Trail planning for the eighties and beyond

Material Information

Trail planning for the eighties and beyond a generalized approach to implementing urban trails plan
VanMeter, Kari K
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
ii, 65, [19] leaves : ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Trails -- Planning ( lcsh )
Trails -- Planning -- Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Trails -- Planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-67).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
General Note:
Accompanied by abstract, bound separately.
Statement of Responsibility:
Kari K. VanMeter.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
15515766 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1986 .V36 ( lcc )

Full Text

August 1986^

A Generalized Approach to Implementing Urban Trails Pi-
ls Plans
part of requirements for PCD 790 College of Design & Planning iversity of Colorado at Denver
1. 1986
Date Due
r.m 1 ft >

. ... 1
1 _J

"If our morning visits to Starbuck's Neck could be separated by miles instead of hours, Graham and I would be travelers afar, so far that I cannot imagine the remoteness. yet we both remain securely in the territories of home, and always on foot, this last the very ideal of voyaging."
from Henry Beetle Hough, Soundings at Sea Level, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1980.

Thanks to the many who shared their time and expertise with me in the course of my research. They are numerous and wonderful.
Special thanks to Herbert H. Smith, Assistant Dean at the College of Design and Planning. His critical eye, motherly nagging and unflagging support have been a sustaining force in my higher education.
Also, thanks to my translator and typist, Gloria Byrd, who made logistics and production so easy to manage. And to Bill Parker, for his artistic contribution.

Why Bother to Plan for Trails?
If Trails Are Such a Good Idea,
Why Don't We Have One?
Let's Shed Some Light Here: What This Paper Will Do
An Analysis of Three Successfully Implemented Plans
A. The South Platte River Greenway: Dedication, Determination, and Publicity
B. The Boulder Creek Plan:
Innovative and Tried and True Planning Techniques
C. The Adams County Trails: A Trail System Still in the Making
Trail Corridor Acquisition
Organization and Leveraging Strategies
About Liability
Utilizing Information and Resources Reminders, Pointers and Advice

I chose the topic, "Trail Planning for '80s and Beyond" for two main reasons. Primarily, of course, is my own personal enthusiasm for trail-related activities. I suppose that one's impulse to follow a trail comes as naturally as one's instinct to follow life day to day. For me, the revelations and contours of a trail are a metaphor for the rhythm and patterns of life itself. I just can't resist seeing what's around the next bend.
Secondly, in my capacity as a professional planner, I have perceived and understood the public's desire for off-road or hike/ bike trails and am frustrated by the fact that even sophisticated community leaders often don't have information and resources which allows them to know how to begin implementation of trail plans. Many communities exhibit plenty of trail potential, but little direction for action.
One intent of this paper is to answer this need for information and guidelines for trail plan implementation in a condensed, readily-consumable format. All the major issues pertaining to trail planning, trail corridor acquisition, community organization and funding for trails are all inter-related and best answered as an integrated proposal. To my knowledge, there is no other readily available document within the state of Colorado addressing all these needs and issues in a single format.
My thesis proposition, therefore, is that hike/bike trails are a valuable community amenity. Their value lies in transportation, recreation, environmental control and a sense of place. Planning

for trails and implementation of plans is mandated by the public and should be done. Additionally, successful planning for trails can only be accomplished with the support and commitment of citizens, planners, leaders and legislators.
In pulling together a generalized implementation strategy for trail plans, I chose a methodology that used local resources, as well as provided the flexibility to present a range of options for each unique community or region desiring to establish a trail system. I have made a case study of three successful trails. I attempted to distill out or crystalize elements of success for each trail pertaining to the official status of the plan, the network of support for the implementation of the plan, methods of land acquisition, and general popularity of the plan. My own observations from the case studies, plus those from a variety of professional planners, engineers and administrators in the field of recreation, provide a basis for formulating a flexible, generalized approach to trail plan implementation.
As a last note, I would like to say that off-road trail systems are naturally suited to a multiplicity of uses and a broad spectrum of users. Each member in this family of trail users contributes a philosophy, expertise and approach to trail planning that is equally vital and important as any other use. In order to keep the scope of this paper within manageable limits, and because of the general popularity of the hike/bike urban trail, those other uses will not
be discussed.

