main connection to Estes Park from Loveland and Fort Collins. Within Estes
Park city limits, the road is a higher speed 3-lane highway with portions of the road having a paved shoulder. The Estes
Park Visitor Center and the Stanley Village shopping center is located on this busy road. Because this is one of the busiest
roads and a main entrances to Town, developing a gateway treatment (i.e., planted median, pedestrian refuges) in advance
of Mall Road and Dry Gulch Road should be considered. The gateway treatments are meant to signify a community
entrance, slow traffic, reduce safety concerns for pedestrians and aid non-motorized crossings.
To promote connectivity and walkability throughout Estes Park, the sidewalk network should be completed on the north
side of Highway 34 from Steamer Drive to Lakefront Street and Grand Estates Drive to Dry Gulch Road. In addition,
adding a pedestrian refuge median island with HAWK signal for crossing at Estes Park Visitor Center.
SULLIVAN GULCH TRAIL
HIGHWAY 34 – BIG THOMPSON AVENUE
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
1.7 MILES
1.3 MILES
SS
naPS
37
38
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master Plan
100
This trail opportunity would connect the proposed Johnny Park Trail in the south to Pierson Park in the National Forest,
ultimately utilizing Forest Service Roads to provide access to both Hermit Park (via proposed trail #23) and the Twin
Sisters/Lily Lake area (via proposed trail #24). This trail connection would provide significant mountain bike connections
and create opportunities for long mountain bike loop rides. This trail would be natural surface, multi-use trail, but would
be a great opportunity to increase interest and options for mountain bikers in the Estes Valley.
This connection follows an existing Forest Service Road in Hell’s Canyon that branches off of Highway 36 southeast of
the Town of Estes Park. This trail would provide for more remote and challenging trail opportunities in this area of the
valley. Sustainable trail design will need to be employed to ensure that erosion is prevented and the ecological values of
the creek are preserved.
The Rattlesnake Trail is a soft-surface, rugged regional trail connection that was identified in the Larimer County Regional
Trails analysis. It would connect the proposed (by Larimer County) Carter Lake/Horsetooth Foothills trail west of the
Loveland/Berthoud area to the Estes Valley. This connection is an important regional, rugged trail opportunity that would
allow users to complete this connection in a more remote and natural setting.
HELL’S CANYON TO BLUE MOUNTAIN BISON RANCH OPEN SPACE
RATTLESNAKE TRAIL
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
4.7 MILES
11 MILES
SS
SS
40
39
4.7 MILESSS41
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLONG TERM OPPORTUNITIESTRIPPLE PARK CONNECTOR
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
101
A connection between Spur 66, the proposed RMNP Multi-Use Trail (trail # 34) and the Morraine Park area of RMNP
should be explored. As mentioned above, Spur 66 is a relatively well-traveled route with several homes and lodges along
its length. Connecting the road to RMNP trails would provide yet another access point between the Town and RMNP.
Consultation with RMNP should be completed when considering this trail opportunity to ensure it does not create a
management issue.
The Tahosa Valley Trail connects with the Aspen Brook Trail and Lily Lake and provides a connection to Johnny Road and
Boulder County to the south. Improvements to the trail should be made in concert with other improvements to Aspen
Brook (trail #5) and Johnny Park trails (trail #25), and perhaps Highway 7, to provide a consistent trail surface and
experience.
Colorado Highway 7 provides a connection from Estes Park to Allenspark and Boulder County to the south. The shoulder
on this road is not consistent – in some places it is a soft surface should and in others it is non-existent. A consistent,
improved shoulder should be constructed in this area to provide better bicycle connectivity to Lily Lake, Johnny Park,
Allenspark and Boulder County. EVRPD should coordinate this opportunity with CDOT’s planned work on Highway 7.
SPUR 66/RMNP CORRIDOR
TAHOSA VALLEY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CO HIGHWAY 7 IMPROVEMENTS
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
trAil #:
N/A
5.1 MILES
5 MILES
naCO
SS
naPS
44
42
43
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master Plan
102
A bridge crossing the Big Thompson River in the vicinity of Lower Broadview Road and Spur 66 should be considered to
improve connectivity to the YMCA area on Spur 66, the Town and Beaver Point. Given the propensity for wet soils in this
area elevated construction techniques and sensitive environmental design will likely need to be applied. Acquiring of new
easements would be required to move forward with this opportunity.
Trail options to connect the YMCA of the Rockies to the Mary’s Lake area should be explored with YMCA, the Forest
Service and the Town of Estes Park. Opportunities to integrate with the proposed Mary’s Lake trail (see trail #37) should
be considered. Acquiring of new easements would be required to move forward with this opportunity.
A conservation easement exists off of Dry Gulch Road where opportunities to connect to National Forest Lands to the
east should be explored. This area is quite remote, and the nature of the terrain suggest that a more rugged, challenging
multi-use trail could be developed in this area. Analysis of the easement terms and coordination with the ARNF will be
required to move forward with this opportunity.
YMCA/MARY’S LAKE CONNECTIVITY CORRIDOR
DRY GULCH/EAGLE ROCK CONNECTIVITY CORRIDOR
ProPosed length:
ProPosed length:
tyPology:
tyPology:
user grouPs:
user grouPs:
trAil #:
trAil #:
N/A
N/A
naCO
naCO
46
45
N/AnaCO47
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictLONG TERM OPPORTUNITIESBIG THOMPSON BRIDGE OPPORTUNITIES
ProPosed length:tyPology:user grouPs:trAil #:
103 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. The Master PlanSPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
BIKE-SHARE
What is Bike-Share?
Whether in New York City or the mountains of Colorado, the essence of
a bike-share program remains simple: anyone can pick up a bike in one
place and return it to another, making point-to-point, human-powered
transportation feasible.
Each city that has implemented it has made bike-share its own, adapting
it to the local context, including the city’s density, topography, weather,
infrastructure, and culture. Although other cities’ examples can serve as
useful guides, there is no single model of bike-share that can be adopted
in the Estes Valley. However, many of the most successful systems share
certain common features that should be considered:
• A dense network of stations across the coverage area, with an
average spacing of about 1,000 feet between stations
• Comfortable, commuter-style bicycles with specially designed parts
and sizes that discourage theft and resale
• A fully automated locking system that allows users to check bicycles
easily in or out of bike-share stations
• A wireless tracking system, such as radio-frequency identification
devices (RFIDs), that locates where a bicycle is picked up and
returned and identifies the user
• Real-time monitoring of station occupancy rates through wireless
communications, such as general packet radio service (GPRS)
• Real-time user information through various platforms, including the
web, mobile phones and/or on-site terminals
• Pricing structures that incentivize short trips helping to maximize the
number of trips per bicycle per day
Why Bike-Share?
The reasons for implementing a bike-share program are often centered on
goals of increasing cycling, reducing congestion, improving air quality, and
offering residents an active transportation option, all of which are relevant
for the Estes Valley. The promotion and accommodation of tourism is
another important consideration that is more unique to the Estes Valley.
An Estes Valley bike-share could benefit the region in a number of ways:
• Reduce congestion and improve air quality
• Increase accessibility
• Increase the reach of transit
• Improve the image of cycling
• Provide complementary services to public transport
• Improve the health of the residents
• Attract new cyclists
• Improve the valley’s image and branding
• Generate investment in local industry
• Bolster tourism
104Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictBike-share also has two key advantages when compared to other
transportation projects: implementation costs are comparatively low and
the timeline is short. It is possible to plan and implement a system in one
mayoral term (i.e., two to four years), which means that benefits to the
public accrue more immediately than in most transportation projects.
How to Do It
To implement a bike-share system the agency or partnership putting it
into action must have a basic knowledge of the essential elements of
bike-share. These elements include bikes, stations, software and other
technology needs, as well as personnel/ staffing objectives. Expert,
specialized contractors are almost always used to both plan and operate a
bike-share system and should be considered for the Estes Valley.
The process of planning and implementing a bike-share system can be
broken down into four steps:
1. Conducting a feasibility study: An analysis of the possibility
of bike-share, defining key parameters for planning and
developing an initial institutional and financial analysis, the
foundation needed to take the next steps. This discussion of
an Estes Valley Bike-Share is intended to set the stage for this
process, but cannot replace the level of detail necessary to
move to the detailed planning phase, as would be provided in a
study focused only on bike-share feasibility.
2. Detailed planning and design: This step defines the exact
locations of the stations, the size of the stations, and the type
of hardware and software needed.
3. Creating business and financial plans: This step defines the
institutional and revenue models, including contracting.
Implementation: The final step involves procurement and
installation of the hardware, the development of the software,
and marketing and promoting the bike-share.
Most bike-share stations are rolled out in phases, with the most successful
systems, like Paris, Lyon, and Hangzhou, beginning with a robust citywide
network of bike-share stations. The feasibility study can help determine
a phased implementation plan. Initial phases should focus on covering as
much of the valley as possible, focusing on areas that are the densest in
terms of demand, have strong bicycle infrastructure, and would have good
public support for bike-share. Generally, the first phase needs to be both
large enough to connect meaningful origins and destinations, in this case
Rocky Mountain National Park and the Downtown Core, and dense enough
to ensure convenience and reliability for the user. Smaller pilots are not
ideal for bike-share, as that scale can limit the usability of the system due
to poor coverage or bike availability, which ultimately damages the public
perception of bike-share as a viable mode of transport.
105 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanBike-Share Essentials
In order for a bike-share system to be well-used and efficient, it must be
properly planned and designed. Based on the performance of existing
systems across the globe, the Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy (ITDP) has developed the following planning and design guidelines
that are characteristic of the best-used and most efficient systems. More
detail about each recommendation can be found in their document: The
Bike-Share Planning Guide, available here: https://www.itdp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf.
Planning Guidelines
• Minimum System Coverage Area: about 4 square miles
◦An initial system in the Estes Valley would likely cover the Town
of Estes Park and the entrances to Rocky Mountain National Park;
approximately 6 square miles
• Station Density: 3–5 stations per square mile
◦This would require approximately 18-30 stations in the Estes
Valley
• Bikes/Resident: 10–30 bikes for every 1,000 residents (within
coverage area)
◦This would require approximately 60 – 180 bikes in the Estes
Valley. Given the strength of tourism in the valley, the number
should likely be closer to the higher end of the range.
• Docks per Bike Ratio: 2–2.5 docking spaces for every bike
◦This would require approximately 120-450 docking spaces in the
Estes Valley.
Bike Guidelines
• Durable
• Attractive
• Utilitarian
Station Guidelines
• Theft-proof locking mechanisms or security system
• Clear signage and use instructions
• Quick and easy electronic bicycle check-in/check-out system
Performance Metrics
• System Efficiency: Average number of daily uses: Four to eight
daily uses per bike
• Market Penetration: Average daily trips per resident: one daily
trip per 20 to 40 residents 6. The Master Plan
106Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictA BIKE SHARING/BIKE RENTAL HYBRID PROGRAM
On a national level, the National Park Service has also been
considering bike-sharing on federal lands. In the 2012 report,
Exploring Bicycle Options for Federal Lands: Bike Sharing, Rentals
and Employee Fleets, they explore under what conditions bike
sharing might be appropriate for National Parks. The report
recommends that bike-sharing programs on federal lands should
generally be implemented in parks located in more urbanized areas,
as bike sharing systems may not be well suited for all Federal lands.
As they explain: “long distances between attractions and lower
visitation typical of rural areas can inhibit success of public bicycle
systems, which generally use heavier bikes designed for short trips
on pavement. However, many areas have features that support more
traditional bicycle rental businesses, such as long stretches of scenic
roads and paths. Land managers in rural areas should consider how
they can combine components of public bicycle sharing and bicycle
rental programs to establish a system that meets the needs of their
visitors and local communities.” While a more traditional bike-share
system may be feasible in the Estes Valley and should be further
explored, the opportunity for such a hybrid system should also be
considered.
The following ideas come from the 2012 NPS report and combine
concepts from both public bike sharing programs and bike rental
programs that already exist in Federal lands:
1. Become a bicycle friendly place. The League of American
Bicyclists has many resources at: http://www.bikeleague.org/
programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/ Other resources include:
http://www.completestreets.org/ and www.bicyclinginfo.
org/ the Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands (2008)
contains a list of many other resources.
2. Explore partnerships with public lands friends groups, gateway
communities, public health organizations and others that may
sponsor bike rental programs. Their support may reduce the
cost for users, making bikes an attractive option to more people.
3. Consider pricing schemes that can make bicycling more
attractive to visitors than driving.
4. Establish multiple bike rental facilities in two or more convenient
locations to encourage one-way trips, where the customer may
bike one-way and hike, drive, or shuttle back.
5. Create a strong brand/logo and integrate it into all rental
bicycles. Uniform appearance and strong branding can make
visitors feel they are taking part in something larger and more
important that relates to an agency’s mission and the greater
good.
107 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan6. Use online and social marketing techniques to increase public
awareness and interest in bike use. Integrate agency initiatives
into messaging campaigns, such as connecting children to
nature, improving public health, reducing dependence on
foreign oil, saving money on fuel, and encouraging visitors to
bicycle.
7. Work with a third party non-profit or private organization to
operate the bike rental facilities to minimize liability.
8. Expand bicycling options for children and people with
disabilities by providing children’s bicycles, trailers, adult
tricycles and/or hand cycles. Bicycle sharing systems in the U.S.
require riders to be at least 16 years of age and do not have
provisions for children or people with disabilities.
9. Offer light weight bicycles and/or bicycles with more gears
and various styles to appeal to Federal lands visitors. Heavy
bicycles with few gears designed for high turnover urban use
may not be attractive for longer distance recreational riders.
10. Consider how bicycle could be shared with other land units.
Buses used in some northern National Parks during the peak
summer season are used at ski resorts during their peak winter
season. Similarly, with portable or flexible bicycle systems,
rather than storing bikes during the winter, bikes could be
moved to warmer areas that receive their peak visitation in the
winter.
Also from the NPS: “In summary, combining traditional bike rentals
with bike sharing concepts could make bicycling cost effective,
convenient, and attractive to more people visiting Federal lands.
Increasing the availability of bicycles in Federal lands can reduce
impacts on the environment and help balance transportation
networks. This document complements the 2008 Guide to Promoting
Bicycling on Federal Lands, which sought to raise awareness of the
benefits of bicycling and the many resources already available for
bike planning and design. Federal land managers are encouraged to
combine concepts from bike sharing systems, bike rental programs
and employee fleets to provide more travel choices to visitors and
employees while helping achieve agency missions.”
Partnerships and Funding
In 2012, the cost to implement automated bike sharing systems in
U.S cities ranged from an average of $4,200 to $5,400 per bicycle
with all system components, staff and support. Operating costs
ranged from an average of $150 to $200 monthly per bike. Based on
the high-elevation estimates of the size of a potential system in the
Estes Valley, this would equate to between $250,000 and $1,000,000
for implementation and $9,000 and $36,000 a month to operate.
In North America, all bike-sharing programs rely on many partners.
Funding sources often include a mix of federal grants, grants from
health care and other large companies, local sponsors, private 6. The Master Plan
108Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtfoundations and user memberships. Bike-shares DO NOT pay for
themselves and are generally not sustainable on user fees alone.
Therefore, multiple partnerships should be considered. It is also
important to note that many public bicycle sharing programs around
the world rely heavily on corporate partnerships and advertising
revenues for operation, which may not be compatible with the
National Park.
Regardless of what form the Estes Valley Bike-Share may take, a
partnership with RMNP on the program should be pursued and
discussed. Although the B-cycle bike share system was founded
independently by the City of San Antonio, there is a precedent for
the National Park Service to act as a primary partner in a public
bike-share program. In 2012, the San Antonio Missions National
Historical Park partnered with the City of San Antonio and San
Antonio Bike Share to expand the San Antonio B-cycle bike share
system south of the downtown to connect to the park. The project
was made possible through a Federal Transit Administration Paul S.
Sarbanes Transit in Parks grant. The City of San Antonio’s Office of
Environmental Policy applied for this grant with assistance from San
Antonio Bike Share, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
and from the NPS Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance Program.
The National Park Foundation provided further support by funding
a Transportation Scholar to assist in the project as part of the larger
goal to enhance transportation to and within the National Park.
Other partners included Bexar County and the San Antonio River
Authority. Given the relationship of Estes Park and RMNP, a similar
partnership with the Park Service should be pursued.
WATER TRAIL
A water trail (also referred to as a Blueway or Paddling Trail) is a
marked route on a navigable waterway such as a river, lake, canal
or coastline for people using small non-motorized boats such as
kayaks, canoes, rafts, or rowboats. Water trails often involve a series
of put-in and take-out locations and can be greatly enhanced when
incorporated with traditional trails that can share park and rest point
amenities and offer enhanced round trip opportunities.
Typically, water trails on lakes connect a series of lakes or take place
on a lake much larger than is found in the Estes Valley, such as the
Lake Superior Water Trail. Hence, a water trail in the Estes Valley
would likely be concentrated on one of the rivers or creeks in the
valley. These include:
• Big Thompson River is a tributary of the South Platte River,
approximately 78 miles long. The headwaters of the Big Thompson
River begin in Forest Canyon within RMNP. The river flows east
through Moraine Park to Estes Park. There it is held in Lake Estes
by the Olympus Dam before being released into the Big Thompson
Canyon. From Lake Estes, the river descends a half-mile in elevation
through the mountains in the spectacular 25-mile Big Thompson
Canyon, emerging from the foothills west of Loveland. It flows
109 Estes Valley Master Trails Planeastward, south of Loveland across the plains into Weld County and
joins the South Platte approximately 5 miles south of Greeley. Water
resources in the Big Thompson River are managed by the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District as part of the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project.
• St. Vrain Creek (often known locally as the St. Vrain River) is a
tributary of the South Platte River, approximately 32 miles long.
The creek is formed by the confluence of North and South St. Vrain
creeks at Lyons. The creek rises in several branches in the foothills of
the Front Range. Middle St. Vrain Creek rises along the continental
divide, west of St. Vrain Mountain. It descends in canyon to flow
along State Highway 7 and past Raymond. It joins the shorter South
St. Vrain Creek about two miles below Raymond. North St. Vrain
Creek rises northeast of St. Vrain Mountain near Allenspark and
descends in a remote canyon to the east along U.S. Highway 36. The
two branches join at Lyons, at the mouth of the canyon.
• Fall River is a 17.1-mile-long tributary of the Big Thompson River. The
river’s source is near the Alpine Visitor Center in Rocky Mountain
National Park. It flows down a canyon and over Chasm Falls before a
confluence with the Big Thompson in Estes Park.
• Fish Creek is also a tributary of the Big Thompson River. The stream’s
source is Lily Lake in Roosevelt National Forest. It flows northeast to
a confluence with the Big Thompson in Lake Estes.
Certain reaches of each of these rivers and creeks may be paddled at
various times of the year, but none of these rivers or creeks provide
a consistent flow, and hence difficulty level, for paddling throughout
the year. Long paddle-able stretches of 5 or more miles typical of
river trails are also limited on these rivers. The Big Thompson is
the most likely candidate for a water trail, as it has many stretches
of navigable white water on it, although much of the river is more-
challenging “creek boating” opportunities — a subset of whitewater
kayaking where paddlers seek narrow streams, fast currents and
waterfall drops — rather than traditional river paddling. Paddle-able
sections of the Big Thompson range from class II sections to bigger
class V+ sections. The Big Thompson is entirely controlled by dam
release, however, and other water demands on the river can limit
the recreational potential and predictability of the river.
