CPW non-motorized trail grant program

[Oak]

I've known about the non-motorized trail grant program for years, but I feel a little silly admitting that I never knew that grant consideration is an open process with a public comment period. I thought that the public wasn't involved until the recommendations went to the Commission for approval. I'm guessing that the mountain bike community has been eating our lunch (as usual) in the comments department.

You can learn all about the program at the link above. At the very bottom of the page are the grant proposals under consideration this year. There are 17 construction applications, 15 maintenance applications, 12 planning/support applications, and 5 LWCF applications (different funding mechanism and requirements). There is a public comment period that ends this Friday.

I have not had time to look through this at all since it was brought to my attention last Thursday, but wanted to get it out there for folks to look, learn, and comment if so compelled.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks, Oak!

Summer recreation has an massive impact on elk & deer herds as well as a host of other wildlife species.

Hunters often times give up motorized means of transport to get better security habitat to keep critters on public land, but we do not approach hiking, mountain biking or other recreational pursuits through that same lends of providing a good place for wildlife to exist.

I hope Coloradans grab this stuff and comment!

 

[MtnElk]

Good lord, just saw they are trying to add 32 more miles of trails at 18 road in Fruita. Makes me wonder what other insane plans are in here. Thanks for sharing @Oak

 

[TOGIE]

so, these are grants administered by the commission to anyone applying, via funding from cpw itself, GOCO, lotto (though i thought goco basically just was lotto funds?), and RTP? is that essentially correct?

this is a great starting place Oak. thanks for putting this on my radar.

i wanna start keeping my ear to the ground on local initiatives too. e.g. initiatives being put before county commissioners and municipal boards regarding trail initiatives that might not be captured in the grants.

 

[TOGIE]

i was looking around trying to get a handle on how many miles of mountain bike legal trails exist in the state of colorado this morning. this is the best i could find with relatively quick searching but it's a bit dated and i don't trust it captures the reality regardless.

@wllm willing to do some pro bono spatial analysis on total mileage of mtb legal trails in colorado?

IT wouldn't let me have arcmap on my compy because i'm not special enough

 

[Oak]

I never supported combining the state parks and wildlife departments. Not because I was concerned about comingled funds (it's a non-issue), but because of the conflicting missions of the two departments. Prior to the merger, the departments had separate commissions. The wildlife commission met 12 times a year. Now we have a combined, watered down commission that meets publicly 8-9 time a year and must accomplish the work of the two former commissions within the same timeframe. Meetings are hurried, public comment minimized, and important issues like this are not well-vetted (is that redundant?).

The most important outcome that I think the majority of leadership pushing, promoting, and approving new trails don't realize is that every new mile of trail approved is a concession to having less wildlife in in the state. There's no mitigation, there's no BMP that will help, there's no such thing as no impact. It couldn't be more unequivocal. If you choose to approve a new trail, you choose to approve having lower abundance and diversity of wildlife in the state.

 

[Oak]

The most concerning two projects to me on the list are the Virginia Canyon Mountain Park project, in bighorn sheep winter range at Idaho Springs; and the Baker's Park project, which is 30 miles of trail near Silverton, in elk production areas. How is elk production in SW Colorado again? Unfortunately, the Virginia Canyon project is phase 2 of a project that was funded in 2021. And the Baker's Park project went through the EA process and is approved by the BLM. Construction is already in progress.

One project deserves your support, and that is the Mapping Trails with LIDAR Data project submitted by BHA.

 

[nrpate05]

I wonder where the trail development ends, or if it does at all. As a former CO resident, it just seemed that there were networks everywhere. I am a mountain biker and have fun doing so, but can't get on board with the sentiment of a lot of the community. When I talk to big mountain bikers, they love what Colorado has, but note that everywhere is too crowded and there needs to be more places like 18 road in Fruita. I'll likely never go back to that place because of the disaster it has become. Adding more miles of trails won't alleviate crowding or make the experience better.

Also, do these grants include any funding for enforcement? There is rampant illegal trail building and closure violations, but the state and FS don't always have the bandwith to enforce the laws. CO has to get a grip on the trails it already has before cranking out more developments. I think surrounding states have to take notice as well.