There are as many reasons to plan for trails and establish community-wide trail systems as there are opportunities for the establishment of good serviceable trails. The American public has for years actively engaged in outdoor recreation for reasons ranging from fitness and health to just plain fun. Federal and state governments have responded to this public need for outdoor recreation by establishing legislation enabling and directing the planning and implementation of recreational trails. Additionally, in these recent times of escalating costs of land and transportation, offroad trail systems are becoming acknowledged as fiscally appropriate community amenities, as much for the provision of alternate modes of transportation as for recreational and open space values.
In 1968, the National Historic and Scenic Trails Act, Public Law 90-543 was enacted by the federal government. The purpose of this act is to allow government agencies to designate recreational trails which contain significant scenic and historic qualities that provide outdoor recreation opportunities close to large populations.1 These trails can and do exist on federal, state, local and private lands. The state of Colorado is host to a 770-mile segment of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. The federal government's involvement in the establishment of trails is a very fundamental acknowledgment of the public mandate and need for these trails.
In 1971 the Colorado State Trails Program began with the passage of the Recreational Trail System Act. This trails act authorizes the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to establish and

maintain trails, to encourage trail development by other agencies, and to assist those agencies in providing trails.2 In addition to this legislation the 1982 establishment of the Colorado Lottery provides a broad based financial support for local trail systems. Through the Colorado Lottery, the General Assembly annually appropriates approximately 10% of the net proceeds of the lottery to the State Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to be used for state parks, state recreation areas and recreational trails.5 Because of this basic legislative support, the state of Colorado has developed a State Trails Plan which is intended to assess trail needs and issues throughout the state, to coordinate local and regional trail planning efforts, and to establish policies and criteria to guide the implementation of the State Trails Program.4
There also exists a very broad based community mandate for recreational trails. The American public not only utilizes trails for straight-forward recreational purposes, but for health and fitness-related goals as well as a higher consciousness regarding alternative forms of transportation. Additionally, in recent years the public consciousness has been raised tremendously regarding the need for non-automotive modes of transportation due to the cost of gasoline and resultant environmental and air pollution damage. The 1981 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) survey indicates increasing rates of participation in a broad variety of trail-related activity from 1980. The SCORP survey, as well as numerous other local surveys, indicate the high rates at which Colorado residents engage in trail activities. Bicycling, hiking, and equestrian activity are trail user activities that are clearly on the rise5 (please see Appendix A).

While the public need for recreational trails has risen dramatically, the availability of public funding sources has decreased in recent years. Many commurvities are beginning to recognize that planning for trails and implementing these programs now is a fiscally responsible action for the community. Historically, the price of land tends to increase over time. Even despite economic down turns, as indexed in the cost of development, land prices are generally stable or increasing. This characteristic of land values, in combination with increasing development pressures on potential trail corridors, indicate that acquiring easements or rights-of-way on these corridors is cheaper today than it will be tomorrow.
Additionally, recent activity in liability insurance, as it relates to municipal insurance, creates some concern about publicly incurred liability of bicycles sharing inadequate facilities within street rights-of-way with automobiles. By establishing well-designed and effective off-road trail systems for commuter use, as well as recreational bicycle use, many of these liability issues can be minimized. Liability issues associated with hike/bike trail systems will be discussed in full in a later chapter.
The establishment of an effective community-wide trail system can be interpreted as capital investments in future quality of life. Communities.that can market themselves as boasting the amenity of an effective and aesthetically pleasing trail system make themselves much more attractive as home sites for corporations and families, which in turn bolster the local economy. This relation of urban

amenity and economic development of a community should be acknowledged by those communities considering trail systems. It can often be seen in the real estate section of .Sunday newspapers where developers of large residential developments tie in the accessibility of nearby trails as an attractive feature of their development.
It is clear the planning and implementation of public trails and bikeways should be a high priority for any community. The establishment of these local trail systems is in the community interest in relation to recreation, transportation and fiscal responsibility concerns. It is clear that the implementation of effective trails is an achievable goal for any community having the desire, commitment and determination to establish this vital element of public and private activity.