Given the level of paddling difficulty and inconsistent flow of these
rivers and creeks, many guided river excursions originating in the
Estes Valley utilize the nearby Cache la Poudre River (often called
the Poudre River or the Poudre). The headwaters of the Poudre are
in Larimer County, in the northern part of Rocky Mountain National
Park, but not technically in the Estes Valley. The river descends
eastward in the mountains through the Roosevelt National Forest in
Poudre Canyon. It emerges from the foothills north of the city of Fort
Collins. It then flows eastward across the plains, passing north of the
city of Greeley, and flows into the South Platte River approximately 6. The Master Plan
110Estes Valley Parks And Recreation District5 miles east of Greeley. The Poudre is Colorado’s only designated
wild and scenic river, is generally considered a great reach for
both beginner and experienced paddlers, and may also be a good
candidate for a water trail in the region.
The Town of Estes Park has been active in promoting paddling in the
Estes Valley and should be engaged as a water trail partner. Work
is underway to raise two bridges in Town to better accommodate
active river use, and the town offers a kayak course extending from
the west side of Performance Park through the Spruce Street Bridge
to downtown, which may be incorporated into a future water trail in
the valley.
National Water Trail Designation
Water trails have been created by a variety of local, state, and
federal organizations in the US over the past few decades and the
National Park Service as created the new National Water Trails
System (NWTS) to bring existing and newly identified water trails
together into one cohesive national network of exemplary water
trails. The National Water Trails System is a network of water trails
the public can explore and enjoy, as well as a community of water
resource managers that can benefit from information sharing and
collaboration.
Benefits of Designation
In planning a water trail for the Estes Valley, NWTS designation
should be considered. The benefits of designation into the National
Water Trails System include:
• designation by the Secretary of the Interior, including a letter and
certificate announcing the designation as a national water trail
• national promotion and visibility, including use by the management
entity of the National Water Trails System logo in appropriate
settings and trail publications
• mutual support and knowledge sharing as part of a national network
• opportunities to obtain technical assistance and funding for planning
and implementing water trail projects
As a result of designation, an Estes Valley Water Trail could gain:
• positive economic impact from increased tourism
• assistance with stewardship and sustainability projects
• increased protection for outdoor recreation and water resources
• contribution to public health and quality of life from maintaining and
restoring watershed resources
• access to networking and training opportunities
• assistance with recognition and special events highlighting the trail
111 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanAll national water trails are also included in the online searchable
database of trails and have a page on this site to share trail
information including water trail descriptions, maps, photographs,
water trail manager contact information, links to applicable websites,
and best management strategies and practices.
Management of the Water Trail
Each designated national water trail is managed by a local
management entity (e.g., local, state, or federal government agency;
nonprofit organization; interagency organization) and not by the
National Park or other federal agency. The ongoing management
responsibility and associated costs of the designated national
water trail are the sole responsibility of the local management
entity. Therefore, a plan for how an Estes Valley Water Trail could
be collaboratively managed by the EVRPD and other local partners
should be developed.
Coordination and Support for the National Water Trails System
The National Water Trails System is a grassroots effort that relies on
local management of the designated water trails. The National Park
Services Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA),
who has been an effective partner in the current trails planning
effort, is the primary administrator that works in partnership with a
collaborative interagency group. RTCA staff serves as a clearinghouse
for information sharing and national water trail networking efforts.
National Water Trail Designation Criteria
As a subset of the national recreation trail designation, trails in the
National Water Trails System must meet the four criteria for National
Recreation Trail designation as follows:
• The trail (and its access points) must be open to public use and
be designed, constructed, and maintained according to best
management practices, in keeping with the anticipated use. Water
trail access points that demonstrate state-of-the-art design and
management are especially encouraged to apply for national water
trail designation.
• The trail is in compliance with applicable land use plans and
environmental laws.
• The trail will be open for public use for at least 10 consecutive years
after designation.
• The trail designation must be supported by the landowner(s), (public
or private), on which access points exist.6. The Master Plan
112Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictIn addition to the national recreation trails criteria, a designated
water trail must incorporate the following best management
practices:
• Recreation Opportunities: The water trail route has established
public access points that accommodate a diversity of trip
lengths and provide access to a variety of opportunities for
recreation and education.
• Education: The water trail users are provided with
opportunities to learn about the value of water resources,
cultural heritage, boating skills, and outdoor ethics.
• Conservation: The water trail provides opportunities for
communities to develop and implement strategies that
enhance and restore the health of local waterways and
surrounding lands.
• Community Support: Local communities provide support and
advocacy for maintenance and stewardship of the water trail.
• Public Information: The public is provided with accessible
and understandable water trail information, including details
for identifying access and trail routes; cultural, historic, and
natural features; hazards; and water quality. The water trail is
promoted to the community and broad national audience.
• Trail Maintenance: There is a demonstrated ability to support
routine and long-term maintenance investments on the water
trail. Facilities are designed, constructed, and maintained by
incorporating sustainability principles.
• Planning: Maintain a water trail plan that describes a vision,
desired future conditions, and strategies to strengthen best
management practices.
113 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanMaking it Happen
To take the first step toward national water trail designation, the
management entity for a potential trail submits a formal application.
The application will describe how the water trail and its management
entity achieve the criteria and meet the best management practices
outlined. Applications are currently accepted on a continual basis
and reviewed by a team of water trail subject matter experts
and a collaborative interagency group. The recommended trail
nominations are forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior for review
and designation.
Following are the general steps of the review and designation
process:
• Application Submittal to the National Park Service: The
management entity (sponsor) submits the official application
and a letter of support from the respective state trail
administrator(s) through the application account.
• Initial Review: The application is reviewed for consistency
with the criteria for national recreation trail designation. The
appropriate federal agency staff confirms and ground truths
the water trail.
• Water Trails Best Management Practices Evaluation: With
assistance from subject matter experts in applicable federal
agencies, applications are reviewed for the best management
practices identified in the application.
• Interagency Review and Recommendation: An interagency
review team reviews final applications and nominates the
proposed national water trail for designation to the Secretary
of the Interior (except on or in cooperation with National
Forests lands).
• Announcement of New National Water Trail Designation:
The Secretary of the Interior (except on or in cooperation with
National Forests lands) makes official designation of the new
national water trail.6. The Master Plan
Chapter 7:
Implementation
115 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan7. IMPLEMENTATIONImplementation is where the rubber meets the road (or in this case
trail)! The implementation chapter weaves together all the work an
inputs generated during the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan process
into a prioritized set of recommendations, complete with cost
estimates and funding opportunities. The following chapter contains
a project priority list, implementation strategies for completing
trail projects, a cost estimation table, and a list of potential funding
sources and grant opportunities.
PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
The following project priority criteria was developed through the
public and partner engagement process and reflects the input
and preferences of both the community and the partner land
management agencies to prioritize the implementation of the trail
projects.
• Public Input, Support
• Immediate Connectivity
• Potential Funding/ Grant Readiness
• Number of Users Benefited
• Variety of Users Benefited
• Property Ownership - Access, Easement Issues
• Unique Barriers such as high costs, extreme topography,
construction challenges, environmental challenges
• Safety Improvement/ Safe Route to School
• ADA Improvement
The following project priority table contains the priority ranking for
each trail project considered in the plan. Projects are prioritized
within three broad categories: EVRPD core trail network, short-
term opportunities that could be implemented in 2-5 years, and
long-term opportunities that may require a longer timeframe for
implementation. Projects are ordered in terms of priority rank and
correspond to the trail numbers provided in Chapter 6 and on the
Master Trails Plan Maps.
116
Trail #Project Name
Public Input,
Support
Immediate
Connectivity
Potential
Funding/
Grant
Readiness
Number of
Users
Benefited
Variety of
Users
Benefited
Property Ownership
- Access, Easement
Issues
Unique
Barriers*
Safety
Improvement/
Safe Route to
School
ADA
Improvement Total Priority
Rank
0 = no
support
0 = no
connectivity
0 = no
planning
complete
0 = little to no
use expected
1 = one user
group
0 = multiple
unresolved
easements or
access issues
0 = multiple
unique
barriers
0 = no safety
improvements
anticipated
0 = not
applicable to
ADA
3 = broad
support
3 = essential
connector
3 = shovel
ready 3 = high use 3 = 4+ user
groups 3 = no access issues
3 = no
barriers
foreseen
3 = obvious
safety
improvement
3 = ADA
improvement
1 Lake Estes Trail 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 23 1
2 Fish Creek Trail 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 20 2
3 Homer Rouse Trail 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 2 16 3
4 Otie's Trail 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 16 4
13 Fall River Trail 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 26 1
14 Fall River Trail Improvements 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 24 2
15 RMNP Multi-Use Trail 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 24 3
8.5 Stanley Park Trails 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 23 4
20 Hermit Park Open Space West Perimeter Trail 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 20 5
8 School Zone Improvements 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 19 6
9 Estes Park Loop 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 19 7
10 Peak View Drive 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 19 8
18 Fish Creek Connector 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 19 9
6 Moraine Aveune Improvements 2 2 1 3 3 1 0 3 3 18 10
7 Highway 7 Improvements 2 2 1 2 3 1 0 3 3 17 11
17 Lake Estes Interpretive Trail 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 16 12
11 Lumpy Ridge Trail 2 2 1 3 2 3 0 2 0 15 13
19 Big Thompson Business Path 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 15 14
12 Stanley Avenue and Moccasin/Fir/Prospect 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 14 15
16 Mary’s Lake Trail 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 14 16
5 Aspen Brook Trail 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 10 17
33 Wonderview Avenue 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 20 1
38 Highway 34 – Big Thompson Avenue 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 20 2
26 Fish Creek Road Access 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 16 3
22 Spur 66 Improvement 2 2 0 2 3 1 1 2 2 15 4
23 Mary’s Lake Road Improvement 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 15 5
27 Country Club Drive Connection 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 14 6
29 West Creek Trail Access 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 14 7
32 Johnny Park to Highway 36 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 2 2 13 8
41 Tripple Park Connector 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 13 9
43 CO Highway 7 Road Improvements 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 2 13 10
45 Dry Gulch Connectivity Corridor 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 12 11
25 Riverside Drive Connection 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 12
34 Mall Road 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 1 11 13
47 Big Thompson Bridge opportunities 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 11 14
24 Marys Lake Road to Fish Creek Trail Connection 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 10 15
35 Pawnee Trail 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 10 16
42 Tahosa Valley Trail Improvements 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 10 17
28 Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 9 18
Long-Term Opportunities
Project Priority Table
Criteria
a higher
total
indicates
a higher
priority
project
EVRPD Core Trail Network
Short-Term Opportunities
Estes Valley Parks And Recreation District
117
Trail #Project Name
Public Input,
Support
Immediate
Connectivity
Potential
Funding/
Grant
Readiness
Number of
Users
Benefited
Variety of
Users
Benefited
Property Ownership
- Access, Easement
Issues
Unique
Barriers*
Safety
Improvement/
Safe Route to
School
ADA
Improvement Total Priority
Rank
0 = no
support
0 = no
connectivity
0 = no
planning
complete
0 = little to no
use expected
1 = one user
group
0 = multiple
unresolved
easements or
access issues
0 = multiple
unique
barriers
0 = no safety
improvements
anticipated
0 = not
applicable to
ADA
3 = broad
support
3 = essential
connector
3 = shovel
ready 3 = high use 3 = 4+ user
groups 3 = no access issues
3 = no
barriers
foreseen
3 = obvious
safety
improvement
3 = ADA
improvement
1 Lake Estes Trail 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 23 1
2 Fish Creek Trail 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 20 2
3 Homer Rouse Trail 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 2 16 3
4 Otie's Trail 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 16 4
13 Fall River Trail 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 26 1
14 Fall River Trail Improvements 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 24 2
15 RMNP Multi-Use Trail 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 24 3
8.5 Stanley Park Trails 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 23 4
20 Hermit Park Open Space West Perimeter Trail 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 20 5
8 School Zone Improvements 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 19 6
9 Estes Park Loop 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 19 7
10 Peak View Drive 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 19 8
18 Fish Creek Connector 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 19 9
6 Moraine Aveune Improvements 2 2 1 3 3 1 0 3 3 18 10
7 Highway 7 Improvements 2 2 1 2 3 1 0 3 3 17 11
17 Lake Estes Interpretive Trail 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 16 12
11 Lumpy Ridge Trail 2 2 1 3 2 3 0 2 0 15 13
19 Big Thompson Business Path 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 15 14
12 Stanley Avenue and Moccasin/Fir/Prospect 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 14 15
16 Mary’s Lake Trail 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 14 16
5 Aspen Brook Trail 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 10 17
33 Wonderview Avenue 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 20 1
38 Highway 34 – Big Thompson Avenue 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 20 2
26 Fish Creek Road Access 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 16 3
22 Spur 66 Improvement 2 2 0 2 3 1 1 2 2 15 4
23 Mary’s Lake Road Improvement 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 15 5
27 Country Club Drive Connection 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 14 6
29 West Creek Trail Access 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 14 7
32 Johnny Park to Highway 36 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 2 2 13 8
41 Tripple Park Connector 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 13 9
43 CO Highway 7 Road Improvements 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 2 13 10
45 Dry Gulch Connectivity Corridor 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 12 11
25 Riverside Drive Connection 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 12
34 Mall Road 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 1 11 13
47 Big Thompson Bridge opportunities 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 11 14
24 Marys Lake Road to Fish Creek Trail Connection 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 10 15
35 Pawnee Trail 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 10 16
42 Tahosa Valley Trail Improvements 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 10 17
28 Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 9 18
Long-Term Opportunities
Project Priority Table
Criteria
a higher
total
indicates
a higher
priority
project
EVRPD Core Trail Network
Short-Term Opportunities
Trail #Project Name Public Input, Support Immediate Connectivity Potential Funding/ Grant Readiness Number of Users Benefited Variety of Users Benefited Property Ownership - Access, Easement Issues Unique Barriers*Safety Improvement/ Safe Route to School ADA Improvement Total Priority Rank0 = no support 0 = no connectivity 0 = no planning complete 0 = little to no use expected 1 = one user group 0 = multiple unresolved easements or access issues 0 = multiple unique barriers 0 = no safety improvements anticipated 0 = not applicable to ADA3 = broad support 3 = essential connector 3 = shovel ready 3 = high use 3 = 4+ user groups 3 = no access issues 3 = no barriers foreseen 3 = obvious safety improvement 3 = ADA improvement1Lake Estes Trail 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 23 12Fish Creek Trail 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 20 23Homer Rouse Trail 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 2 16 34Otie's Trail 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 16 413Fall River Trail 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 26 1
14 Fall River Trail Improvements 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 24 2
15 RMNP Multi-Use Trail 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 24 3
8.5 Stanley Park Trails 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 23 4
20 Hermit Park Open Space West Perimeter Trail 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 20 5
8 School Zone Improvements 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 19 6
9 Estes Park Loop 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 2 19 7
10 Peak View Drive 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 19 8
18 Fish Creek Connector 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 19 9
6 Moraine Aveune Improvements 2 2 1 3 3 1 0 3 3 18 10
7 Highway 7 Improvements 2 2 1 2 3 1 0 3 3 17 11
17 Lake Estes Interpretive Trail 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 16 12
11 Lumpy Ridge Trail 2 2 1 3 2 3 0 2 0 15 13
19 Big Thompson Business Path 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 15 14
12 Stanley Avenue and Moccasin/Fir/Prospect 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 14 15
16 Mary’s Lake Trail 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 14 16
5 Aspen Brook Trail 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 10 17
33 Wonderview Avenue 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 20 1
38 Highway 34 – Big Thompson Avenue 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 20 2
26 Fish Creek Road Access 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 16 3
22 Spur 66 Improvement 2 2 0 2 3 1 1 2 2 15 4
23 Mary’s Lake Road Improvement 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 15 5
27 Country Club Drive Connection 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 14 6
29 West Creek Trail Access 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 14 7
32 Johnny Park to Highway 36 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 2 2 13 8
41 Tripple Park Connector 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 13 9
43 CO Highway 7 Road Improvements 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 2 13 10
45 Dry Gulch Connectivity Corridor 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 12 11
25 Riverside Drive Connection 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 12
34 Mall Road 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 1 11 13
47 Big Thompson Bridge opportunities 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 11 14
24 Marys Lake Road to Fish Creek Trail Connection 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 10 15
35 Pawnee Trail 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 10 16
42 Tahosa Valley Trail Improvements 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 10 17
28 Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 9 18
Long-Term Opportunities
Project Priority Table Criteria a higher total indicates a higher priority projectEVRPD Core Trail NetworkShort-Term Opportunities
30 Fish Creek Trail to Homestead Meadows 1 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 9 19
31 Homer Rouse to Little Valley Road 1 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 9 20