 

[TOGIE]

all those little mountain towns will blow away in the western economic winds if they don't get more trails on their nearby winter range to support economic activity.

wait, i thought if the outfitters didn't get all the tags the towns would blow away in the economic winds?

i can't keep up anymore

 

[COEngineer]

The CO Chapter of BHA has been quite heavily involved in this process. A CO BHA board member and the state coordinator participated in the writing of the Planning Trails With Wildlife in Mind Guide. Members have also attended the State Recreational Trails Committee meetings and submitted comments online. CO BHA has been pushing for more funding to go to Maintenance (vs New Construction) projects; encouraging the committee to put some teeth in the wildlife/habitat mitigation and require the above guide be used (previously, wildlife/habitat was just a check-box, that yep, they submitted the plan to CPW); and this year submitted the proposal to do some LIDAR mapping, as Oak mentioned. Your support of that proposal would be appreciated: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/Grants/NonMotorized/2023-App-Submissions/05_SW_Mapping-Trails-with-LIDAR_combined.pdf, but comments against new trail construction in sensitive habitat is just as important.

 

[WYelker]

Good luck. I have spoken out several times in this area on different projects. Crickets and no one is concerned at all as they assume that since it is non motorized it means the wildlife will be fine…

It is sad, in WY they are just getting on the Mountain Bike bandwagon. I am concerned that we are heading down the same path with massive trail systems and miles and miles if wilderness developed…

 

[WYelker]

I will say this. There are areas where a well thought out trail system has minimal impact on wildlife. For example the trail system to the NE of Rifle. The problem is that will never be enough. They will want to expand it as soon as possible and into areas where wildlife are a concern.

 

[TOGIE]

hell, if we could work up a deal where starting today no new mtb trails for the rest of history including stopping and removing ones in progress in exchange for human powered bikes on existing trails in Wilderness i'd seriously consider it.

 

[COEngineer]

hell, if we could work up a deal where starting today no new mtb trails for the rest of history including stopping and removing ones in progress in exchange for human powered bikes on existing trails in Wilderness i'd seriously consider it.

We can do that...in FairyTaleLand.

 

[TOGIE]

We can do that...in FairyTaleLand.

really it's a way of making my point.

i've often felt that no bikes in Wilderness was the ultimate hill to die on with the mtb crowd. but when you step back and consider what's going on with trail expansion and wildlife/habitat loss elsewhere i almost couldn't care about it anymore in comparison.

 

[Zach]

Isn't the esteemed Governor excited about opening up all kinds of new trails....

 

[Phaseolus]

Good lord, just saw they are trying to add 32 more miles of trails at 18 road in Fruita. Makes me wonder what other insane plans are in here. Thanks for sharing @Oak

18 road is an appropriate place for trails. The North Fruita Desert is not elk or deer habitat. The higher areas, like Sarlacc and The Edge Trail, have seasonal wildlife closures.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Isn't the esteemed Governor excited about opening up all kinds of new trails....

New trails!!! New wolves!!! Gotta love Supreme Leader Polis.

 

[CycleFishHunt]

CPW seeks Colorado Recreational Trails Committee Representative from Congressional District 6

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is requesting applications for an opening on the Colorado Recreational Trails Committee. The committee advises the Parks and Wildlife Commission and CPW on matters pertaining to trails, their use, extent, location, and funding. Members of the committee review, score, and rank grant applications to formulate funding recommendations for State Trail grant programs.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

I assume you know this if you live there, but this is Jason Crow's district.

 

[elkduds]

I've known about the non-motorized trail grant program for years, but I feel a little silly admitting that I never knew that grant consideration is an open process with a public comment period. I thought that the public wasn't involved until the recommendations went to the Commission for approval. I'm guessing that the mountain bike community has been eating our lunch (as usual) in the comments department.

You can learn all about the program at the link above. At the very bottom of the page are the grant proposals under consideration this year. There are 17 construction applications, 15 maintenance applications, 12 planning/support applications, and 5 LWCF applications (different funding mechanism and requirements). There is a public comment period that ends this Friday.

I have not had time to look through this at all since it was brought to my attention last Thursday, but wanted to get it out there for folks to look, learn, and comment if so compelled.

Bumping this thread with consideration of @Big Fin 's thread about 'non-consumptive' user impacts on elk.