Given the strong public and legislative mandate for off-road recreational trail systems, it is disconcerting that not every community has a trail plan. Oftentimes, this is simply the case because cities and towns are faced with too many other budgeted priorities, for example, capital improvements to infrastructure systems, and lack of organized and committed support of the citizens. Clearly, trails cannot be established if there is not a formally recognized trail plan. The adoption of such a plan makes it official; it justifies budgeted expenditures, but also requires a strong and broad based community support and organized public input prior to its official adoption. A trail plan tied into a larger comprehensive land-use plan must be the primary building block for the development of a local trail system.
Many reasons for not implementing hike-bike trail plans relate to a basic lack of information. Many times smaller communities simply doesn't know where to start or how to begin a plan for a trail system. Many communities lack fundamental information relating to the organization and tapping of resources to get the trail systems on the ground. Other communities don't know how to manage a trail system even though they were able to plan for one. The focus of this paper will be on the organizing and tapping of resources for trail systems. The basic planning of trail systems and maintenance of existing systems are related but separate topics more suitably treated in full in separate papers.

Many times, also, communities have unanswered questions about liability relating to trail systems. In a litigation-crazed society, the spectre of large-scale liability suits and settlements is enough to make any City Council nervous. They wonder, how can our city obtain proper insurance coverage for our trail facilities and how much will it cost? Given escalating costs of insurance premiums, and the uncertainty of the year-to-year status of insurance policies, many communities understandably throw up their hands in despair of ever finding adequate coverage. By understanding what other towns and regions have done in terms of covering their trail systems with insurance, perhaps some answers can be found for those towns wanting to establish trails.

One goal of this paper is to highlight resources describing actual acquisition and funding methods. It is hoped that by pulling together a compendium of these resources and planning tools, communities will be able to pick and choose those resources and methodologies appropriate to their particular needs. Each community and each trail corridor is a unique presentation of land constraints, ownership patterns and needs, and land uses. Depending upon any combination of these elements, a community should be able to recognize what resources are available to them and which course of action is the most appropriate. It is hoped that the reader understands that the intent of this paper is not to painstakingly describe in detail each potential resource, land acquisition tool or funding methodology, as there now exist many excellent documents serving this function. Please refer to the bibliography for an accounting of these sources.
Again, the thesis of this paper is that the planning and implementation of public trails and bikeways is a high priority for communities, is in the community interest and is an achievable goal for any community, provided there is adequate community support. This paper will undertake the analysis of three successfully implemented trail plans and focus on why they are successful and what their inherent problems are in an attempt to draw out and pin down the common elements of implementation for these trails. Some of these elements will include a look at land uses and how rights-of-way, easements, or other acquisition of this land are leveraged.

Also considered will be innovative public-private ventures in the development of trail plans and the use of commonly accepted and new ideas in current and long-range planning tools.
Following the close look at these successful trails will be a comprehensive breakdown of the analysis into information and methodology. There are chapters devoted to land acquisition methods, organization of public support and leveraging of funding resources and public support, information and resources, and data relating to liability issues. A great deal of the emphasis is on recognizing strategic planning and organization methods for corraling public support and informational resources.
The final portion of this paper will be devoted to generalized implementation strategies and proven advice for communities considering starting a trail system. So much can be learned by others' previous experiences, but sadly, these practical experiences are rarely recorded in a readily consumable format. Hopefully, by analyzing existing systems, findings can be made that are applicable to most communities and situations.

Portions of the Boulder Creek Hike-Bike Trail in Boulder County, the Clear Creek and South Platte River trails in Adams County and the Platte River Greenway through Denver will be highlighted in this analysis. These examples were chosen because of the diversity of approach they demonstrate in working with strategic trail corridor planning and land acquisition problems. Also considered are the innovative approaches and precedence set in partnerships, ventures and use of planning tools in the establishment of these trail systems. The relative popularity and success of each trail system in addition to their inherent problems are also elements in the analysis of each trail system.
Each trail demonstrates the importance of being a high visibility and easily accessible project within a natural corridor or linkage to other trail systems. Each of these trails is along a major river or creek which underscores the strategic location of trails within readily available corridors. The high visibility and natural linkage of these trails is vital in terms of rewarding initial citizen effort and encouraging on-going commitment for continuing work. If an initial trail development effort enjoys broad community popularity, a strong precedent is set for implementing more far-reaching and sublime additions to the overall system.
The first example, the portion of the Platte River Greenway that runs through Denver, was selected because of the role played by committed individuals and groups in making the Platte River trail