37 Sullivan Gulch Trail 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 9 21
21 Deer Ridge Connection 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 8 22
40 Hell’s Canyon to Blue Mountain Bison Ranch Open Space 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 7 23
44 Spur 66/RMNP Corridor 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 24
46 YMCA/Mary’s Lake Connectivity Corridor 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 6 25
36 Prospect Mountain Connector 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 26
39 RattleSnake Trail 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 27
* Unique barriers could include high costs, extreme topography, construciton challenges, environmental challenges
Estes Valley Master Trails Plan7. IMPLEMENTATION
118
Silverthorne POST
Project Implementation Table
Trail # Project Name
Improvement
Length Improvement Type
Relative Site
Improvement
Cost
Relative
Operations and
Maintenance Costs
Priority
Rank Notes
Linear Feet
Paved Surface
Soft Surface
Paved/Soft Surface
Other
Currently Underway
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Layout and
Design
Land or
Easement
Issues
Approval/
Permit
Cooperation/
Partnership
1 Lake Estes Trail 21,120 Soft Surface Medium Medium
1 Soft Surface Jogging/Equestrian Shoulder
2 Fish Creek Trail 24,578 Currently Underway Underway Medium
2 The trail is planned to be reconstructed in 2016
3 Homer Rouse Trail 8,976 Soft Surface Low Low 3 Trail reroute, trail features require maintenance or reconstruction
4 Otie's Trail 5,719 Soft Surface Low Low 4
Improved trail definition, signage, maintenance. Easement issues
5 Aspen Brook Trail 11,751 Soft Surface Medium Medium 17 Significant reconstruction = full trail construction cost
6 Moraine Avenue Improvements 11,698 Paved Surface High High 10 Consistent shoulder or sidewalk network
7 Highway 7 Improvements #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 11 Improved sidewalks, crossings and shoulder
8 School Zone Improvements #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 6 Trail, sidewalks, pavement markings, signage, crossings
8.5 Stanley Park Trails #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 4 Pump track, internal mountain bike/rugged trails, connectivity trails
9 Estes Park Loop 58,203 Paved/Soft Surface High High 7
Paved or soft surface, multi‐use trail that parallels the road
10 Peak View Drive 9,000 Paved Surface High High 8
Paved multi‐use trail, Highway 7 gateway treatment
11 Lumpy Ridge Trail #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 13
Trailhead/Parking Improvement
12 Stanley Avenue and Moccasin/Fir/Prospect 7,697 Other #N/A #N/A 15 Sidewalk gap, crosswalks
13 Fall River Trail 13,200 Paved Surface High High 1 Town completed design, funding needed
14 Fall River Trail Improvements 2,640 Paved Surface Medium Medium
2 Consistent trail surface and experience with Town and RMNP
15 RMNP Multi‐Use Trail 79,200 Paved/Soft Surface High High 3 Up to 15 miles of multi‐use trail within the park
16 Mary’s Lake Trail 3,954 Soft Surface Low Low 16 Loop opportunity around Mary’s Lake
17 Lake Estes Interpretive Trail 1,209 Soft Surface Low Medium 12 Short soft surface interpretive trail
18 Fish Creek Connector 847 Paved Surface Low Low 9 Paved trail in newly acquired trail easement
19 Big Thompson Business Path 1,705 Paved Surface Low Medium 14
Paved path behind the businesses along Elkhorn Ave
20 Hermit Park Open Space West Perimeter Trail 33,715 Currently Underway Underway Medium
5 County implementing soft‐surface trail on the west side of Hermit Park
21 Deer Ridge Connection 15,326 Soft Surface Medium Medium 22
Formalize social trails
22 Spur 66 Improvement 17,278 Paved/Soft Surface High High 4 Natural or paved surface, multi‐use trail along road
23 Mary’s Lake Road Improvement 13,520 Paved Surface High High 5 Multi‐use trail parallel to roadway
24 Mary's Lake Road to Fish Creek Trail Connection 3,166 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
15 Parallel natural or paved surface, multi‐use trail
25 Riverside Drive Connection 8,000 Paved Surface High High 12 Paved shoulder or path to be alternative to the Hwy 36 (Moraine Avenue)
26 Fish Creek Road Access 2,521 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
3 Natural surface trail be constructed from Brodie Avenue north
27 Country Club Drive Connection 2,330 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
6 Short‐term = sharrows and signage; longer term = soft or paved trail
28 Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock #N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 18
Explore connection from the Fish Creek Trail to the Kruger Rock Trail
29 West Creek Trail Access 9,954 Soft Surface Low Low 7 Natural surface, multi‐use trail or widened shoulder
30 Fish Creek Trail to Homestead Meadows 15,579 Soft Surface Medium Medium
19 Additional opportunity for users to access Hermit Park Open Space
31 Homer Rouse to Little Valley Road 18,248 Soft Surface Medium Medium
20
USFS rugged mountain bike and hike trail
32 Johnny Park to Highway 36
75,667 Soft Surface High High 8 Natural surface, multi‐use trail ultizing old road beds
33 Wonderview Avenue
8,378 Paved Surface High High 1 Bike lanes, improved shoulder, signage
34 Mall Road
1,043 Paved/Soft Surface Low Low 13 Existing social trail; paved trail with a parallel natural surface trail
35 Pawnee Trail
5,340 Soft Surface Low Low 16 Multi‐use trail; potentially boardwalk ; sustainable practices critical
36 Prospect Mountain Connector
10,868 Soft Surface Medium Medium 26 Opportunity for mountain biking and more rugged trial opportunities
37 Sullivan Gulch Trail
9,457 Soft Surface Low Low 21 Formalize popular social trail; improve drainage and erosion
38 Highway 34 – Big Thompson Avenue
#N/A Other #N/A #N/A 2 Sidewalk, gateway, shoulder improvements
39 Rattlesnake Trail
58,930 Soft Surface High High 27 Regional soft surface trail connection
40 Hell’s Canyon to Blue Mountain Bison Ranch Op 24,577 Soft Surface Medium Medium 23 Remote and challenging trail opportunity; sustainable practices critical
41 Triple Park Connector
24,589 Soft Surface Medium Medium 9 Natural surface, multi‐use trail utilizing Forest Service Roads
42 Tahosa Valley Trail Improvements
27,041 Soft Surface Medium Medium 17 Improvements and reconstruction of existing trail
43 CO Highway 7 Road Improvements
26,400 Paved Surface High Low 10 Consistent, improved shoulder
Long‐Term Opportunities
Planning Required
EVRPD Core Trail Network
Short‐Term Opportunities
Silverthorne Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 2014
Project Implementation Information
1Estes Valley Parks And Recreation District
119
Silverthorne POST
Project Implementation Table
Trail # Project Name
Improvement
Length Improvement Type
Relative Site
Improvement
Cost
Relative
Operations and
Maintenance Costs
Priority
Rank Notes
Linear Feet
Paved Surface
Soft Surface
Paved/Soft Surface
Other
Currently Underway
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Layout and
Design
Land or
Easement
Issues
Approval/
Permit
Cooperation/
Partnership
1 Lake Estes Trail 21,120 Soft Surface Medium Medium
1 Soft Surface Jogging/Equestrian Shoulder
2 Fish Creek Trail 24,578 Currently Underway Underway Medium
2 The trail is planned to be reconstructed in 2016
3 Homer Rouse Trail 8,976 Soft Surface Low Low 3 Trail reroute, trail features require maintenance or reconstruction
4 Otie's Trail 5,719 Soft Surface Low Low 4
Improved trail definition, signage, maintenance. Easement issues
5 Aspen Brook Trail 11,751 Soft Surface Medium Medium 17 Significant reconstruction = full trail construction cost
6 Moraine Avenue Improvements 11,698 Paved Surface High High 10 Consistent shoulder or sidewalk network
7 Highway 7 Improvements #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 11 Improved sidewalks, crossings and shoulder
8 School Zone Improvements #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 6 Trail, sidewalks, pavement markings, signage, crossings
8.5 Stanley Park Trails #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 4 Pump track, internal mountain bike/rugged trails, connectivity trails
9 Estes Park Loop 58,203 Paved/Soft Surface High High 7
Paved or soft surface, multi‐use trail that parallels the road
10 Peak View Drive 9,000 Paved Surface High High 8
Paved multi‐use trail, Highway 7 gateway treatment
11 Lumpy Ridge Trail #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 13
Trailhead/Parking Improvement
12 Stanley Avenue and Moccasin/Fir/Prospect 7,697 Other #N/A #N/A 15 Sidewalk gap, crosswalks
13 Fall River Trail 13,200 Paved Surface High High 1 Town completed design, funding needed
14 Fall River Trail Improvements 2,640 Paved Surface Medium Medium
2 Consistent trail surface and experience with Town and RMNP
15 RMNP Multi‐Use Trail 79,200 Paved/Soft Surface High High 3 Up to 15 miles of multi‐use trail within the park
16 Mary’s Lake Trail 3,954 Soft Surface Low Low 16 Loop opportunity around Mary’s Lake
17 Lake Estes Interpretive Trail 1,209 Soft Surface Low Medium 12 Short soft surface interpretive trail
18 Fish Creek Connector 847 Paved Surface Low Low 9 Paved trail in newly acquired trail easement
19 Big Thompson Business Path 1,705 Paved Surface Low Medium 14
Paved path behind the businesses along Elkhorn Ave
20 Hermit Park Open Space West Perimeter Trail 33,715 Currently Underway Underway Medium
5 County implementing soft‐surface trail on the west side of Hermit Park
21 Deer Ridge Connection 15,326 Soft Surface Medium Medium 22
Formalize social trails
22 Spur 66 Improvement 17,278 Paved/Soft Surface High High 4 Natural or paved surface, multi‐use trail along road
23 Mary’s Lake Road Improvement 13,520 Paved Surface High High 5 Multi‐use trail parallel to roadway
24 Mary's Lake Road to Fish Creek Trail Connection 3,166 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
15 Parallel natural or paved surface, multi‐use trail
25 Riverside Drive Connection 8,000 Paved Surface High High 12 Paved shoulder or path to be alternative to the Hwy 36 (Moraine Avenue)
26 Fish Creek Road Access 2,521 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
3 Natural surface trail be constructed from Brodie Avenue north
27 Country Club Drive Connection 2,330 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
6 Short‐term = sharrows and signage; longer term = soft or paved trail
28 Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock #N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 18
Explore connection from the Fish Creek Trail to the Kruger Rock Trail
29 West Creek Trail Access 9,954 Soft Surface Low Low 7 Natural surface, multi‐use trail or widened shoulder
30 Fish Creek Trail to Homestead Meadows 15,579 Soft Surface Medium Medium
19 Additional opportunity for users to access Hermit Park Open Space
31 Homer Rouse to Little Valley Road 18,248 Soft Surface Medium Medium
20
USFS rugged mountain bike and hike trail
32 Johnny Park to Highway 36
75,667 Soft Surface High High 8 Natural surface, multi‐use trail ultizing old road beds
33 Wonderview Avenue
8,378 Paved Surface High High 1 Bike lanes, improved shoulder, signage
34 Mall Road
1,043 Paved/Soft Surface Low Low 13 Existing social trail; paved trail with a parallel natural surface trail
35 Pawnee Trail
5,340 Soft Surface Low Low 16 Multi‐use trail; potentially boardwalk ; sustainable practices critical
36 Prospect Mountain Connector
10,868 Soft Surface Medium Medium 26 Opportunity for mountain biking and more rugged trial opportunities
37 Sullivan Gulch Trail
9,457 Soft Surface Low Low 21 Formalize popular social trail; improve drainage and erosion
38 Highway 34 – Big Thompson Avenue
#N/A Other #N/A #N/A 2 Sidewalk, gateway, shoulder improvements
39 Rattlesnake Trail
58,930 Soft Surface High High 27 Regional soft surface trail connection
40 Hell’s Canyon to Blue Mountain Bison Ranch Op 24,577 Soft Surface Medium Medium 23 Remote and challenging trail opportunity; sustainable practices critical
41 Triple Park Connector
24,589 Soft Surface Medium Medium 9 Natural surface, multi‐use trail utilizing Forest Service Roads
42 Tahosa Valley Trail Improvements
27,041 Soft Surface Medium Medium 17 Improvements and reconstruction of existing trail
43 CO Highway 7 Road Improvements
26,400 Paved Surface High Low 10 Consistent, improved shoulder
Long‐Term Opportunities
Planning Required
EVRPD Core Trail Network
Short‐Term Opportunities
Silverthorne Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 2014
Project Implementation Information
1
Silverthorne POSTProject Implementation TableTrail # Project Name Improvement Length Improvement Type Relative Site Improvement Cost Relative Operations and Maintenance Costs Priority Rank NotesLinear Feet Paved SurfaceSoft SurfacePaved/Soft SurfaceOtherCurrently Underway LowMediumHigh LowMediumHigh Layout and Design Land or Easement Issues Approval/Permit Cooperation/Partnership1 Lake Estes Trail 21,120 Soft Surface Medium Medium 1 Soft Surface Jogging/Equestrian Shoulder2 Fish Creek Trail 24,578 Currently Underway Underway Medium 2 The trail is planned to be reconstructed in 20163 Homer Rouse Trail 8,976 Soft Surface Low Low 3 Trail reroute, trail features require maintenance or reconstruction4 Otie's Trail 5,719 Soft Surface Low Low 4 Improved trail definition, signage, maintenance. Easement issues5 Aspen Brook Trail 11,751 Soft Surface Medium Medium 17 Significant reconstruction = full trail construction cost6 Moraine Avenue Improvements 11,698 Paved Surface High High 10 Consistent shoulder or sidewalk network7 Highway 7 Improvements #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 11 Improved sidewalks, crossings and shoulder 8 School Zone Improvements #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 6 Trail, sidewalks, pavement markings, signage, crossings
8.5 Stanley Park Trails #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 4 Pump track, internal mountain bike/rugged trails, connectivity trails
9 Estes Park Loop 58,203 Paved/Soft Surface High High 7
Paved or soft surface, multi‐use trail that parallels the road
10 Peak View Drive 9,000 Paved Surface High High 8
Paved multi‐use trail, Highway 7 gateway treatment
11 Lumpy Ridge Trail #N/A Other #N/A #N/A 13
Trailhead/Parking Improvement
12 Stanley Avenue and Moccasin/Fir/Prospect 7,697 Other #N/A #N/A 15 Sidewalk gap, crosswalks
13 Fall River Trail 13,200 Paved Surface High High 1 Town completed design, funding needed
14 Fall River Trail Improvements 2,640 Paved Surface Medium Medium
2 Consistent trail surface and experience with Town and RMNP
15 RMNP Multi‐Use Trail 79,200 Paved/Soft Surface High High 3 Up to 15 miles of multi‐use trail within the park
16 Mary’s Lake Trail 3,954 Soft Surface Low Low 16 Loop opportunity around Mary’s Lake
17 Lake Estes Interpretive Trail 1,209 Soft Surface Low Medium 12 Short soft surface interpretive trail
18 Fish Creek Connector 847 Paved Surface Low Low 9 Paved trail in newly acquired trail easement
19 Big Thompson Business Path 1,705 Paved Surface Low Medium 14
Paved path behind the businesses along Elkhorn Ave
20 Hermit Park Open Space West Perimeter Trail 33,715 Currently Underway Underway Medium
5 County implementing soft‐surface trail on the west side of Hermit Park
21 Deer Ridge Connection 15,326 Soft Surface Medium Medium 22
Formalize social trails
22 Spur 66 Improvement 17,278 Paved/Soft Surface High High 4 Natural or paved surface, multi‐use trail along road
23 Mary’s Lake Road Improvement 13,520 Paved Surface High High 5 Multi‐use trail parallel to roadway
24 Mary's Lake Road to Fish Creek Trail Connection 3,166 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
15 Parallel natural or paved surface, multi‐use trail
25 Riverside Drive Connection 8,000 Paved Surface High High 12 Paved shoulder or path to be alternative to the Hwy 36 (Moraine Avenue)
26 Fish Creek Road Access 2,521 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
3 Natural surface trail be constructed from Brodie Avenue north
27 Country Club Drive Connection 2,330 Paved/Soft Surface Medium Medium
6 Short‐term = sharrows and signage; longer term = soft or paved trail
28 Fish Creek Trail to Kruger Rock #N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 18
Explore connection from the Fish Creek Trail to the Kruger Rock Trail
29 West Creek Trail Access 9,954 Soft Surface Low Low 7 Natural surface, multi‐use trail or widened shoulder
30 Fish Creek Trail to Homestead Meadows 15,579 Soft Surface Medium Medium
19 Additional opportunity for users to access Hermit Park Open Space
31 Homer Rouse to Little Valley Road 18,248 Soft Surface Medium Medium
20
USFS rugged mountain bike and hike trail
32 Johnny Park to Highway 36
75,667 Soft Surface High High 8 Natural surface, multi‐use trail ultizing old road beds
33 Wonderview Avenue
8,378 Paved Surface High High 1 Bike lanes, improved shoulder, signage
34 Mall Road
1,043 Paved/Soft Surface Low Low 13 Existing social trail; paved trail with a parallel natural surface trail
35 Pawnee Trail
5,340 Soft Surface Low Low 16 Multi‐use trail; potentially boardwalk ; sustainable practices critical
36 Prospect Mountain Connector
10,868 Soft Surface Medium Medium 26 Opportunity for mountain biking and more rugged trial opportunities
37 Sullivan Gulch Trail
9,457 Soft Surface Low Low 21 Formalize popular social trail; improve drainage and erosion
38 Highway 34 – Big Thompson Avenue
#N/A Other #N/A #N/A 2 Sidewalk, gateway, shoulder improvements
39 Rattlesnake Trail
58,930 Soft Surface High High 27 Regional soft surface trail connection
40 Hell’s Canyon to Blue Mountain Bison Ranch Op 24,577 Soft Surface Medium Medium 23 Remote and challenging trail opportunity; sustainable practices critical
41 Triple Park Connector
24,589 Soft Surface Medium Medium 9 Natural surface, multi‐use trail utilizing Forest Service Roads
42 Tahosa Valley Trail Improvements
27,041 Soft Surface Medium Medium 17 Improvements and reconstruction of existing trail
43 CO Highway 7 Road Improvements
26,400 Paved Surface High Low 10 Consistent, improved shoulder
Long‐Term Opportunities
Planning RequiredEVRPD Core Trail NetworkShort‐Term Opportunities
Silverthorne Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 2014
Project Implementation Information
1
Silverthorne POST
Project Implementation Table
Trail # Project Name
Improvement
Length Improvement Type
Relative Site
Improvement
Cost
Relative
Operations and
Maintenance Costs
Priority
Rank Notes
Linear Feet
Paved Surface
Soft Surface
Paved/Soft Surface
Other
Currently Underway
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Layout and
Design
Land or
Easement
Issues
Approval/
Permit
Cooperation/
Partnership
Planning Required
44 Spur 66/RMNP Corridor
#N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 24 Explore connecting Spur 66, RMNP Multi‐Use Trail and the Morraine Park
45 Dry Gulch Connectivity Corridor
#N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 11 Explore opportunities to connect to National Forest Lands to the east
46 YMCA/Mary’s Lake Connectivity Corridor
#N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 25 Explore connection between YMCA of the Rockies and Mary’s Lake
47 Big Thompson Bridge opportunities
#N/A Corridor #N/A #N/A 14 Bridge over Big T in the vicinity of Lower Broadview Road and Spur 66
Silverthorne Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 2014
Project Implementation Information
2 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan7. IMPLEMENTATION
120Estes Valley Parks And Recreation DistrictDevelopment Process:
EVRPD Work Plan – Current year CIP
projects are finalized on a yearly basis +
planned 5 years out
EVRPD + Partners communicate yearly (or as needed)
to discuss project priorities, joint funding applications,
planning for grant matches, easement/land ownership
clarification, ROW acquisition, stakeholder planning,
reconnaissance, compliance, etc.
- Project(s) are selected based on criteria identified in
master plan + ability to be funded/constructed.
- All necessary planning partners convene to discuss
project scope + next steps.
- EVRPD + Partners determine whether project
needs feasibility study or other studies prior to
design.
- Funding is found for part or all of design +
construction.
- Project moves forward into further study or design
contract
Project ideas/amenities/materials/alignment are vetted
by the public during feasibility/design phase
Once project design has been approved, funding must
be found for construction/ implementation if not
already secured.
Funding secured, project gets built!
121 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan7. IMPLEMENTATIONTrail Development Process:
1-5 Year Workplanning
ID Potential Short Term Projects:
Communication + Coordination with Partners
Project(s) selected: ID project scope, funding
sources/strategy, research needs
Project enters research/design phase contract
with consultant
Project ideas/design is reviewed by the public
Project starts construction
(If funding secured)
FUNDING SOURCES
GRANT FUNDING SOURCES:
FEDERAL:
FHWA RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM
The RTP provides funds to the States to support a wide variety
of trail activities and related facilities, as well as environmental
education and safety programs. The program is administered by
the State Trails Program. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
recreational_trails/index.cfm
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM (FLAP)
Applicants may be state, county, tribal, or city government that owns
or maintains the transportation facility. Project must be located on,
adjacent to, or provide direct access to federal lands. http://flh.
fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/
Land and Water Conservation Fund State and Local Assistance
Program - The LWCF state assistance program provides matching
grants to help states and local communities protect parks and
recreation resources. LWCF funding has benefited nearly every
county in America, supporting over 41,000 projects. From building
hiking and biking trails, to improving community parks, playgrounds
and ballfields, this 50:50 matching program is the primary federal
122Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtinvestment tool to ensure that families have easy access to public,
open spaces. http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.
html
American Rivers Connecting Communities to Rivers Grant Program -
Intermountain West Beginning on October 27, 2015, American Rivers
began accepting proposals for the new Connecting Communities
to Rivers Grant Program, which will provide financial support for
projects that connect communities in the Intermountain West to
their rivers by improving family-friendly recreational opportunities
and protecting rivers and surrounding lands. Grants ranging from
$5,000 to $25,000 will be awarded to action-oriented projects that
connect people to their rivers through recreation; establish a strong
sense of river and land stewardship; and have clear and identifiable
community, recreation, conservation and economic benefits.