a reality. This particular example underscores the need for tireless community support for trail systems. The Platte River Greenway is a forerunner of trail systems, and would not exist (and therefore serve as inspiration for new trails) were it not for a vision and the people who were determined (and organized) enough to make it happen. The Platte River Greenway is a story of public activation.
The second example, the Boulder Creek system, is a different story. Coming out of an already-activated and dedicated community, the Boulder Creek trail is becoming a reality through innovative use of traditional planning tools and public-private venture. Much of the Boulder Creek trail is the end result of the melding of needs and solutions of a private gravel operation, municipal flood control, transportation, and open space requirements, and an innovative private corporation dedicated to meeting public needs for open space preservation.
The third example, the Clear Creek and South Platte River trail system in Adams County was chosen because of the successful implementation of these trails despite an overwhelming lack of funds in this predominantly rural and industrial area. Adams County is a fine example of a committed few who did not let the apparent lack of money and public support preclude the development of a trail system.
Each of these examples have common elements: they are highly visible initial segments of larger systems; they make use of natural corridor linkages; they address multiple community needs (for flood control and recreation, among others); and are available for a multiplicity of users (roller skaters, skiers, water sport enthusiasts, and equestrians in addition to the more usual hikers,

bicyclists and joggers). Additionally, each system employs a comprehensive trail maintenance plan that emphasizes good design and o-going trail maintence. An in-depth analysis of each trail follows, which will allow us to flush out further elements of successful implementation.
A. The South Platte River Greenway; Dedication, Determination and
The devastating one-hundred year flood of June 16, 1965, provided the initial impetus for the redevelopment of the South Platte River Valley. In response to the flood, committees were formed and studies undertaken to determine the best means by which to control the South Platte River. Over the course of the years the Chatfield, Cherry Creek and Bear Creek dams and reservoirs were constructed to help prevent further flooding, but these efforts did little to address the productive redevelopment of valuable lands on either side of the river.
In a farsighted move recognizing the value of the river corridor, Denver Mayor Bill McNichols, in June, 1974, appointed a state senator, Joe Shoemaker, and eight other individuals to become the new Platte River Development Committee. The PRDC was to become a prototype organization. It was a public committee appointed for public purposes, yet was outside the city bureaucracy for maximum flexibility in operations. To further underscore his commitment to the redevelopment of the South Platte River corridor, Mayor McNichols and the City Council in 1974 appropriated 1.9 million dollars in revenue-sharing seed money and pledged the support of the entire city staff. Even before a proven program had been brought to fruition, the City Council

understood the importance of the city itself as being the primary funder of these projects in order to establish the absolute legitimacy of the program as well as encouraging the economic involvement of private groups and organizations.
For the next two years, the PRDC tapped federal,, state, local and private sources for a total of four million dollars. From the state of Colorado, the committee received contributions from the Conservation Trust Fund, the Centennial Bicentennial Commission, the State Parks Board, the State Trails Committee and the Araria Higher Education Board. From the federal government the committee received contributions from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Community Development Fund and the Highway Urban Systems Fund. The committee also received numerous contributions from the private sector which are not so easily quantified for much private effort came in the mixture of dollars, goods and personal effort. Some of the larger donations came from the Gates Foundation and the Boettcher Foundation.6
In 1976, the Platte River Development Committee realized that public sources of funding were becoming more scarce. The committee formed the Platte River Greenway Foundation in 1976 as a private, non-profit organization charged with the raising of money for the Platte River Greenway. In its first year the foundation raised over one million dollars in funds for trails. This same foundation is now an on-going effort and has become the primary source for the raising of money for the redevelopment of the Platte River Greenway, as well as the mobilization and organization of resources for the implementation of various plans up and down the river corridor. Today the

Platte River Greenway covers over a 40-mile stretch from Chatfield Reservoir to the south to the City of Brighton to the north.
The Platte River Development Committee began the purposeful reconstruction of the Platte River corridor with a vision but no comprehensive master plan for the redevelopment. The commitment of the mayor of Denver was PRDC's main line of authority.^ The committee organized citizen subcommittees up and down the 10-mile stretch of the river through town which made recommendations on alignments, connections and facilities for the portions of the river that cut through their neighborhoods. Additionally, the PRDC invited all city departments to participate in the development process, serving as a rather extended advisory group.
One of the critical elements of success for the Platte River Development Committee was the so-called "Shoemaker's Law" which made the following presumption about the line of authority permitting them to act as a fund-raising and organizing group: No authority is interpreted as all authority. Shoemaker's Law was applied primarily to the cleaning up of the channel bed and the water itself. The concept of Shoemaker's Law underscores the necessity for primary support groups for trail systems to have an unqualified belief in their charge, as well as the guts to assume authority.
The reconstruction and redevelopment of the river corridor was done under the guidance of the Denver Department of Public Works and the newly formed Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The Urban Drainage District is an independent form of local government established by state-enabling legislation. This enabling legislation allows the district to help communities and other entities with the

development of recreational and park facilities within major drainageways 9 in 1985, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District completed a master drainageway plan for the South Platte River addressing major issues such as flood control and maintenance, management of the corridor and recreation facilities for the entire 40-
mile stretch.
The South Platte River improvements never would have come to fruition had it not been for the firm commitment of the City Council and city staff, and the role played by Joe Shoemaker as a high-visibility, activist leader to initiate action. Shoemaker proved to be an effective fighter of negativism, and this is a crucial quality that must be possessed by any key trigger person when implementing trail plans.
Shoemaker is a consummate politician and realized that marketing completed demonstration projects was necessary to show what can be done with donated funds. He also realized that marketing is essential to fund raising from public, as well as private sources. The Platte River Greenway Foundation directors state: "Marketing is a critical aspect of any out-of-the-ordinary public works effort. To make this multimillion dollar project a priority, the public must understand and support it."H The foundation determined that marketing tools were to consist of extensive professional public information materials, including slide presentations, brochures, public events and the involvement of the local media. The resulting funds from this marketing effort were used to leverage easement and right-of-way acquisition for the trails.
The on-going work of the foundation is to continually upgrade and improve facilities along the river. The foundation makes extensive

use of citizen involvement within the Trails Subcommittee format to
make recommendations on exact alignment and necessary equipment and facilities. Additionally, these citizen subcommittees had extensive input in the review of the master plan developed by the Urban Drainage District. In terms of the actual construction of the trails, the foundation utilizes an old technique developed by highway builders, that is, to do it in fits and starts. This may also be known as the "Shoemaker Strategy." This strategy assumes that when segments of trail systems are put in place, there will be public pressure to make complete connections between these segments.
The organization of these resources and strategies have enabled
the foundation to transform the South Platte River corridor from a
blighted and polluted river into a major urban amenity. It is
estimated that in excess of people per year use the 10-mile
stretch of the South Platte River Greenway that runs through Denver. 12
The Platte River Development Committee and the Platte River Greenway Foundation have demonstrated that they are an effective way of working with municipal and subdistrict entities without directly becoming a part of the bureaucracy itself. The role of the key trigger person in this effort is very critical. Joe Shoemaker is an excellent example of a key trigger person in that he can tap resources directly. Being a state senator gives him the power to tap money, politics and public support in a direct way. This must be the main effort of any key person spearheading a trail implementation effort. Additionally, the PRDC demonstrates that it is necessary to have a diversity of people on the foundation and citizen subcommittees. The foundation and subcommittees must tap resources in business, cultural and educational groups.

Another key to success experienced by the PRDC was that they were not overwhelmed by too much professional planning of the river corridor. They were able to-maintain maximum flexibility through input from citizen subcommittees which were able to make direct recommendations for segments of the river most closely impacting their own neighborhoods. These citizen subcommittees were close to home, so to speak, and offered insight into the implementation process that professional planners may have overlooked. Perhaps a spinoff of this diversity of viewpoints is another key to success in the implementation of trail plans. The concept of a "family of users" is necessary in order to pull in as much broad base support from the community as possible. By designating trail uses suitable for not only joggers and bicyclists, but equestrians, river rafters and cross-country skiers as well, the base of support is considerably enhanced.
Another reason for the success of the South Platte River Greenway is that the committee and foundation at the outset understood the importance of playing up the cultural role of the river. The South Platte River had for years been a major confluence and transportation network going way back to early settlement days. The foundation was essential in playing out the importance of the cultural role of the river and eventually oversaw the location of the Children's Museum right on the South Platte River Greenway.
The South Platte River example is a long-term success story. From this we can learn that success requires a strong base of support from community leaders and the public. One way to elicit this base of community support is the ongoing demonstrated success and viable