For more information and to access the grant application form,
please visit BlueTrailsGuide.org/Grants. Intermountain West Blue
Trails Manager, American Rivers,
NPS Challenge Cost Share Program
The Challenge Cost Share Program supports local projects that
promote conservation and recreation, environmental stewardship,
education, and engaging youth in the outdoors.
Local project partners work with National Park Service (NPS) staff to
achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
Applications are submitted by NPS staff in collaboration with project
partners. Project should be completed within the fiscal year. https://
www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/ccsp/
STATE:
GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO (GOCO) GRANT PROGRAM
This is a competitive grant program for park and open space land
acquisition and development, outdoor recreation, environmental
education, conservation, youth corps and capacity building that
is also derived from the Colorado Lottery. Grants are generally
awarded in two funding cycles, with deadlines in the spring and fall.
http://www.goco.org/
COLORADO STATE TRAILS PROGRAM
This is a competitive grant program for trails. A 25 to 50% match is
required. The state funding pool is relatively small, so this resource is
proposed for a small component of the trails system. Grant deadline
is typically in the November. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/
trails.aspx
FISHING IS FUN PROGRAM
The Fishing Is Fun grant is a competitive program through Colorado
Parks and Wildlife that provides matching grants to local and county
governments, park and recreation departments, water districts,
123 Estes Valley Master Trails Planangling organizations and others for projects to improve angling
opportunities in Colorado. Grant deadline is typically in March.
http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/FishingIsFunProgram.aspx
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM
The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is a competitive grant
program administered by Colorado Department of Transportation
that provides funding for programs and projects defined as
transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver
access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community
improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational
trail program projects; and projects for planning, designing, or
constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-
way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/statewide-planning/
documents/transportation-alternatives-program-guidelines-and.pdf
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program
supports two important goals of the US Department of
Transportation (DOT): improving air quality and relieving traffic
congestion. CMAQ was developed to fund transportation projects
or programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Bicycle
and Pedestrian infrastructure and education/outreach projects
are eligible under this program in areas that have been deemed
in maintenance or needing attainment. Most CMAQ projects are
selected by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG),
North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFR MPO),
and the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region (UFR
TPR).
Safe Routes to School While SRTS is a federal program, it is
administered through Colorado Department of Transportation who
can assist with the project identification and application. https://
www.codot.gov/programs/bikeped/safe-routes- funding available for
infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. Application trainings
are available. School districts, schools, cities, counties, state entities
and tribal entities are eligible to apply. Nonprofits need to partner
with a state subdivision to apply for funding.
Trails Connecting People with Nature: A program of the Sierra
Club’s Nearby Nature Initiative in collaboration with Sierra Club
Outdoors. Sierra Club’s Nearby Nature Initiative broadens the
conservation movement by protecting and establishing close-
to-home natural spaces to ensure that access to the outdoors is
increasingly equitable and available to all communities. Sierra Club
Outdoors connects people to nature for the benefit of both, hosting
over 265,000 people per year in the outdoors and inspiring millions
more. The Sierra Club’s Trails program aims to create, restore, and
maintain trails in urban areas with limited access to nature and in 7. IMPLEMENTATION
124Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtmore remote areas on public lands. The Sierra Club Foundation will
award one-year Trails project grants ranging from $5,000 to $20,000
towards trail creation or maintenance project proposals that engage
new leaders and provide opportunities for communities to connect
with nature.
Colorado Health Foundation: http://www.coloradohealth.org/
yellow.aspx?id=8101
Activating Places and Spaces community grant program:
Grants are not for infrastructure, but for planning, outreach,
enhancements, programs, etc. that attract people to be active in
public places. Applicant must be youth-serving entities. $15-100k
grants available - not for infrastructure, but for planning, outreach,
enhancements, programs, etc. that attract people to be active in
public places. Cycles in February, June and October in 2016-2018.
STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY FUNDS
A portion of state gaming revenues are transferred to the State
Historical Fund and administered by the State Historic Society in
a competitive process. Grants are available for projects of historic
significance. Competitive and non-competitive grants available. All
projects must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties. Grant deadline is typically in
October. http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/state-historical-fund
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG)
This is a competitive grant program that seeks to develop viable
communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living
environment, and expanded economic opportunities to persons
of low and moderate income. CDBG grants have been awarded for
parks associated with urban renewal efforts in the past. Contact
DOLA Regional Manager for project eligibility.
www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/community-development-block-
grant-cdbg
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
ACCESS FUND
The Access Fund’s Climbing Conservation Grant Program funds
projects that preserve or enhance climbing access and opportunities
and conserve the climbing environment throughout the US. $1-4,000
grants but up to $10,000 for projects of national significance.
https://www.accessfund.org/
CHALLENGED ATHLETES FOUNDATION
Grants are for supporting Challenged Athletes through: Coaching/
training fees, competition expenses, or equipment. http://www.
challengedathletes.org/
125 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanADAPTIVE ADVENTURES
Adaptive Adventures offers programs in the way of life-changing
opportunities for people with physical disabilities. Program
participants enjoy the outdoors through water sports, biking
and skiing among other activities.They offer progressive outdoor
programs for children, teens, adults, as well as injured, ill and
wounded service members (active duty and veteran). Programs
cover a wide-range of physical disabilities including people with
spinal cord injuries, amputations, Cerebral Palsy, traumatic brain
injuries (TBI), spina bifida, and visual impairment. No grant program
is offered.
http://adaptiveadventures.org/
POTENTIAL NON-GRANT FUNDING SOURCES:
USER FEES
User fees for non-residents or visitors could be a potential funding
source for future EVRPD activities. While some of the planned
projects include the potential for user fees and revenue generation,
not all expenses, particularly site improvement costs, can be
provided for though user fees.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
An impact fee is an assessment on development used to pay for
its proportionate share of the impacts to public facilities. Some
communities assign a standard dollar figure to the public sites, some
use a park, trails and open space development impact fee, some
give the developer an opportunity to arrive at a fee value based on
projected impact, while others allow for the dedication of parkland,
or fee-in-lieu, in place of the impact fee. A full spectrum of leisure
services which contain costs for recreation centers, trails and open
space, in addition to parks, has been included in some communities’
development impact fees. Existing EVRPD impact fee structures
could be altered to create additional funding sources for EVRPD
projects.
REACHING NEW AUDIENCES AND EXPANDING SUPPORT
As we write this Trails Master Plan for the Estes Valley, many might
ask “Why should we do more to reach new audiences?” Is it not
enough to create the vision for trails and connectivity and begin to
implement the projects identified in the plan.
Trail facilities are community-based projects, and every project
needs broad community support to be a success. This trails master
plan document has a key role in articulating the vision for trails in the
Estes Valley. The Estes Valley Trails Master Plan has benefited from
the involvement of many recreation user groups and land managers
that have been interested in the project. This included land trusts,
equestrians, health partners, youth-serving organizations and bicycle
and pedestrian advocacy groups among many others. These groups 7. IMPLEMENTATION
126Estes Valley Parks And Recreation Districtwill continue to be ongoing supporters who will help to make trails
a community priority. Despite this diverse involvement during the
creation of the vision, additional strategies should be considered for
sustaining energy for projects that support the plan, as well as for
ongoing fundraising and stewardship.
The following actions can all help build community support for trail
projects before, during and after its completion: (List adapted from
the Rails to Trails Conservancy)
CREATE A “FRIENDS-OF-THE-TRAIL” GROUP
Friends groups have been the driving force behind countless
successful trails projects, particularly those projects that have
encountered obstacles or opposition and needed steadfast
advocates. When you have compiled a master list of potentially
interested organizations and individuals, you are ready to hold an
organizing meeting. This meeting will help identify the core group of
strong supporters who are willing to participate in a friends group.
Afterward, you can meet with these core supporters to discuss
formalizing the group’s organization and purpose.
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District is fortunate to have a
Trails Committee that acts as an advisory panel that can recommend
trail projects. A Friends Group may be able to supplement and
support the work of the Trails Committee. On the other hand,
activities of other Friends Groups may be ones that are appropriate
for the Trails Committee to take on without the need for developing
a separate group. In summary, Friends Groups have had strong
roles in supporting and driving trail projects in other communities
and additional research will help determine if a Friends Group or
additional “Friends Group activities” may be beneficial for the Trails
Committee in the Estes Valley.
ORGANIZE A TRAIL EVENT
Get people out on the trail, and get them excited about the vision of
what it will become. If it’s already built, remind them of how great
it is. Organizing events for National Trails Day, National Park Rx Day
and National Get Outdoors Day are all great opportunities to take
advantage of existing national event media and enthusiasm.
WORK THE MEDIA
Build awareness and project energy through the press. Get
supporters and trail advocates to write editorials and letters to the
editor of local newspapers that support the project and help the
community envision the benefits. In addition, press releases are still
a common form for relaying project information and communicating
successes.
IDENTIFY A HIGH-PROFILE CHAMPION
Getting support from elected officials and community leaders add
legitimacy and visibility to the projects. It is important to keep
these folks aware of your projects and successes and invite them to
127 Estes Valley Master Trails Planribbon-cuttings and stewardship activities.
CREATE A WEBSITE
It’s helpful to have all the information about your trail project in
one place where the maximum number of people can access it
and get updates on project progress (including contact info for trail
representatives). This includes posting project information to social
media and sending invites to stewardship events.
UTILIZE TRAIL BUILDING ORGANIZATIONS AND VOLUNTEER
PROJECT COORDINATORS:
Another way to build support is to utilize trail and environmental
stewardship groups for projects. These groups give projects visibility
and can engage the community in building the project and caring for
the land.
VOC: Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado (VOC) is a nationally
recognized statewide nonprofit dedicated to motivating and enabling
people to become active stewards of Colorado’s natural resources.
To accomplish our mission, VOC collaborates with conservation and
land agencies and relies on thousands of people annually to provide
a volunteer workforce for our outdoor stewardship projects. These
projects take place across Colorado – from city parks and open
spaces, to grasslands and foothills, to alpine meadows and peaks.
http://www.voc.org/about-us
WRV
Wildlands Restoration Volunteers is a non-profit organization that
provides an opportunity for people to come together, learn about
their natural environment, and take direct action to restore and care
for the land.
http://www.wlrv.org/
Americorps
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
will partner with community organizations and the national
service network to mobilize citizens and volunteers to promote
environmental stewardship. Through national service, we can
train our youth and unemployed and underemployed citizens
for conservation and “green” jobs, reconnect Americans to the
outdoors, build an ethic of environmental stewardship, and support
successful science-based conservation strategies.
AmeriCorps is a program of the CNCS that engages more than 75,000
Americans in intensive service each year at nonprofits, schools,
public agencies, and community and faith-based groups across the
country.
http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps 7. IMPLEMENTATION
LIST OF WORKS CITED
City of Portland, 2009. 60,000 free bike maps: A look at
Transportation Options’ survey results. http://bikeportland.
org/2009/01/28/60000-free-bike-maps-a-look-at-transportation-
options-survey-results-13989
Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks, 1995. The Effect of
Greenways on Property Values and Public Safety. https://www.
broward.org/Greenways/Documents/coloradostudy.pdf
Kelsey & Norden Resort Real Estate Survey, 2014. Kelsey & Norden
Resort Real Estate Report. http://www.kelseynorden.com/Current_
Report.html
Krizek, 2006. Value of Trail Access on Home Purchases. Presented
at 84th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board in
Washington, DC, January 9-13th 2005. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145.2520&rep=rep1&type=pdf
National Park Service, 1995. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers,
Trails, And Greenway Corridors. https://www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/
econ_all.pdf
National Association of Realtors, 2013. National Community
Preference Survey. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/
reports/2013/2013-community-preference-analysis-slides.pdf
129 Estes Valley Master Trails PlanNational Geographic, 2016. This Is Your Brain on Nature. January
2016. Author Florence Williams http://ngm.nationalgeographic.
com/2016/01/call-to-wild-text
Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013. Metropolitan Area Trends,
Preferences, and Opportunities. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/
files/columbus-metro-area-trends-report.pdf
Nature Conservancy, 2016. Connecting America’s Youth to Nature.
http://www.nature.org/newsfeatures/kids-in-nature/youth-and-
nature-poll-results.pdf
Outdoor Industry Association, 2012. The Outdoor
Recreation Economy. https://outdoorindustry.org/pdf/OIA_
OutdoorRecEconomyReport2012.pdf
Seattle Office of Planning, 1987. “Evaluation of Burke-Gilman Trail’s
Effect on Property Values and Crime.” Seattle, WA: Seattle Office
for Planning. https://www.broward.org/Greenways/Documents/
burkegilman.pdf
University of Massachusetts, 2011. Pedestrian and Bicycle
Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment Impacts. http://
www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/PERI_ABikes_
June2011.pdf
University of Michigan, 2010. Changing Times of American Youth:
1981-2003,”Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Authors Rideout, Victoria et al. http://www.umich.edu/news/
Releases/2004/Nov04/teen_time_report.pdf
Visit Estes Park, 2015. Research, Reports & Resources Website.
http://www.visitestespark.com/partners/tools/research/
Wang et al, 2004. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Physical Activity
Using Bike/Pedestrian Trails. http://www.ncrailtrails.org/pdfs/
CostBenefitTrailsStudy294.pdf
Appendices
estes valley
master trails plan
Appendix A: Public Meeting
Summaries
August 12 Meeting Summary
February 18 Meeting Summary
April 28 Meeting Summary
Estes Valley Trails Plan Open House
August 12, 2015 Public Meeting Questions and Comments
Your Trail Vision
I.What is your vision for an Estes Valley trail network? What do you value about trails? What should our
trail goals be?
II.How can the trail system better serve locals and visitors? Can and how might trails play a factor in the
Estes economy?
III.What aspects of the current trail system are meeting or exceeding your expectations?
IV.What are common comments you hear around the community about trails?
•Sky’s the limit
•Everything connects
•Multi Use, Multi-Purpose
•Inter-connected for all uses
•Connection to Park – priority
•Additional Trails – Homestead Meadows
•Facilities – Restrooms, Drinking Fountains, Kiosks, Maps
•Signs-way finding, cultural, historical
•Both soft & hard trail surfaces
•Integrate trails & planning into future growth
•Consideration of mountain biking needs
•“Loop Trails” should be considered
•Trailheads & facilities for cyclists
•Connectivity to neighborhoods, major activity centers
o YMCA, Rock Inn
•Smartphone tech, Apps for trails *website
•Trails appeal to all ages
•Bike rental facilities, racks, racks on shuttles/buses
•More marketing tools for businesses to use
•Rate the trails, difficulty, age, etc.
•Critical mass – revenue generator
•Safety for families, cyclist
•Improved facilities/amenities for cyclists
•Equestrian & pedestrian & bikes
•Parking
•Business incentives for trail usage
•“Look for” signage & markers along trail
•Educational/interactive trails
•Stagecoach trail & other historical trails – right
of passage
•Handouts – Informative, historical, etiquette
•Regional connectivity – Estes, Drake, Glen
Haven, Lyons, RMNP
•Inter-Valley Connectivity
•Safe Crosswalks Hwy 34/36
o Improve existing
•Never get into car
•Safe access – visitor or local
•Equestrian trail maps
•Outside Town boundary trails
•Better lighting at trailheads & in downtown
•Clean – well maintenance
•Cross Country Skiing? Rec-Usage? Special Loop
•Trails – Lodges to downtown – help marketing
•Shuttle stops to trailheads – year round access
•Public bike Park – Loaners
•Multiple trails – multiple accesses
•Land acquisition for trails – prospect mountain,
Aspen Brook, Lily Lake, Dunraven
•Trail Maps
•Business training for lodges, caterers, rentals
•“Trails of Estes” paraphernalia
Connectivity and Health
I.Which trails do you use for health and exercise? What characterizes a good trail for your daily exercise?
II.Where are paths needed to better connect the community by bike, foot, or horse? What’s missing?
III.Which neighborhoods should be served with trails?
•Carriage Hills & Allen’s park
•Connectivity to Downtown in general – from
neighborhood & lodging
•More bike facilities would promote more
exercise/health
•Path along riverway – Moraine West to Mary’s Lake
o Downtown
o Fall River Rd to downtown to Visitor Center
•Trails as transportation – not just as recreation but
between places – as community
•Connection b/w Eagle Rock to Dry Gulch Rd
•Canoe Trail in Estes Lake in Shallow Water side
(needs to be dredged)
•Crossing Big Thompson – Pedestrian Crossing
•Soft trails – more! For running & riding (horses)
•Carriage hills to downtown
•By hospital & H.S. – getting into town
•Connect to visitor Center
•Bike Lake to East Portal – from Fall River – thru
Park – make loop
•Bike community is a great answer to the parking
problem
•Bike Connection to Hermit’s Park and other community
destinations
•Characteristics – Proper/timely maintenance to address
joints
o Clean shoulders – sweeping
o Year round maintenance
•Protected bike lanes
o Ballards
o Median buffers, green lanes, awareness of
boundaries
•Mtn. bike skills park @ Stanley park campus
•Connect to community center/fair grounds
o Connect from affordable housing – where the
kids are
•Prospect Mountain social trails – health wellness
•Maps that show all of the trail opportunities
o Awareness & education
o Trail descriptions – difficulty rating
•Aspenbrook – from YMCA to Lily Lake
o F/U with YMCA on details of planning for trail
connectivity
•Tie trails into nationalist education/guides
o Guided walks – economic tie to
business/tourism packages
•Bike lane – Devil’s gulch + Dry Gulch
o Raven Crest kids on bikes Eagle Rock
School. Good Sam
•High Road- neighborhood
•Easy Access & Safety & User buffers &
signage(good trail characteristics)
•Connect to the Estes Cone to Lily Lake
(improve)
•More mountain bike/cyclist amenities/ trails
(absence of opportunities)
•Steamer Drive – Stanley & neighborhood
access
•Mary’s Lake Campground – hwy 7 trail – paved
trails ends in Carriage Hills
o Mary’s Lake to town
o Should keep going to Allen’s park
•Loop Trail opportunity
•All trail surfaces! Hard, soft, crusher fine
•Ride/Access the park by path
•Bear Lake Rd to Junction 36/Mary’s Lake rd. –
multi-use
o Back to town
•Safe from YMCA to town
•More Loop Trails
•Loop from Brodie Rd to Fish Creek to Rec
Center
Community Hubs and Special Places- Questions:
What are the main activity hubs, special community gathering places, trail destinations?