beneficial use of the existing system segments. Also a continued strong public relations and fund-raising campaign are essential for the long-term success and lif>e of the trail system.
B. The Boulder Creek Plan; Innovative and Tried and True Planning
Recreational trails and open spaces associated with trails have long enjoyed a vast and well-rooted structure of community support in Boulder County. This is a relatively rare situation where there is in existence an already-activated public consciousness regarding open space and trail corridor issues. In fact, the first plan to envision preservation along Boulder streams was done by Frederick Law Olmstead in 1910. In 1967 the citizens of Boulder voted to create a one cent sales tax to fund open space acquisitions. This was known as the Open Space Program and specifically included trail corridors as a major consideration. In 1973, the Open Space Board of Trustees was appointed by City Council, whose job it was to guide and oversee the open space program. In 1978 the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was adopted which clearly delineates Boulder Creek as a major open space recreational flood plain and transportation corridor. It is plain the the citizens of Boulder have long been committed to open space and, consequently, trail issues and it was this highly valued open space and its acquisition which eventually brought about the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Master Plan.
Boulder Creek itself was earmarked for open space and flood plain management when local citizens lobbied strongly for action. This effort by the citizens was inspired by the catastrophic 1975 flood of the Big Thompson Canyon and the publicity surrounding the

South Platte River Greenway. The City Council was responsive to the citizen action and followed through with a heavy commitment for a plan for Boulder Creek. The Council directed approximately two million dollars toward the plan as budgeted for implementation of capital projects between 1984 and 1989. This two million dollar capital budget is supported through lottery money. As part of this firm commitment for establishing a Boulder Creek plan, city departments are heavily involved in the planning and implementation of any development through Boulder Creek. The primary city players in this arena are the Parks Department, the Open Space and Real Estate Department, Transportation Division and the Planning Department. At this time a plan specifically for open space, recreation and flood plain management along Boulder Creek has been completed. It is anticipated that there will be a five mile trail connecting five city parks, the downtown business district, as well as numerous campus and residential locations. The Boulder Creek plan strongly emphasizes off-street trail utilization, as well as flood control mitigation measures.
The Boulder Creek plan requires selective acquisition of property along the creek based on unique ecological properties, whether or not the parcel provides a trail linkage or point of access to an existing trail, the level of contribution of the parcel to flood hazard management and whether or not the parcel provides scenic amenity or a buffer area.14 Land acquisitions along Boulder Creek are leveraged by lottery money and the one cent sales tax program started in 1967, as well as some funding being provided through cash-in-lieu of land dedication requirements for land development. The trail itself, if located on publicly acquired land, is improved as

an item in the capital improvements budget. Oftentimes, the trail is required to be installed as per city standards as a public improvement through development on private land.
Open space and trail corridor acquisition are highly regulated through the Boulder municipal ordinance. The ordinance offers a few alternatives in method of acquisition for various parcels of land. For land designated as open space within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, land is most often acquired through fee simple purchase. Also, as mentioned earlier, land dedication is required as a part of the development review process. Additionally, some land has been acquired along floodway areas. This was managed through a special flood ordinance along Boulder Creek which required the city to purchase certain properties designated as flood sensitive. And, finally, the ordinance allows for acceptance of cash-in-lieu of land dedications for those new developments not within designated open space or trail corridor areas.
In the late 1970s, the Flatiron Industrial Park Company realized it would soon need to reclaim lands of a large gravel extraction operation along Boulder Creek as the excavation was entering its final phases. In late 1982, Flatiron contacted Colorado Open Lands to inquire about donating lands for open space purposes. Colorado Open Lands is a non-profit organization started in 1982. Their charge is to develop and implement innovative techniques to leverage limited resources of both public and private sectors to preserve valuable open lands in Colorado.1-5 Theirs is a pragmatic approach which balances both public and private interests. The Flatiron Company, after numerous other attempts to transfer the land with tax