•Fish Creek to Lake
•Bike along River (walk)
•Bike path on South side of River Walk
•Dry Gulch to Lake or D.T.
•Devil’s Gulch
•School to/from all directions
•Highway 7 to Mary’s Lake Rd to Hwy 36 (loop)
•Baldpate, Homer Rouse, Lily Lake
•Glen Haven (cinnamon rolls)
•To the Y from Downtown
•Major areas, network to all major residents
•Connect to: Steamer Dr, carriage hills, Mary’s lake, Dry
Gulch, Devils Gulch
•Shops & events, Bond park, Post Office
•Safeway (plan for summer)
•Restaurants
•Downtown
•Fairgrounds
•Schools
•Commuters to work
•For those with disabilities, as we get seasoned
•Allen’s Park
•A way from roads as much as possible
•Larger parking at trailheads – horse trailers
•Library
•Lily Lake to Y
•Dunraven to RMNP old entrance to park
•Lions Gulch
•Pierson Park
•Hermit Park
•Fall R. connection to RMNP
•RMNP – Beaver Meadows
•David Dr.
•The Barrel
•Stanley Hotel
•Mary Lake Lodge to everywhere for visitors
•Trail access RMNP with no vehicle
•Community Drive
•Town Hall
•Spokes for trail from centralized places
•Spoke system E.P. D.T.
•Big Thompson R
•Trail to Lily Mtn. (no safe, adequate access)
•Forest Service Rd. Person Park to Big Elk
•Highway 34 Loveland
•EP – Glen Haven – Drake -> Hwy 34 (LOOP)
•Crossing guards
•Good Samaritan access
•Moraine Ave
•High Dr
•Bikes Rakes
•Incentives for conservation easements
•Ranch Meadows cross 34 safely
•Crossing all rds, highways, safely
•Distributed elk antlers for pedestrians to wear
when crossing roads
Recreation Questions
I.How do you recreate on trails? What recreational opportunities would you like more of? What do you
enjoy most about existing trails, terrain, paths, etc?
II.Which trails need expansion, upgrade, or change? What are the challenges/impediments?
III.Where are more recreational trails needed?
o Trails use types: riding, hiking, biking, running,
walking, dog walking, climber’s access, boating,
birding, fishing
o Want:
o Mt. Biking along Aspen Brooke – to connect to Lily
Lake area
o Develop Elkhorn trail to be similar to
Riverwalk – pedestrian mall
o Bike racks & bike lanes
o Minimize car use
o Rent-a-bikes
o Hermit Park to Kruger Rock to Town
o Hwy 36 connection to Lyons
o Mary’s Lake Easement
o Mary’s Lake Road to Hwy 7 loop
o Eagle Rock School trail
o Easements present, no trail
o Loop to Lawn Lake Trailhead in RMNP
o Good shoulder
o Safe bikeways
o Soft surfaces outside town
o Hard surfaces in town
o MORE TRAILS!
o Favorite trails:
o Lake Estes
o Path along Hwy 36
o Bad crossing:
o Lumpy’s
o Homer Rouse
o Biking Mary’s Lake Rd.
o Devils Gulch
o Dry Gulch
o Social Trails on Prospect Mt.
o RMNP trails
o Fish Creek
o Homer Rouse
o Lake Estes
o Through Town
o Homestead Meadows
o Eastside RMNP
o Fish Creek Rd
o Advantages:
o Area of Town is flat and good for walking and
biking
o Athletic citizen base
o Citizen support for initiatives
o Challenges:
o Erosion
o Parking
o More needed for car & bike
o More for horse trailer
o Parking at Trailhead – specifically Fish
Creek
o Steep grades
o Gem Lake, Pierson Park
o No bike lanes or shoulders
o Bike share not possible at this point
o Need to add bike lanes
o Safety
o Access issues:
o Lack of connectivity
o Between Town, Trailheads, major city
hubs
o Connectivity through Park
o Signage (specifically for Ottie’s)
o Shoulders on Devils Gulch, Dry Gulch,
Hwy 34, Hwy 7
o Bear Lake path for cyclists
-Dangerous
o Stanley Village East Side
o Connectivity to:
-Neighborhood
-Schools
-Downtown
-Lake Estes loop
-YMCA of the Rockies
-RMNP
o Right of Way issues
o Construction costs
o Sensitive areas (wetlands/streams)
o Not in my backyard! attitude
o Poor road conditions
o Hwy crossing
o Crosier Mt.
o Pierson Park
o Lily Mt.
o Pole Hill
o Lumpy Ridge (busy parking problem)
o Connectivity / dead end roads
-Hwy 7 to Town
o Maintenance of soft surface trail
Commuting & Safe Routes
I.Where do you want to go? Where do kids need to go?
II.Where are trail or road safety improvements needed to encourage biking and walking?
III.On which roads would you like to see a commuter bike lane or path?
IV.What are the community’s key commuting routes?
•Fish Creek trail was perfect example of a good trail-Soft
surface (but to close to river)
•Ride horses from Carriage Hills to park
•Soft surface parallel to concrete trails, requested by
Runners & Equestrians
•Cheley camp – kids have horse community needs along
Fish Creek route
•Community Drive = SRTS
o Fish Creek from Uplands & Carriage Hills
•Stanley Ave sidewalks
•Signalized Xings of Hwy 7
•No bicycles can currently go through downtown unless
in traffic lane
o Need lanes
•Can people board horses at Fairgrounds for weekend? If
so, in-town horse path
o Yes can rent a stall for a day/night
•To degree possible, separate bikes from pedestrians
•Bikes need their own space – not on sidewalks, not in
travel lanes w/ cars
•Signage for bike system (safety)
•Bike parking needed
•Bike rentals
•Walk from hospital toward Big Thompson River
•Dry Gulch Road- Bike trail look to Glen Haven & Devil
Gulch
o Multi-Use trail
•Underpasses/overpasses where feasible
•Crossing hwys to access trails – hwy 7, hwy 34 from
residence
o Trying to get to Estes Park
•Trails all the way to Park
•Hermit Park – connect to Homestead Meadows, Twin
Sisters, Homer Rouse, Lily Lake
•Signage identifying Otie’s Trail (vs. Black Canyon Dr.)
•Hospital to Schools Commuter Route
o Through neighborhoods
•Stanley Hills & Village link & xing to Lake trail
•Linking neighborhoods to downtown
o Also schools
•Riverside Drive loop with Hwy 7
•Fish Creek trail NE to Lake Trail
•Get to Beaver Meadows
•Critical Mass to be known as Biking Town!
•Bike shoulders on Hwy 34,36, &7 outside of
town
•Protected green Bike Lane on
o Elkhorn
o Moraine
o W. Elkhorn
o Hwy 7
o Riverside
•Detached Multi-Use trail – bike, pedestrian &
horse
o Hwy 7 Carriage Hills to Allen’s Park
•Devils Gulch to Bond Park – MUT
•Lake trail to Fairgrounds (4th)
•Dry Gulch Xing of Hwy 34 to Lake Trail
•Visitors Center to McDonald’s area – Hwy 34
•Riverwalk Xing of Moraine & Riverside
o Grade separated
•Bike path south side of river through downtown
linking to Riverside
•Assisted/electric bike use
o Which vehicle types count as non-
motorized?
•SIDEWALKS – need Master Plan &/or policy for
sidewalk as part of road construction
o Riverside East
•WALKING to mailbox clusters (?map these?)
o By Safeway/on Steamer
o Also riverside
•Dead end sidewalk by Stanley Hotel
•Parking at end of High Drive
o Horse trailers
o Also on other side of hill by Elkhorn
Drive
•Xing at Hwy 36 park headquarters to High Drive
MEETING SUMMARY
PO Box 2729 | 323 West Main St. Suite 201 Frisco, CO 80443
Office: 970.668.3398 |www.segroup.com
TO:Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
FROM:SE Group
CC:
Town of Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Valley Land Trust, Colorado Parks
and Wildlife, US Forest Service, Larimer County, Bureau of Reclamation, and YMCA of the
Rockies
DATE:May 2, 2016
RE:Public Meeting #3 –Presentation of the draft plan
PLEASE CONTACT THE AUTHOR IMMEDIATELY IF THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT.
Public meeting #3 was held at Estes Park Town Hall on April 28, 2016. Approximately 10-15 community
members were in attendance.
The meeting included a formal presentation as well as a display of boards and maps displaying the
main themes and opportunities included in the plan.
The presentation was made by Michael Beach of SE Group. His presentation covered the following
topics:
•Project Overview
•Partners
•Final document organization and overview of plan content
•Discussion of process for how recommendations were identified and vetted
•Next steps and implementation
The boards included in the open house touched on the following topics:
•Existing Conditions
•Future Opportunities
•Trail Typology and Uses
•Trail Maintenance Standards
There was a comment box available in the room. Due to the low turnout and finished nature of the plan,
not very many comments were generated.
Comments from Public Meeting #3
“Put signs on all multi-use trails to distinguish them from sidewalks. Perhaps, also paint center stripes
on multi-use paths and put sign that says “walk on right”
“Plan for more frequent hard-surface trail management. Specifically, these trails should be swept clear
of gravel and fallen braches after heavy rains, high winds, or heavy snow. Loose sand and gravel on
bike paths is a major hazard.”
“I don’t see the trails connecting the schools with Stanley Park that were presented on the Stanley Park
Master Plan. The community center will increase the need, but there is already a lot of travel between
every one of the 3 school buildings and Stanley Park via food and bicycle, and no trail, and minimal, or
inadequate sidewalks.”
“The circuit around the schools needs to be accessible to pedestrians and bicycles! Manford,
Community, Brodie, and the connector piece up the east side of the schools and connecting to the Lake
Trail/Fish Creek trails. This is a major use priority as well as a health and safety priority.”
Approximately 40-50 community members were in attendance. The meeting was “Open House” style, with
boards, maps, and opportunities for comments and feedback.
Comments from Public Meeting #2 – February 18, 2016
•Meeting survey on type of multi-use paths desired by community:
o Paved in some locations – 20 votes
o All paved – 7 votes
o All unpaved – 2 votes
•Meeting survey on rugged trail preference types desired by community:
o Multi-Use – 16 votes
o Hiking – 11 votes
o Mountain Biking – 7 votes
o Equestrian – 2 votes
Bicycling on Trails
“This Report Card from the League of American Bicyclists provides specific information about
Estes Park” – enclosed was a report highlighting how Estes Park scored on the following topics:
building blocks of a bicycle friendly community, engineering, education, encouragement,
enforcement, evaluation and planning. It also made suggestions for how Estes Park could
attain the “Bronze” level designation of a bicycle friendly community. The report can be found
at: https://www.bikeestes.org/2016/02/23/bike-friendly-community-2014-report/.
“I use the multi-use path to commute to work (by bike). Pedestrians out pleasure walking don’t
realize current paths are indeed multi-use and this has caused some problems. I would like to
see current and new paths clearly marked, as well as directional signage in English and
Spanish. To help mike signs noticeable, naming multi-use paths might help? Cute it up! Looking
forward to new trails!”
Need mountain bike options!”
“Young riders (kids) especially should have a very easy safe way to get from anywhere in Estes to the
library. And, of course, to and from school, too. Could that all be done by connecting to a trail from their
neighborhood?”
“Kids have no safe way to bike/walk to school from many locations in town, especially on the west side of
St. Vrain (SH 7). Please explore options to increase the safety which will then be an incentive for kids to
walk/ride to school.”
Comments on Proposed Trails, Ideas for Trail Placement
“Please contact us to visit a future proposed off-trail location. It is a wetland – and we (the
neighborhood) does not think it belongs there at all. It became a full river during the flood. We’d love to
take you on a tour!” – see attached picture map with “remove” comment next to a future soft surface
trail west of SH 7.
“The proposed soft surface trail between SH 7 and Peakview on Pawnee – where does it go? What about
wetlands and elk habitat? The neighborhood is not interested in having it there.”
“What happened to Ottie’s Trail? A great loss if we’ve let it slip away.”
“Where did Ottie’s Trail go? (Safway whiteside/stable to Devils Gulch Road. Is it a lost cause?”
“Need to see criteria to be used to select which trail will be constructed first.”
“What about horse trails to Giant Track (west side of Peak)?”
“Show easement for trail on Eagle Rock Property on the map.”
“Connect those big trails outside of town for great loops/link options!”
“Like the potential to connect Hermit Park South to Little Valley and onto Homer Rouse Trail.”
“Put a bridge at upper end of lower Broadview – connects Beaver Point to spur 66.” – see attached
picture.
“Desperately need more trails that connect from Estes Park to RMNP.”
“Formalize the ‘Three Transformers’ trail and Eagle Rock Trail. They are existing but not kept up
currently, used more socially.”
Comments on Current Trails, Data Collection
“Jurassic Park Trail use appears to be incorrect at 34,000. RMNP has the Lily Ridge Trail. Perhaps the trail
count was for that trail – RMNP staff”
“Ask Summit County how much the trail system increases average spending and visitation – we need our
business owners on board!”
“Pave and curb on Fish Creek multi-use trail. Too soft for bikes, cars parking on it without a curb to
prevent them.”
“Existing trail from visitor’s center to Lumpy Ridge – is it in plan?”
“The Dry-Gulch-Devil’s Gulch trail is already heavily used. A trail would make all the current use safer.”
Comments on Trail Types, Trail Attributes
“Want trails that are wide, 10-12 feet. If paved, have a yellow stripe in the middle.”
“Prefer no motorized traffic on multi-use paths.” (x2)
“Add painted directional markings on paved trails showing bikes and pedestrians to clarify multi-
directional and user use.”
“Clarify that multi-use trails do not include ATVs or other motorized uses.”
Other Comments:
•Inquiry into whether Ottie’s Trail will be opened again and accessible to the public
•Desire to understand where there are public easements, opportunities for public access, and where
there is private land.
•Desire for trails that connect Estes Park to Rocky Mountain National Park.
•Eliminating the proposed soft surface trail west of SH 7 south of downtown from consideration
•Desire for safer cycling options to get to destinations around town, especially for children.
•For paved multi-use paths, signage and markings that show how to share space between cyclists and
pedestrians, what uses are allowed (non-motorized).
Appendix B: Trail Assessments
Homer Rouse Trail Assessment
Otie’s Trail Assessment
Trail Feature
Condition
Rating Comments Prescription
Beginning of Trail 4
Trail begins on Fish Creek Way and continues up private
driveway for 0.25 mile before crossing creek.
Parking Lot 4
The parking area is relatively obvious. There appears to
be enough space for the amount/type of use the trail
recevies.Assess changes in use levels and assure parking is adequate.
Trail Sign 4
The trail sign is in good shape, describes allowed uses, and
explains etiquette.Consider a map on or next to this sign. Adjust mileage.
"No Motorized
Vehicles" Sign 3
This sign is screwed to a ponderosa pine tree. It is visible,
but branches could be pruned to make it moreso.
Additionally, it is somewhat repetitive, as the trail sign in
the parking lot also prohibits motorized vehicles.
With permission, prune branches from the tree to make the sign more
visible, or remove.
Trail Sign 4
Points users to where the trail leaves the doubletrack to the
left.Maintain
3' Metal Culvert 4
Culvert (approx. 15 linear ft) was washed out in the 2013
flood and reinstalled in 2014 with rip rap on both sides.
The culvert is only functional during extremely high water. Maintain
Armored Stream Ford 5
Built in 2014 as part of the trail reroute. Both approaches
are armored with rock set flush with soil to handle
equestrian use. Rocks have been set in the stream to slow
water flow at the ford. Located just upstream of bridge. Maintain
Bridge 5
Built in 2014 as part of the trail reroute. The bridge
includes rock abutments and armored approaches, log sills,
3, 15' stringers with a free span of 13'6", and an
approximately 20' log handrail on the upstream side of
the bridge.Maintain
Rock Retaining Walls
(2)5
Built in 2014 as part of the trail reroute. There is one rock
retaining wall on the uphill side of the trail where it begins
to climb (approx. 10-15 feet long and 5 feet tall) and one
on the downhill side of the trail supporting the tread
(approx. 35-40 feet long and 2-3 feet high).Maintain
Climbing Turn 5
Built in 2014 as part of the trail reroute. Entire reroute is in
good shape and maintains a sustainable grade.Maintain
Peeled Log Waterbars
(7)2
Generally, these log waterbars are not functional and are
becoming undercut. Trail is eroding in this area, creating
ruts and exposing roots.
This section of trail should be reassessed, and log waterbars should
be replaced with rock waterbars in appropriate locations.
Start of Doubletrack 4
The trail joins the old county road in this section. There is a
gate and a trail sign pointing users to the proper route. The
trail turns left at this point and begins a steady climb on
the doubletrack.
Trail Sign 4
Points users to where the trail leaves the doubletrack to the
right.Maintain
"Horse Trail" Sign 4
Sign is screwed to a ponderosa pine and is in good shape
but may not be necessary anymore.Retain or remove based on property owner and EVRPD input.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Bottom of Doubletrack
Social Trail 3
This is the bottom of an old logging road. Does not appear
to receive much use.
Continue to assess the condition of this road. Are there
options/desire for a downhill only trail? Close the social trail if
resource damage begins to occur.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District - Trail Inventory and Assessment
Homer Rouse Trail
Date: 7/2/2015
Ending Point: Twin Sisters TH
Beginning Point: Fish Creek Way
Trail Feature
Condition
Rating Comments Prescription
Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District - Trail Inventory and Assessment
Homer Rouse Trail
Date: 7/2/2015
Ending Point: Twin Sisters TH
Beginning Point: Fish Creek Way
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Bottom of Singletrack
Social Trail 2
This is the bottom of a singletrack social trail that cuts the
corner. The bottom is eroded, has developed ruts, and
resource damage is occuring.
This social trail should be either closed and restored, or become
formalized. Closure and restoration should be accomplished
according to accepted practices, including scarifying the soil,
transplanting materials, and installing drainage control features such
as checks and waterbars. Formalization would likely require a
reroute to avoid sections of fall line trail. Formalization is preferred
if there is a desire for a loop option.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Horse Trail from
Cheley Camp 2
This trail leads to Cheley Camp and provides access mainly
for equestrian use. It is somewhat eroded.
Trail should be formalized and armored as necessary to withstand
level of use. If formalized, signage should be installed, working with
Cheley Camp.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Waterbar 2 Earthern - needs to be reconstructed.Reconstruct waterbar - consider rock armoring.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Climbing Turn 4
Trail turns to the southwest and continues climbing toward
Baldpate Inn.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including assessment of erosion and rutting.
Waterbar 3 Earthern - needs to be reconstructed.Reconstruct waterbar - consider rock armoring.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Parallel Drain 3
The parallel drain diverts water uphill of the trail between
two waterbars. It could be reestablished. Water crosses
trail at the lower of the two waterbars.Reestablish drain - consider rock armoring if necessary.
Waterbar 2 Earthern - needs to be reconstructed.Reconstruct waterbar - consider rock armoring.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Top of Singletrack
Social Trail 2
This is the top of a singletrack social trail that cuts the
corner. There is a cairn marking this social trail. The top is
less eroded than the bottom.See notes above.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Waterbar 2 Earthern - needs to be reconstructed.Reconstruct waterbar - consider rock armoring.
Waterbar 3 Earthern - needs to be reconstructed.Reconstruct waterbar - consider rock armoring.
Top of Doubletrack
Social Trail 4
This is the top of an old logging road leading downhill to
lower portions of the trail. It has revegetated slightly, but
still appears to be used frequently.Continue to assess the condition of this road. See notes above.
Trail Sign 4
This sign acts to keep users off of the doubletrack social
trail. Some drainage issues exist (rutting and water flowing
down trail) in this section.Consider a drainage structure to control water.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Private Property Sign 4 Marks private land.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Trail Feature
Condition
Rating Comments Prescription
Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District - Trail Inventory and Assessment
Homer Rouse Trail
Date: 7/2/2015
Ending Point: Twin Sisters TH
Beginning Point: Fish Creek Way
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
Private Property Sign 4 Marks private land.
Driveway (private) 4
The trail joins a private driveway and continues southwest
and uphill.
Trail Sign 4
This sign acts to keep users off of the private driveway.
Coming downhill, it is slightly hidden behind trees. Maintain visibility of this sign from both directions.
3' Culvert 3
This culvert passes under the private driveway where it
intersects the trail. It is diverting water from above the
driveway onto the trail.
Consider a drainage structure to divert water across the trail where
the culvert drains.
Eroded Cut Bank
(private)1 A large cut bank is sloughing soil onto the driveway.
Work with property owner to ensure this doesn't become a bigger
problem.
Waterbar 4 Earthen - functioning well.
Continue annual or semi-annual maintenance in accordance with
Trails Plan standards - including cleaning and maintaining the drain
outlet.
"No Motorized
Vehicles" Sign 4
Sign is screwed to an aspen tree. Is repetitive of "Homer
Rouse Trail" sign. Vehicles do pass this sign on their way to
private property.Retain or remove based on property owner and EVRPD input.
Trail Sign 4
The trail sign is in good shape, describes allowed uses, and
explains etiquette. It could include a map to better orient
users. The distance to Fish Creek (2.0 miles) differs from the
sign at the lower TH (which says Lily Lake is 1.9 miles). Consider a map on or next to this sign. Adjust mileage.
Gate 3
2 round posts with a chain. Gate blocks vehicles from
entering private property but was unlocked and open. One
gate post is split.
Work with property owner to keep public vehicles out and to offer a
better first impression of this trail from the upper TH.
Parking Lot 4 Parking lot for the Baldpate Inn
Eroded Cut Bank
(private)3 A large cut bank is sloughing soil into the parking lot.
Work with property owner to ensure this doesn't become a bigger
problem.
Trail Sign 3 This sign directs users along the Baldpate Inn driveway. Maintain
Trail Sign 4
The trail sign is in good shape, describes allowed uses, and
explains etiquette. It could include a map to better orient
users. The distance to Fish Creek (2.3 miles) differs from the
sign at the lower TH (which says Lily Lake is 1.9 miles).
Consider a map on or next to this sign. Adjust mileage. Continue to
work on reroute of trail below Baldpate Inn property to avoid
access issues and to provide a better user experience.
Trail Feature
Condition
Rating Comments Prescription
Beginning of Trail 2
Trail begins nondescriptly across US 34 from the EVRPD
Offices on the west side of Steamer Drive. The trail crosses
private property along its length, so it is not well marked
or defined in many areas.
If proper easements are obtained, a trailhead signboard with a
map should be installed. Trail tread should be constructed along its
entire length. This trail could be a key connection between town,
Lake Estes, and hotels to RMNP at Lumpy Ridge TH. As it exists, it is
not serving this function well. Easements will be a big part of making
this connection work.
Crossing of US 34 1
To get from the parking lot to the trail, users must cross US
34. There is no designated crossing in this area.
A designated crossing should be established. An alternative would
be to designate parking in the Stanley Crossing (confirm) shoping
center parking lot so that users do not have to cross US 34.
Trail between US 34
and Steamer Pkwy 2
Trail is not well established, particularly with construction
behind Stanley Crossing.
Establish trail tread, or realign trail on east side of Steamer Drive
(perhaps in ROW) if property ownership allows. There is more space
to utilize on east side of Steamer Drive.
Trail between Steamer
Pkwy and driveway at
Steamer Dr 2
Trail tread is established along this portion of the trail. The
trail traverses through several backyards - and is likely on
private property. Additionally, the trail follows the fall line
in this section. Some wooden water bars and check dams
are in place, but are not functioning well.
Ensure that appropriate easements are in place with property
owners, if necessary. For drainage, either replace drainage
structures with rock or earthen structures and maintain, or consider
realigning trail away from fall line.
Intersection with
Steamer Dr 2
The trail joins the pavement at the top of a short, steep
rise, and follows Steamer Dr for approx. 300 feet to a
gate on the right.
Signage should be installed on Steamer Dr to direct users to the soft-
surface portions of the trail. Additionally, a designated crossing of
Steamer Dr would improve safety.
Gate 2
The trail leaves Steamer Dr at a gate on the east side of
the road. The gate has a "Private Property, No
Trespassing" sign on it. There is no other signage indicating
a trail.
Ensure that appropriate easements are in place with property
owner. Install a trail sign at the gate.
Trail on private land
between Steamer Dr
and West Lane 2
The trail follows a dirt road/path through private
property. Some drainage issues exist.
Ensure that appropriate easements are in place with property
owner. Once complete, establish tread and drainage if needed.
Trail leaves private
property and joins
West Lane 3
Trail joins pavement on West Lane - heads north. West
Lane is not a busy road.
A trail sign is needed where the trail joins West Lane. Creating a
soft-surface shoulder or path off of road would increase safety and
improve the user experience.
Trail leaves West Lane
at North Lane 2
At the West Lane/North Lane intersection, the trail heads
west across private property. There are two old trail signs
that are not functioning anymore.Work with property owner to replace signage.
Trail on private land
between West Lane
and Devil's Gulch Rd 2
The trail follows a dirt path across private property to
west, then to north, downhill to Devil's Gulch Rd. The portion
of trail that travels north/south is on a private driveway. Ensure that easements are in place.
Trail heading
north/south along
driveway towards
Devil's Gulch Road 2 The trail heads down the fall line and is becoming eroded.
Work with property owners to install drainage structures. Earthern
drain dips may be preferred on the driveway portion. This will also
help with erosion on their driveway.
Trail intersects Devil's
Gulch Road across
from Lumpy Ridge
Road 2
The trail intersects Devil's Gulch Road in a non-descript
manner. There are signs in the vicinity indicating a
easement, but no trail signs.
Install trail signage, including a map. A designated street crossing to
Lumpy Ridge Rd would improve safety, as many future users could
access RMNP trails from the Lumpy Ridge TH.
Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District - Trail Inventory and Assessment
Otie's Trail
Date: 7/2/2015
Ending Point: Devil's Gulch Road & Lumpy Ridge Road
Beginning Point: EVRPD Offices Parking Lot
Appendix C: Trail Count Materials
Counting form
Process instructions
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE MASTER TRAILS PLAN
TRAIL COUNT FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS
Please review these instructions before going to the count site.Thank you for your help!
NUMBER OF COUNTS PER LOCATION
Each volunteer will be assigned a location to conduct trail counts. Volunteers can do as many
counts sessions as they would like and in a variety of places.
To ensure a sampling of weekday and weekend activity levels, 2 counts be conducted at
every location for both weekdays and weekends,totaling four counts (2 weekday sessions
and 2 weekend sessions). Weekday counts are best taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or
Thursday, and not on a holiday, Monday, or Friday. Weekend counts can be taken on either
Saturday or Sunday.
We ask that all counts be completed between August 8th and August 16th.
COUNTING TIMES
We ask that you count for two consecutive hours during the period you feel would the peak
time of trail use. Use your local knowledge of the trail and work with Kim Slininger
(970.215.8075) to determine what the best time is for your specific trail. All counts must be
between the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM.
WHAT TO BRING
Other than these instructions and the counting forms, you shouldn’t need much to conduct the
trail counts. You may want to bring along a trail map, clipboard, a spare pen or pencil, a hat,
sunscreen, jacket, snacks and water.
ON-SITE INSTRUCTIONS
Once you’ve reached the site please ensure your safety and be aware of your
surroundings.Once you’ve arrived:
1.Find a safe location to conduct the counts.
2.Record the background information at the top of the count form.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE COUNT
After completing your count period, return your forms to Kim Slininger as soon as possible.
Please return all count forms no later than August 21st.
Surveyor Name: Phone:Email:
Date:Time Count Conducted:to
Trail/Location:Trail Type:Trail Surface:
Weather Conditions: Sunny Partly cloudy Cloudy Partly Rainy Rain Approximate Temperature:
Make one “tic mark” for each person passing by in either direction engaged in each activity. Count the number of people on the
bicycle, not the number of bicycles (children in rear seats, tandem bicycles, etc.).Walkers/Hikers include people in wheelchairs or
others using assistive devices, children in strollers, etc. People using equipment such as skateboards or rollerblades should be
included in the “Others” category.
User Type Male Female
Bicyclists
Walkers/Hikers
Joggers
Equestrians
Others
Thanks for your help!!!!
Please return forms to: Kim Slininger,Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, PO Box 1379 Estes Park, CO 80517
National Bicycle and Pedestrian
Documentation Project
INSTRUCTIONS
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
The National Documentation Project (NBPD) is an annual bicycle and pedestrian count
and survey effort sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Pedestrian and
Bicycle Council. The goals of the NBPD are to: (1) Establish a consistent national bicycle
and pedestrian count and survey methodology;(2) Establish a national database of
bicycle and pedestrian count information generated by these consistent methods and
practices; and (3) Use the count and survey information to begin analysis on the
correlations between local demographic, climate and land‐use factors and bicycle and
pedestrian activity.
Alta Planning + Design, a national bicycle and pedestrian planning firm, initiated this
effort through the ITE Pedestrian & Bicycle Council in 2003, when it was identified as a
priority for the Council and will continue to lead this effort along with the ITE Pedestrian
and Bicycle Council. Alta has been responsible for the development of the draft
methodology and materials.
This document is a draft effort and any recommendations, corrections or suggestions
can be addressed to the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Project at:
info@bikepeddocumentation.org
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................ 1
1. Proposed Count and Survey Dates and Times ................................. 1
Dates ................................................................................... 1
Rationale for Dates .................................................................. 1
Times ................................................................................... 2
Rationale for Time Periods ........................................................ 2
Weather ................................................................................ 2
2. Counts .................................................................................... 4
2.1 Count Methodology ................................................................ 5
Count Variables ...................................................................... 5
Count Locations ...................................................................... 5
Types of Counts ...................................................................... 6
2.2 Pre-Count Preparation ........................................................... 6
Rationale for Locations ............................................................. 8
2.3 The Day of the Count ............................................................. 9
2.4 Submitting Count Data ......................................................... 10
3. SURVEYS ............................................................................... 11
3.1 Survey Methodology ............................................................ 11
Types of Surveys ................................................................... 11
3.2 Pre-Survey Preparation ........................................................ 11
Rationale for Locations ........................................................... 13
3.3 Day of the Survey................................................................ 14
3.4 Post-Survey Data Tabulation and Submission .............................. 15
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
1
Introduction
This document provides detailed instructions on conducting bicycle and pedestrian
counts and surveys as part of the National Documentation Project. The document first
reviews the proposed dates and times, provides instructions for counts and then
provides instructions for surveys.
1.Proposed Count and Survey Dates and Times
Dates
The second week in September is proposed as the official annual national bicycle and
pedestrian count and survey week. Participants in the National Documentation Project
shall pick at least one weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) and a Saturday
following or preceding the official count dates. Optional counts can be conducted in
January, May and July to understand seasonal changes in walking and cycling.
Proposed National Count Dates
Official Optional Optional Optional
Sept. 14-16, 2010 January 12-14, 2010 May 11-13, 2010 July 6-8, 2010
Sept. 13-15, 2011 January 11-13, 2011 May 10-12, 2011 July 5-7, 2011
Sept. 11-13, 2012 January 10-12, 2012 May 15-17, 2012 July 3-5, 2012
To reduce the chance that data is skewed by weather, sports events, or other outside
factors, local participants may choose to conduct counts and surveys on more than one
weekday during the count week and on the Saturdays preceding and following the
count week.
Note 1: The collection of year‐long data has allowed us to be able to adjust counts done
at any time of the year in most locations. However, we recommend using the National
count dates whenever possible.
Note 2: If your agency or group has been conducting counts at other times of the year,
continue to do those counts at the same time period rather than change to these dates.
Rationale for Dates
The National Count Date in mid‐September was selected because it represents a peak
period for walking and bicycling, both work‐ and school‐related. Weather conditions
across the country are generally conducive, schools have been underway for several
weeks, and people have returned from vacations and are back at work.
At least one weekday and one weekend day should be selected to obtain a sampling of
weekday and weekend activity levels. There should be little statistical difference
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
2
between counts conducted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of the same week,
and this provides agencies and organizations some scheduling flexibility.
The other dates were selected to provide a representative sampling of activity during a
typical spring (May) and winter (January) period. The 4th of July period was selected
because it will afford both a typical summer weekday and what is typically the busiest
holiday period and activity period for recreational facilities and activities.
Having an official count week is also important for generating enthusiasm around the
date. Much like nationwide Bike to Work Weeks, we hope that the National
Documentation Project Week in September will become a much‐anticipated annual
event in localities around the nation.
Times
Based on our research, we are recommending new time periods for 2009 onwards (see
below). However, if you have been doing counts using the old time periods, please keep
using these same time periods for all future counts in order to be consistent.
RECOMMENDED TIMES:
Weekday, 5‐7 PM
Saturday, 12 noon – 2PM
SECONDARY TIMES:
Weekday, 7 AM to 7 PM
Saturday, 7 AM to 7 PM
Rationale for Time Periods
Time periods are more important for counts than for surveys. Weekday PM peak
periods were chosen since the afternoon peak typically has the largest volume of
travelers, with commuters, school children and people running errands. Counts
conducted during these periods will provide an excellent snapshot of walking and
bicycling during the peak periods of the year. Mid‐day weekend periods are another
peak period. Actual local peak periods may vary with considerably. It is recommended
that the national count time periods be collected along with supplementary time
periods if it is determined that this period captures the true peak period of activity.
Automatic Machines
While the NBPD is based on manual counts, we strongly encourage agencies and groups
conducting counts to consider conducting automatic machine counts in their
community. These machines will give invaluable information for estimating annual
usage, benefits and other information.
Weather
Weather may be a determinant in selecting one of the three proposed weekdays to
conduct counts and surveys, but a participant should not be worried if the weather is
poor or unusual during the count period. Weather conditions will be recorded for each
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
3
count in the Background Data Sheet and be considered as a factor in future analysis.
Over time, counts and surveys will average out and overall trends in activity will become
apparent.
Number of Counts per Location
We suggest that between 1 and 3 counts be conducted at every location on sequential
days and weeks, based on the approximate levels of activity. Areas with high volumes
(over 100 people per hour during mid‐day periods) can usually be counted once on a
weekday and weekend day, unless there is some unusual activity that day or land use
nearby.
Areas with lower activity levels and/or with unusual nearby land uses (with any irregular
activity, such as a ball park) or activity (such as a special event) should be counted on
sequential days or weeks at least one more and possibly two more times.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
4
This page intentionally left blank
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
5
2. Counts
2.1 Count Methodology
Count Variables
The proposed counts are intended to identify the numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians
passing a specific point or intersection. A person who passes by a point more than once
is counted each time they pass by the point. Localities may wish to record additional
variables in addition to the number of people passing by, such as bicyclists versus
pedestrians, the number of people using wheelchairs or the estimated number of
children, teens and adults.
Number of Count Locations
In the interest of maximizing participation, a minimum number of count locations has
not been set for the NBPD. Participants may submit data for a single location. However,
to understand walking and cycling in a local area, we recommend that participants
count at more than one location.
Should an agency wish to conduct more counts, which is recommended, we estimated
that, at a minimum, one count should be conducted per 15,000 of population. This was
considered a reasonable balance between obtaining representative counts throughout a
community, and budget limitations.
Count Location Criteria
Criteria for count and survey locations include:
Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors
(downtowns, near schools, parks, etc.)
Representative locations in urban, suburban, and rural locations
Key corridors that can be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements
Locations where counts have been conducted historically
Locations where there are on‐going counts being conducted by other agencies
through a variety of means, including video taping
Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists and pedestrians (potential improvement areas)
Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high
Select locations that meet as many of the criteria as possible.
It is important to note that a random selection of locations is statistically the best way to
estimate area‐wide activity levels. However, there is no methodology available today to
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
6
extrapolate from counts to area‐wide estimates—which is currently done using a
combination of aggregate‐type models. More importantly, a random selection of count
locations is likely to result in locations with very little if any activity to count!
Screen Line and Intersection Crossing Counts
The National Count periods are proposed to be manual screen line and intersection
crossing counts, conducted by trained counters.
Intersection crossing counts should be conducted at high collision locations and where
safety studies are desired. Depending on the volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians,
intersection counts may be more complicated and require additional counters because
they record two streets as well as turning movements.
Screen line counts are primarily used to identify general trends in volumes, and to see
how demographics, land use, and other factors influence walking and bicycling.
The sponsoring agency should determine which method, intersection crossing counts or
screenline counts, is better suited to their needs such as safety studies or determining
factors that influence walking and bicycling.
2.2 Pre-Count Preparation
To ensure that data received from different participants is comparable and consistent,
participants should agree to follow the instructions and guidelines identified below:
STEP 1: IDENTIFY COUNT MANAGER
An agency or organization interested in participating in this process will designate a
Count Manager who will serve as the primary contact and manager of the count effort.
Because this effort will require time and other resources, prior approval should be
obtained prior to embarking on this effort. It is estimated that the lead person will need
approximately 8 initial hours of management time and 1 hour of management time for
every 8 hours of count time being conducted.
STEP 2: OBTAIN MATERIALS
Count forms and the Background Data Sheet are available from the National Bicycle and
Pedestrian Documentation Project website at: www.bikepeddocumentation.org. The
Count Manager should check the website to ensure that s/he has the latest versions of
the Count Instructions and Forms. Materials can be reproduced freely. The documents
provided are:
Count Instructions (This document)
Included in “National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms”:
Screenline Count Forms
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
7
Intersection Count Forms
Background Data Sheet
Background Data Sheet Code and Instructions
STEP 3: SELECT GENERAL COUNT LOCATIONS
Participants may count at only one location, or they may conduct counts at many
locations. The following considerations and suggested criteria are provided to help in
the selection of general count locations:
Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors
(downtowns, near schools, parks, etc.)
Representative locations in urban, suburban, and rural locations
Key corridors that can be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements
Locations where counts have been conducted historically
Locations where there are on‐going counts being conducted by other agencies
through a variety of means, including video taping
Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists and pedestrians (potential improvement areas)
Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high
Select locations that meet as many of the criteria as possible.
STEP 4: SELECT SPECIFIC COUNT LOCATIONS
Once general locations have been selected, the Count Manager will need to inspect the
sites to determine exactly where counters can be positioned. Guidelines for this
inspection trip include:
For multi‐use paths and parks, locations near the major access points are best.
For on‐street bikeways, locations where there are few if any alternative parallel
routes are best.
For traditional downtown areas, a location near a transit stop or in the center of
downtown is best.
For shopping malls, a location near the main entrance and transit stop is best. Count
at one access point.
For employment areas, either on the main access roadway or near off‐street
multiuse paths is best. Count at one access point, typically a sidewalk and street.
For residential areas, locations near higher density developments or near parks and
schools are the best. Count at one access point, typically a sidewalk and street.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
8
For all locations:
Counts should include travel in both directions.
Counters will need to be in a safe, visible location and should be on public property
in a location that does not block pedestrians or bicyclists.
You must receive written permission from property owners if you will be on private
property.
If at all possible locate the counters in an area that will be comfortable for them:
shade in the summer, protection from the wind in winter.
Rationale for Locations
The recommended locations are based on finding places where bicyclists and
pedestrians can be expected to be counted, either now or after improvements have
been made. The purpose of the counts is to understand peak bicycle and pedestrian
activity on a typical day; while it may be useful to conduct a few counts where
pedestrians and cyclists are not expected, it is preferable to understand existing use.
STEP 5: COMPLETE THE BACKGROUND SHEET
This sheet will provide valuable information on the setting and conditions in which the
counts take place. Researchers will be able to cross‐tabulate things such as usage with
land use, density, weather, income, and the survey results. If conducting annual
surveys, background data from prior counts should be updated if necessary.
Use the ‘Background Data Sheet’, available in “National Documentation Project: Forms”
to record characteristics of the count locations. A detailed description of each of the
background items is provided in the document “National Documentation Project:
Forms.”
STEP 6: OBTAIN COUNTERS
Each location should require one counter, unless you have selected an extremely busy
downtown intersection. You will want to identify and secure a counter for each location
plus one backup counter for every 5 locations. Counters can be agency employees,
temporary employees, students, volunteers, or a professional data collection firm. You
may need to secure insurance coverage for counters, or have them sign a waiver
indemnifying your organization.
STEP 7: TRAIN COUNTERS
Counters will need to be trained how to complete forms and interpret field conditions.
Trainings can be conducted prior to count times, with a follow‐up briefing in the field
prior to the actual count times. Counters need to be instructed how to respond to
questions from the public on their activities. They should also be instructed on how to
fill out the count form, how to count people (specifically, every time a person passes by)
and what not to count.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
9
2.3 The Day of the Count
STEP 8: COUNTER EQUIPMENT
All counters should be provided high visibility jerseys, along with name tags identifying
the agency/organization they are working for. They should be provided business cards
of the lead contact. They should also be provided clip boards and pens, and have a
functioning watch. Emergency contact information should be provided for counters.
Counts in hot, cold or inclement weather, counters should be provided folding chairs,
water, umbrellas (as needed). In very busy areas, a manual clicker may help counters
take more accurate counts.
STEP 9: COUNT FORMS
Distribute count forms to counters. Count forms can be reproduced from the document
“National Documentation Project: Forms” available on the National Bicycle and
Pedestrian Documentation project website: www.bikepeddocumentation.org.
STEP 10: TRANSPORTING AND MANAGING COUNTERS
Counters will need to arrive at the count locations at least 15 minutes ahead of
schedule. The count manager should visit each count location to ensure that counters
are on schedule. If the count locations are numerous or dispersed, designated
supervisors may be needed to visit locations. Counters working in excess of 2 hours will
need to be relieved for restroom breaks at least every 2 hours, and 30 minutes for lunch
periods.
STEP 11: QUALITY CONTROL
The Count Manager and any location supervisors should conduct a random review of
counters during the count period to ensure they are on‐duty and tabulating information
correctly. Count results that either varies significantly from one time period to the next
or that are unusually consistent may need to be explained sufficiently to the Count
Manager’s satisfaction, or discarded.
STEP 12: COLLECTING FORMS
All forms should be collected by the Count Manager at the conclusion of the count
period. The Count Manager should double‐check to ensure that the count forms have
been completed accurately.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
10
2.4 Submitting Count Data
STEP 13: SUBMITTING DATA
Completed count forms should be reviewed for accuracy and legibility. Any illegible
forms should be copied neatly to a fresh count form. After forms are completed they
can be submitted along with each location’s Background Data Sheet, to
data@bikepeddocumentation.org. Participants should keep copies of their forms.
Completed counts can also be entered on the Data Sheet available at
www.bikepeddocumentation.org and then submitted to
data@bikepeddocumentation.org. Intersection crossing counts should be entered as
two locations. See the count forms for tally instructions.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
11
3. SURVEYS
3.1 Survey Methodology
Types of Surveys
There are numerous ways to conduct surveys or questionnaires, including phone
interviews, insertion questionnaires into utility bills and paychecks, newsletters, web
sites, and in field interviews. The proposed system for this survey is random interviews
in the field. This approach will yield the best cross section of a community and higher
quality information than any other approach. Phone interviews and other approaches
will have a significant bias in the sampling group, since entire groups may be under
represented. Additionally, in person interviews will provide details on the person being
interviewed that other approaches will not allow.
Surveys are more difficult to administer and more likely to have biased results than
counts. In part this is due to the fact that surveyors interact with the person being
surveyed and can subconsciously influence the outcome. With counts, observers do not
generally interact with the people being counted, and thus have less of a chance to
subconsciously influence the outcome. With surveys, the surveyor’s choice of who to
ask, the surveyor’s wording of the questions, and language barriers between the
surveyor and the survey taker can bias results. The instructions below serve as a basic
guideline for conducting bicycle and pedestrian surveys.
Surveys or questionnaires should be administered during the same general time period
(within 3 weeks) as the counts. Step‐by‐step instructions for performing the surveys are
presented below.
3.2 Pre-Survey Preparation
STEP 1: IDENTIFY SURVEY MANAGER
An agency or organization interested in participating in this process will designate a lead
person who will serve as the primary contact and manager of the survey effort. Because
this effort will require time and other resources, prior approval should be obtained prior
to embarking on this effort. It is estimated that the Survey Manager will need
approximately 8 initial hours of management and an additional 1 hour of management
time for every 2 hours of survey time being conducted.
STEP 2: DOWNLOAD MATERIALS
Survey forms and the Background Data Sheet are available from the National Bicycle
and Pedestrian website at: www.bikepeddocumentation.org. The Survey Manager
should check the website to ensure that s/he has the latest versions of the Survey
Instructions and Forms. Materials can be reproduced freely. The documents provided
are:
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
12
Survey Instructions (This document)
Included in “National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms”:
Standardized Survey Forms
Survey Tabulation Forms
Background Data Sheet
Background Data Sheet Code and Instructions
STEP 3: SELECT GENERAL SURVEY LOCATIONS
There are two types of surveys: Pedestrian and Bicycle. There are no minimum or
maximum number of survey locations that participants need to conduct, but if possible
conduct the surveys in the same location as the counts. The following considerations
and suggested criteria are provided to help in the selection of general survey locations:
Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors
Representative locations in urban, suburban, and rural locations
Key corridors that can be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements
Locations where surveys have been conducted historically
Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high
Locations where there are on‐going surveys being conducted
Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists and pedestrians
STEP 4: SELECT SPECIFIC SURVEY LOCATIONS
Once general locations have been selected, the Survey Manager will need to inspect the
sites to determine exactly where surveyors can be positioned. Guidelines for this
inspection trip include:
Path Survey
1. For multi‐use paths, locations near the major access points are best.
On-Street Bikeway Survey
1. For on‐street bikeways, locations at signalized intersections or bicycle parking
areas are best.
2. Alternatively, bicyclists could be interviewed at their end points, such as work,
shopping, or other areas.
Sidewalk Surveys
1. For traditional downtown areas, a location near the center of the downtown is
best.
2. For shopping malls, a location near the main entrance and transit stop is best.
3. For employment areas, either on the main access roadway or near an off‐street
multiuse path is best.
4. For residential areas, locations near higher density developments or near parks
and schools are the best.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
13
For all locations:
Surveyors will need to be in a safe, visible location and on public property. You may
be able to get permission to conduct surveys on private property such as a mall or
major employer. Locations should provide shade and seating for surveyors.
Rationale for Locations
The recommended locations are based on finding places where bicyclists and
pedestrians can be expected to congregate, either now or after improvements have
been made. There is little point in conducting surveys in locations where pedestrians
and bicyclists are almost non‐existent.
STEP 5: COMPLETE THE BACKGROUND SHEET
This sheet will provide valuable information on the setting and conditions in which the
surveys take place. Researchers will be able to cross‐tabulate things such as usage with
land use, density, weather, income, setting, trip purpose, and the survey results. If you
have already done this for the counts, simply add the information under Surveys. If
conducting annual surveys, background data from prior counts should be updated if
necessary.
Use the ‘Background Data Sheet’, available in “National Documentation Project: Forms”
to record characteristics of the survey locations. A detailed description of each of the
background items is provided in the document “National Documentation Project:
Forms.”
STEP 6: OBTAIN SURVEYORS
Each location should require two surveyors, unless you have selected an extremely busy
location in which case, more surveyors will be needed. You will want to identify and
secure two surveyors for each location plus one backup counter for every 5 locations.
Surveyors can be agency employees, temporary help, students, volunteers, or a
professional data collection firm. You may need to secure insurance coverage for
surveyors, or have them sign a waiver indemnifying your organization.
STEP 7: TRAIN SURVEY TAKERS
Surveyors will need to be trained carefully, since the general public is reluctant to be
stopped and questioned. The surveys are designed to be completed in less than five
minutes. The surveyor should be warned not to be aggressive and respect people’s
wishes not to be bothered. The ideal surveyor is a person who can speak clearly, is
somewhat outgoing, and presents him or herself well. It is best if surveyors live or work
in the neighborhood in which the surveys are being conducted. Surveyors need to be
able to ask questions and write responses at the same time. Bilingual speakers may be
needed in some locations.
Surveyors should ask the following question as people approach:
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
14
“Hello, do you have time to answer a few questions about walking and
biking?”
If yes:
“My name is __________ and I’m conducting this survey for
_________________. The information will be used to better understand
why people walk and bike where they do. The survey will take about 5
minutes.
“You don’t have to answer all the questions, and you can stop taking the
survey at any time. I won’t ask for any personal information. Would you like
to take the survey?
In an area where residents primarily speak another language besides English, survey
takers should ask the above question in the appropriate language, and survey forms
should be translated into the appropriate language.
To reduce bias inherent in surveying, the Survey Manager should create a methodology
for randomly sampling passing pedestrians and cyclists. This could be to ask every single
pedestrian and cyclist, or in areas with a lot of traffic, this could be to ask every third or
fifth passing pedestrian or cyclist. The important part is to keep it consistent. If a person
asks to take the survey, you should let them, but their data should not be counted as it
can potentially bias the results. In all cases, surveyors should keep track of the number
of people they asked to take the survey so that a refusal rate can be calculated.
To ensure accuracy of the data, surveyors should fill out the form for the survey taker.
Surveyors should be given answers to a list of anticipated questions and trained to refer
all other questions to the Survey Manager. Surveyors should have copies of the Survey
Manager’s business cards on hand.
3.3 Day of the Survey
STEP 8: SURVEY TAKER EQUIPMENT
Survey takers will need to have a clear identification badge and color jersey. A simple
sign measuring 2 feet by 2 feet may be placed at the survey location that reads: SURVEY
ON PUBLIC USE IN PROGRESS: [AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION NAME].
Survey takers will need to have a method of recording the number of people they asked
to calculate the refusal rate. This could be a clipboard and tick marks or a hand held
clicker.
STEP 9: SURVEY FORMS
Distribute survey forms to counters. Reproduce survey forms from the appendix
materials.
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions
15
STEP 10: TRANSPORTING AND MANAGING SURVEY TAKERS
Survey takers will need to be driven to the survey locations and arrive at least 15
minutes ahead of schedule. Survey takers working in excess of 2 hours will need to be
relieved for restroom breaks at least every 2 hours, and 30 minutes for lunch periods.
STEP 11: QUALITY CONTROL
The Survey Manager should conduct a random review of survey takers during the survey
period to ensure they are on‐duty and tabulating information correctly. Survey results
that either varies significantly from one time period to the next, or that are unusually
consistent, may need to be explained sufficiently to the Survey Manager’s satisfaction,
or discarded.
3.4 Post-Survey Data Tabulation and Submission
STEP 12: COLLECTING FORMS
All forms should be collected by the Survey Manager at the conclusion of the survey
period. The Survey Manager should double‐check to ensure that the survey forms have
been completed accurately.
STEP 13: TABULATING DATA
Once the survey forms are collected, they need to be tabulated. A Survey Tabulation
Form and detailed instructions are available at www.bikepeddocumentation.org
STEP 14: SUBMITTING DATA
Please submit the completed Survey Tabulation Forms and Background Data Sheet for
each location to data@bikepeddocumentation.org.
Appendix D: Funding Sources
Funding Sources Table
FUNDING SOURCE APPLICATION
DEADLINE ADMINISTERING
AGENCY
MATCH
REQUIRED
MAXIMUM
GRANT
ELIGIBILITY /COMMENTS
FEDERAL
Federal Lands Access
Program
http://flh.fhwa.dot.go
v/programs/flap/
May
2016
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
20% 80% State, county, tribal, or city
government that owns or
maintains the transportation
facility. Project must be
located on, adjacent to, or
provide direct access to
federal lands.
FHWA Recreational
Trails Program
http://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/
environment/recreati
onal_trails/
index.cfm
December
2016
Colorado State Trails
Program - Tom
Morrissey
thomas.morrissey@st
ate.co.us
Varies, cash
& in-kind
$350,000
2016, varies
The RTP provides funds to the
States to support a wide
variety of trail activities and
related facilities, as well as
environmental education and
safety programs.
Connecting
Communities to
Rivers Grant Program
http://www.american
rivers.org/newsroom/
press -
releases/american -
rivers-awards-100000-
in-grants -to-connect-
communities -to -
hometown-rivers/
December
2016
American Rivers -
Intermountain West
BlueTrailsGuide.org/G
rants
Intermountain West
Blue Trails Manager
Varies Grants ranging
from $5,000 to
$25,000
Local & tribal governments,
nonprofits, for profits and others
located within CO, ID, MT, NM,
WY. Action -oriented projects that
connect people to their rivers
through recreation; establish
river/ land stewardship; and have
clear community, recreation,
conservation and economic
benefits. Support for projects
that connect communities to
their rivers by improving
family-friendly recreational
opportunities and protecting
rivers and surrounding lands.
Land and Water
Conservation Fund
http://www.grants.go
v/web/grants/search-
grants.html
Feb 19 – Apr
29, 2016
National Park Service 50:50 match Dwindling
funds - check
annual funding
status
Cities, counties, or district
authorized to acquire, develop,
operate, and maintain park and
recreation facilities.
The LWCF state assistance
program provides matching
grants to help states and local
communities protect parks and
recreation resources. LWCF
funding has benefited nearly
every county in America,
supporting over 41,000 projects.
From building hiking and biking
trails, to improving community
parks, playgrounds and ballfields,
this 50:50 matching program is
the primary federal investment
tool to ensure that families have
easy access to public, open
spaces.
FUNDING SOURCE APPLICATION
DEADLINE ADMINISTERING
AGENCY
MATCH
REQUIRED
MAXIMUM
GRANT
ELIGIBILITY /COMMENTS
NPS Challenge Cost
Share Program
https://www.nps.gov/
ncrc/programs/ccsp/
July National Park Service
(NPS), Outdoor
Foundation
50/50
match :
Cash, goods,
or services
from non-
federal
sources as
ma tch.
$25,000 is the
maximum
Challenge Cost
Share project
support.
The Challenge Cost Share
Program supports local projects
that promote conservation and
recreation, environmental
stewardship, education, and
engaging youth in the outdoors.
Local project partners work with
National Park Service (NPS) staff
to achieve mutually beneficial
outcomes.
Applications are submitted by
NPS staff in collaboration with
project partners. Project should
be completed within the fiscal
year.
NPS Rivers, Trails and
Conservation
Assistance
June National Park Service
(NPS) None Tec hnical
assistance is
the grant.
Technical assistance for
projects demonstrating
tangible conservation and
recreational results in the
near future. Assistance
qualifies for in-kind match for
many grants.
State
Great Outdoors
Colorado (GOCO)
Grant Programs
http://www.goco.org/
grants
Grants are
generally
awarded in
two funding
cycles, with
deadlines in
the spring and
fall.
Great Outdoors
Colorado (GOCO)
25% of total
project cost
in matching
funds, >10%
of which
must be
cash match.
$350,000,
planning:
$75,000
This is a competitive grant
program for park and open
space land acquisition and
development, outdoor
recreation, environmental
education, and capacity
building that is also derived
from the Colorado Lottery.
Youth employment and
habitat preservation are also
grant funded.
Colorado State Trails
Program
http://cpw.state.co.us
/aboutus/Pages/Trails
GrantsNM.aspx
Grant deadl ine
is ty pically
Nov ember.
Colorado Parks and
Wildlife
25 to 50%
match is
required.
Varies by grant
type.
This is a competitive grant
program for trails. The state
funding pool is relatively
small, so this resource is
proposed for a small
component of the trails
system.
Fishing Is Fun
Program
http://cpw.state.co.us
/aboutus/Pages/Fishin
gIsFunProgram.aspx
Grant deadline
typically
February/
March.
Colorado Parks and
Wildlife
25% Cash or
in-kind non-
federal
sources.
Grants
REIMBURSE
project
sponsors for
up to 75 % of
approved
expenses.
Competitive grant providing
matching grants to local and
county governments, park
and recreation departments,
water districts, angling
organizations and others for
projects to improve a ngling
opportunities in CO.
FUNDING SOURCE APPLICATION
DEADLINE ADMINISTERING
AGENCY
MATCH
REQUIRED
MAXIMUM
GRANT
ELIGIBILITY /COMMENTS
The Congestion
Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ)
US Department of
Transportation (DOT).
https://www.fhwa.dot
.gov/map21/guidance
/guidecmaq.cfm
June 2016 Projects selected by
Denver Regional
Council of Gov’ts
(DRCOG), North
Front Range Metro
Planning Org. (NFR
MPO), & Upper
Front Range Transp.
Planning Region
(UFR TPR).
Varies Varies CMAQ was developed to fund
transportation projects or
programs that will contribute
to attainment or maintenance
of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Supports two goals of the US
DOT: improving air quality and
relieving traffic
c ongestion. Bicycle and
Pedestrian infrastructure and
education/outreach projects
are eligible under this
program in areas that have
been deemed in maintenance
or needing attainment.
Transportation
Alternatives
Program (TA P)
http://www.colorado
dot.info/programs/sta
tewide-
planning/documents/t
ransportation -
alternatives -program-
guidelines -and.pdf
August
Application
trainings are
available.
administered by
Colorado
Department of
Transportation
20% of the
total project
costs in
matching
funds. Mini
mum
request for
federal
dollars is
$50,000.
Max request is
the pool limit
for the Region.
Match must
be cash or
cash equiv.
Cash equiv.
must be as
defined /
approved by
FHWA.
Eligible applicants include:
political subdivisions of the
state; nonprofits, by
partnering with an
eligible applicant as an
administrator. Provides
funding for programs/
projects defined as
transportation alternatives,
including on- and off-road
pedestrian/bicycle facilities,
infrastructure projects for
improving non-driver access
to public transportation and
enhanced mobility,
commu nity improvement
activities, & environmental
mitigation; recreati onal trail
program projects; & projects
for planning, designing, or
constructing boulevards and
other roadways largely in the
right-of-way of former
Intersta te routes/highways.
Safe Routes to School
www.codot.gov/progr
ams/bikeped/safe-
routes -
January SRTS is a federal
program
administered by CO
DOT who assists
with project app.
At least 20%
cash match-
80% SRTS
grant
School districts, schools,
cities, counties, state entities
and tribal entities are eligible
to apply. Nonprofits need to
partner with a state
subdivision to apply for
funding. Infrastructure and
non-infrastructure projects
considered.
FUNDING SOURCE APPLICATION
DEADLINE ADMINISTERING
AGENCY
MATCH
REQUIRED
MAXIMUM
GRANT
ELIGIBILITY /COMMENTS
Trails Conne cting
People with Nature: A
program of the Sierra
Club’s Nearby Nature
Initiative (NNI)
http://content.sierracl
ub.org/press -
releases/2016/01/sier
ra-club-foundation-
announces -trail -grants
September The Sierra Club
Foundation in
collaboration with
Sierra Club
Outdoors.
Equal
match.
One-year trails
project grants
ranging from
$5,000 to
$20,000
Trail creation or maintenance
project proposals that engage
new leaders and provide
opportunities for
communities to connect with
nature. NNI protects &
establishes close-to-home
natural spaces to ensure that
access to the outdoors is
increasingly equitable and
ava ilable to all communities.
Applicant must be Sierra Club
member.
Activating Places and
Spaces Community
Grant Program
www.coloradohealth.
org/yellow.aspx?i
d=8101
Cycles in
February, June
and October in
2016-2018.
Colorado Health
Foundation
No Specific
match:In -
Kind or Cash
match
$15-
100k grants av
ailable
Grants are not for
infrastructure, but for
planning, outreach,
enhancements, programs, etc.
that attract people to be
active in public
places. Applicant must be
youth -serving entities.
State Historical Fund
Grants
www.historycolorado.
org/grants/grants
October History Colorado Easements
accompany
grants of
over
$10,000
>$35,000
<$35,000
Competitive and non-
competitive grants available.
All projects must meet the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties.
Community
Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
www.colorado.gov/pa
cific/dola/community-
development-block-
grant-cdbg
February DOLA- Department
of Local Affairs,
State of CO
Varies Varies CDBG grants have been
awarded for parks associated
with urban renewal efforts in
the past. Contact DOLA
Regional Manager for project
eligibility.
OTHER- National,
Non-profit
People for Bikes
Community Grants
http://www.peoplefor
bikes.org/pages/com
munity-grants
Spring & Fall
Grant Cycles in
2016
People for Bikes No specific
% match . No
grants for
more than
50%
budget.
$10,000 Grants focus on bicycling,
active transportation, or
community development,
from city or county agencies
or departments, and from
state or federal agencies
working locally. Requests
must support a specific
project or program; operating
costs are not funded.
Bikes Belong
http://www.peoplefor
bikes.org/pages/com
munity-grants
Continuous Bikes Belong None $10,000 Non -profit organizations and
public agencies. Grants may be
used for facility
implementation and advocacy
efforts.
Maps
estes valley
master trails plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Estes Valley is blessed with a myriad of organizations and agencies that manage many miles of trails that
traverse some of the most beautiful landscapes in the Rocky Mountains. In addition to the 355 miles of trails
in Rocky Mountain National Park, numerous local and federal agencies administer and maintain their own trail
networks, including EVRPD, the Town of Estes Park, YMCA of the Rockies, the US Forest Service, the US Bureau
of Reclamation, and Larimer and Boulder Counties. These trails are governed by different rules and maintained
to different standards. In many places, trails exist in close proximity to one another, but lack connectors.
Signage, such as it is, refers to the rules and distances within each trail system. A Master Trails Plan for the
Estes Valley will begin the process of knitting these disparate trails systems together to create a consistent,
cohesive and connected regional system of trails in the valley.
A cornerstone of this Estes Valley Master Trails Plan is bringing together all the partners working on trails in
the valley to ensure efficient connectivity and reduce duplication of effort. This plan also builds upon the vast
potential of the EVRPD’s already successful trails network to provide a range of trail experiences for diverse
user groups, as well as to connect users to the natural landscape while respecting the resources that make the
valley so special.
The development of this plan is supported by a planning grant from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) and
technical assistance from the National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA)
Program.
MASTER PLAN
The overall vision of the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan was to develop an integrated, connected trail network
for a diverse number of users. Key components of a trails network need to include:
• Accessibility (parking, signage)
• Diversity (surfaces, ability, user group)
• Sustainability (long-lasting trail network, minimal maintenance)
• Connectivity (to Town, to RMNP, to USFS lands, to other trails, to neighborhoods, to hotels/YMCA)
• Safety (decrease high risk zone and recommend treatments)
The Estes Valley Trails Plan includes 47 Future Opportunity projects that incorporate these key components.
Future Opportunity projects are graphically depicted on the Trails Plan figures below and described in detail in
the full plan document. These projects are the result of the issues and opportunities raised during the citizen
outreach events, the community survey and by stakeholders and partners.
Existing Trails and Paths
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Existing Conditions
EVPRD District
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
Boulder County
Boulder County Open Space
Legend
Points of Interest
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
36
36
34
34
66
7
MARYS
LAKE
GRAND
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
LONG
D
R
A
W
R
E
S
E
R
V
OI
R
PIN
EWOOD
R
E
S
E
R
VO
I
R
Beaver
Meadows
Upper Beaver
Meadows
Deer Mountain/
Deer Ridge
Moraine Park
Fern Lake
Bierstadt Lake
Cub Lake
Hallowell Park
Bear Lake
Lumpy Ridge
Cow Creek
Dunraven
Dunraven
Corral Creek
La Poudre Pass
Chapin Pass
Rock Cut
Ute Crossing
Beaver Ponds
Cache La PoudreCrater
Milner Pass
Fall River
East Portal
Sprague Lake
Glacier Gorge
East Inlet
Tonahutu
North Inlet
Fish Creek
Homer Rouse
Lily Mountain
Wild Basin
Lily Lake
Twin Sisters
Longs Peak
Sandbeach Lake
Finch Lake Bright
Bright Extension
Coulson Gulch
EVRPD BOUNDARY
EVRPD BOUNDARY
LARIMER COUNTY
BOULDER COUNTY
GRA
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Prospect
Mountain
Crosier
Mountain
Hermit
Park
Open
Space
Blue
Mountain
Bison
Ranch
Johnny Park
Homestead
Meadows
Lyons
Drake
Pinewood
Springs
Estes Park
Glen Haven
Hall Ranch
Open Space
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
COMANCHE
PEAK
WILDERNESS
NEOTA
WILDERNESS
ARAPAHO
&
ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL
FORESTS
BU
T
T
O
N
R
O
C
K
RE
S
E
R
V
O
I
R
0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750
Feet
Legend
Parking
Town Hall
School
Existing Trails and Paths
Points of Interest
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Existing Conditions
Estes Park Area
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
36
36
34
34
7
66
Prospect
Mountain
Hermit
Park
Open
Space
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
MARYS
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
Beaver
Meadows
Moraine Park
Lumpy Ridge
Fall River
East Portal
Fish Creek
Fish Creek Trail
Little Valley USFS
Access to Pierson Park
BIG
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
DEVILS
G
U
L
C
H
R
D
DRY GULCH RDW W
O
N
D
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
MORAI
NE
A
VE
S ST VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDElementary, Middle
and High Schools
Fairgrounds
Town Hall and Library
Visitors Center
0 270 540 810 1,080135
Feet
Existing Routes
Existing Path - Soft Surface
Existing Multi-Use Path
Existing Riverwalk
ÊÊ ÊÊ ÊÊ ÊÊ ÊÊ Topography Challenge
Lake Estes Trail
Conservation Easement
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Existing Conditions
Downtown Core
North
Legend
Parking
Points of Interest
Land Use
Parks and Open SpaceBIG THO
MPS
O
N
AVE
BIG THO
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
E ELKHORN AVE
BIG HORN DR
COURTNEY LN
MORAINE AVE
RIVER
SI
D
E
D
R
MOCCASIN CIRCLE D
R
CRAGS DR
M
O
C
C
A
S
I
N
CI
R
C
L
E
D
R
STANLEY CIR
C
L
E
D
R
PROSPECT AVE
COMANCHE ST 4TH STDUNRAVEN ST
HIGH ST
PONDE
R
O
S
A
D
R
STA
N
L
E
Y
A
V
ESTANLEY AVEST
A
N
L
E
Y
C
I
R
C
L
E
D
R
PARKVIEW LNVIRGINIA AVEMACGREGOR AVE
W WONDERVIEW AVE
E WONDERVIEW
A
V
E
N ST VRAI
N
A
V
E
N ST VRAIN
A
V
E
S
S
T
V
R
A
IN
A
V
E
Town Hall and Library
Knoll - Willows
Open Space
Visitors Center
Golf Course
LAKE ESTES
Lake Estes Trail
Legend
Parking
Existing Trails and Paths
Points of Interest
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Existing Conditions
Northeastern District
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
36
36
34
34
66
7
MARYS
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
PIN
EWOOD
R
E
S
E
R
VO
I
R
Beaver
Meadows
Upper
Beaver
Meadows
Moraine Park
Cow Creek
Dunraven
Dunraven
Lumpy Ridge
Fall River
EVRPD BOUNDARY
Fish Creek Trail
BIG
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
W W
O
N
D
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
MORAI
NE
A
VE
BEAR LAKE R
O
A
D
S ST VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDN
S
T
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
POLE HILL RO
A
D
DEVILS
G
U
L
C
H
R
D
DRY GULCH RDLake Estes Trail
Panorama 4WD Road
West Creek Trail
Prospect
Mountain
Hermit
Park Open
Space Blue Mountain
Bison Ranch
Crosier
Mountain
Drake
Estes Park
Glen Haven
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
COMANCHE
PEAK
WILDERNESS
ARAPAHO
&
ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL
FORESTS
Existing Trails and Paths
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Existing Conditions
Southeastern District
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
Boulder County
Boulder County Open Space
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
Legend
Parking
Points of Interest
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
36
36
34 34
66
7
MARYS
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
PIN
EWOOD
R
E
S
E
R
VO
I
R
Beaver
Meadows
Upper
Beaver
Meadows
Moraine Park
Lumpy Ridge
East Portal Fish Creek
Homer Rouse
Homer Rouse TrailLily Mountain
Wild Basin
Lily Lake
Twin Sisters
Longs Peak
Sandbeach Lake
Finch Lake Bright
Bright Extension
Coulson Gulch
EVRPD BOUNDARY
LARIMER COUNTY
BOULDER COUNTY
Fish Creek Trail
BIG
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
BIG ELK MEADOWS ROADHEL
L
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
O
A
D
MORAI
NE
A
VE
BEAR LAKE ROADS ST VRAIN AVEN ST
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
POLE HI
L
L
R
O
A
D
Lake Estes Trail
Panorama 4WD Road
Tahosa Valley Trail
Lion Gulch TrailPierson Park Trail
Prospect
Mountain
Hermit
Park Open
Space
Blue
Mountain
Bison
Ranch
Johnny Park
Homestead
Meadows
Lyons
Pinewood
Springs
Estes Park
Hall Ranch
Open Space
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
ARAPAHO
&
ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL
FORESTS
BU
T
T
O
N
R
O
C
K
RE
S
E
R
V
O
I
RDRY GULCH RD
0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750
Feet
Legend
Parking
Town Hall
School
Future Soft Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Soft / Paved Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Paved Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Trail Corridor Opportunities
Existing Trails and Paths
Future Trail Opportunities
Points of Interest
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Future Trail Opportunities
Estes Park Area
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
36
36
34
34
7
66
Explore connection
between Estes Park
and Rocky Mountain
National Park
Explore connection
between Estes Park
and Hermit Park
Open Space
Explore connection
between Spur 66 and
Rocky Mountain
National Park
Explore connection
between Marys Lake and
YMCA
Explore bridge
connection
na1
na4
na33
na13
na13
na14
na14
na6
na25
na36
na23
na15
na15
na15
na15
na16na46
na47
na7
na35
na10
na24
na20
na27
na8na12
na12
na13
na19
na9na11
na12 na8
na8.5
na2
na2
na28
na8
na26 na18
na34
na17
na38
na38
na9
na15
na44
na15
na5
Prospect
Mountain
Hermit
Park
Open
Space
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
MARYS
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
Beaver
Meadows
Moraine Park
Lumpy Ridge
Fall River
East Portal
Fish Creek
Fish Creek Trail
Little Valley USFS
Access to Pierson Park
BIG
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
DEVILS
G
U
L
C
H
R
D
DRY GULCH RDW W
O
N
D
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
MORAI
NE
A
VE
S ST VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDElementary, Middle
and High Schools
Fairgrounds
Town Hall and Library
Visitors Center
0 270 540 810 1,080135
Feet
kj Proposed Bridges in Conjunction
with Flood Mitigation
Potential Routes in Downtown Core
Existing Routes
Existing Path - Soft Surface
Multi-Use Path Requiring Further Study
On-Street Option Requiring Further Study
Recommended On-Street Bike Option
Existing Multi-Use Path
Existing Riverwalk
ÊÊ ÊÊ ÊÊ ÊÊ ÊÊ Topography Challenge
Future Trail Corridor Opportunities
Lake Estes Trail
Conservation Easement
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Future Trail Opportunities
Downtown Core
North
Legend
Parking
Points of Interest
Land Use
Parks and Open SpaceBIG THO
MPS
O
N
AVE
BIG THO
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
E ELKHORN AVE
BIG HORN DR
COURTNEY LN
MORAINE AVE
RIVER
SI
D
E
D
R
MOCCASIN CIRCLE D
R
CRAGS DR
M
O
C
C
A
S
I
N
CI
R
C
L
E
D
R
STANLEY CIR
C
L
E
D
R
PROSPECT AVE
COMANCHE ST 4TH STDUNRAVEN ST
HIGH ST
PONDE
R
O
S
A
D
R
STA
N
L
E
Y
A
V
ESTANLEY AVEST
A
N
L
E
Y
C
I
R
C
L
E
D
R
PARKVIEW LNVIRGINIA AVEMACGREGOR AVE
W WONDERVIEW AVE
E WONDERVIEW
A
V
E
N ST VRAI
N
A
V
E
N ST VRAIN
A
V
E
S
S
T
V
R
A
IN
A
V
E
Town Hall and Library
Knoll - Willows
Open Space
Visitors Center
Golf Course
LAKE ESTES
Lake Estes Trail
na1
na4
na33
na13
na13
na6
na25
na8na12
na12
na19
na9
na12
na8
na8
Legend
Parking
Future Trail Corridor Opportunities
Existing Trails and Paths
Future Trail Opportunities
Points of Interest
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Future Trail Opportunities
Northeastern District
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
Future Soft Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Soft / Paved Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Paved Surface Trail Opportunities
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
36
36
34
34
66
7
MARYS
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
PIN
EWOOD
R
E
S
E
R
VO
I
R
Beaver
Meadows
Upper
Beaver
Meadows
Moraine Park
Cow Creek
Dunraven
Dunraven
Lumpy Ridge
Fall River
EVRPD BOUNDARY
Fish Creek Trail
BIG
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
W W
O
N
D
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
MORAI
NE
A
VE
BEAR LAKE R
O
A
D
S ST VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDN
S
T
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
POLE HILL RO
A
D
DEVILS
G
U
L
C
H
R
D
DRY GULCH RDLake Estes Trail
Panorama 4WD Road
West Creek Trail
Prospect
Mountain
Hermit
Park Open
Space Blue Mountain
Bison Ranch
Crosier
Mountain
Drake
Estes Park
Glen Haven
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
COMANCHE
PEAK
WILDERNESS
ARAPAHO
&
ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL
FORESTS
Explore connection
between Estes Park
and Rocky
Mountain National
Park
Explore connection
opportunities
Explore
connection
between Estes
Park and Hermit
Park Open Space
Explore connection
between Spur 66 and
Rocky Mountain
National Park
na1
na4
na33na13
na13
na14
na14
na6
na25
na36
na23
na15
na15
na15
na16
na47
na7
na35
na10
na20
na27
na8na12
na19
na9
na11
na2 na28
na26
na18
na17
na38
na45
na29 na37
na9
na44
na15
na39
na8.5
Future Trail Corridor Opportunities
Existing Trails and Paths
Future Trail Opportunities
EVRPD
NPS
USFS
Larimer County
Other
Town Sidewalk
Land Use
YMCA of the Rockies
Conservation Easement
Parks and Open Space
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
USDA Forest Service
Town Boundary
Estes Valley Trails Plan
Future Trail Opportunities
Southeastern District
North
Larimer County Parks and Open Space
Boulder County
Boulder County Open Space
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
Future Soft Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Soft / Paved Surface Trail Opportunities
Future Paved Surface Trail Opportunities
Legend
Parking
Points of Interest
!@ NPS Visitor Center
!C NPS Trailhead
!C USFS Trailhead
!C EVRPD Trailhead
36
36
34 34
66
7
MARYS
LAKE
LAKE ESTES
PIN
EWOOD
R
E
S
E
R
VO
I
R
Beaver
Meadows
Upper
Beaver
Meadows
Moraine Park
Lumpy Ridge
East Portal Fish Creek
Homer Rouse
Homer Rouse TrailLily Mountain
Wild Basin
Lily Lake
Twin Sisters
Longs Peak
Sandbeach Lake
Finch Lake Bright
Bright Extension
Coulson Gulch
EVRPD BOUNDARY
LARIMER COUNTY
BOULDER COUNTY
Fish Creek Trail
BIG
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
BIG ELK MEADOWS ROADHEL
L
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
O
A
D
MORAI
NE
A
VE
BEAR LAKE ROADS ST VRAIN AVEN ST
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
POLE HI
L
L
R
O
A
D
Lake Estes Trail
Panorama 4WD Road
Tahosa Valley Trail
Lion Gulch TrailPierson Park Trail
Prospect
Mountain
Hermit
Park Open
Space
Blue
Mountain
Bison
Ranch
Johnny Park
Homestead
Meadows
Lyons
Pinewood
Springs
Estes Park
Hall Ranch
Open Space
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL
PARK
ARAPAHO
&
ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL
FORESTS
BU
T
T
O
N
R
O
C
K
RE
S
E
R
V
O
I
RDRY GULCH RDExplore connection
between Estes Park
and Rocky
Mountain National
Park
Explore connection
between Marys
Lake and YMCA
Explore
connection
between Estes
Park and Hermit
Park Open SpaceExplore connection
between Spur 66 and
Rocky Mountain
National Park
Explore bridge
connection
na1
na4
na33na13
na13
na14
na14
na6 na25
na36
na23
na15
na15
na16
na46
na47
na7
na35
na10
na24 na20
na27
na8na12
na19
na9
na11
na2
na2
na28
na26
na18
na17
na38
na9
na15
na44
na15
na5
na31
na3 na30
na41
na42
na43 na32
na39
na35
na32
na8.5