exemptions, approached Colorado Open Lands as an avenue for that transfer. The intent of the arrangement was to transfer some now completely mined property in. the process of being closed out to ownership which will assure its reclamation as public park land. This required a unique three-way partnership between Flatiron, Colorado Open Lands and the City of Boulder founded on synergism in goals and the entrepreneurial spirit of managing and taking risks for gain. In this case the issues centered on transportation, flood management, trail connections and open space buffer connections.
In 1983, Colorado Open Lands crafted an acceptable agreement and Flatiron began the transfer of land. The arrangement is as follows:
The Flatiron Company makes unreclaimed land gifts to Colorado Open Lands over the next two years; the land is established at a fair market value of 3.4 million dollars; the Flatiron Company is then able to take the entire donation as a tax writeoff. Colorado Open Lands has negotiated the sale of these Flatiron parcels for a bargain sale price to the City. This negotiation allowed the City to pay only 20% of the fair market value which enables the City to save approximately 2.7 million dollars in the acquisition of these lands.
This most innovative public-private partnership has yielded a classic win-win situation. The City has acquired valuable open space designated lands at substantial savings. The Flatiron Company gets a tax benefit of full market value of land plus great publicity, and, finally, Colorado Open Lands gets the revenues from the sale of the donated properties to the City of Boulder. The City and other coordinating entities now own 95% of the Boulder Creek corridor.

The secret of creative leveraging is best expressed by Martin Zeller and Donald Walker of Colorado Open Lands. They say, "Many of the techniques available for preservation purposes have been around a long time. The key to their successful utilization in land preservation is the manner in which they are packaged."^
The preservation and establishment of a trail corridor along Boulder Creek has yielded some important findings; primarily, having a well-founded and broadly-supported acquisition and implementation plan is crucial to success. As stated in the beginning, the City of Boulder demonstrated an already activated public consciousness addressing trail corridor issues. The plans that have given the City the authority to plan for, acquire and implement trail systems are a result of that long-standing and well-structured community support for open space and trail issues. Similarly, municipal ordinance addressing acquisition of trail corridors cannot happen without firm public support for strict development regulations and a consuming staff involvement in the carrying out of that ordinance.
The Boulder Creek experience also tells us that opportunities to preserve and acquire open space corridors can vary in complexity and consistency and sometimes a flexible and innovative spirit is necessary in approaching these situations. The combination of resources and talents to address a multiplicity of goals and uses is the key.

The Adams County Trails: A Trail System Still in the Making
Adams County is characterized by open countryside and wide flood plain. It is a distinctly different character than other urban trail systems further south. The Adams County trails are still a system in the making. It includes a 2.2 mile stretch along Clear Creek into Jefferson County, as well as a portion of trail along the South Platte River that ties into the overall South Platte River Greenway. In Adams County the trail systems have not become a budding reality so much because of pressure of floodway control or recreational opportunities, although both of these reasons certainly played a large part in the establishment of the overall trail system. Rather, it was the determined commitment of a few key individuals that laid the groundwork for this new and already successful trail system.
Adams County and the cities contained therein were participants in the implementation of the South Platte River Urban Drainage Master Plan adopted in 1985. This master plan addressed the redevelopment and maintenance of a 40-mile stretch of the South Platte River Corridor from Chatfield Reservoir north to Brighton. The major emphasis of the Urban Drainage Master Plan is on flood control and maintenance and recreation. Its intent is to optimize recreation potential to increase land values, social harmony and health.In addition to this multi jurisdictional, multi-intentioned plan, the Adams County Comprehensive Master Plan is being updated at this time to include a trail corridor, parks and open space element. The inclusion of trail corridor and open space designation within the master plan is a vital underpinning in its success for implementation.

Perhaps a unique feature of the Adams County trails or, as they are also known, the Adams County Greenway, is the existence of extensive gravel-mining uses -along Clear Creek and also, notably, the South Platte River. Such extensive gravel mining offers abundant opportunity for reclamation and river redevelopment along those corridors. To this end, Adams County has developed a set of gravelmining criteria which are judged by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District to be an excellent example or model which guides the efficient extraction of gravel resources, as well as the ultimate reclamation of the land for flood control and recreational purposes. In this way the Adams County gravel pits are seen and utilized as a resource.1
There are two main coordinating forces behind the implementation of plans for Adams County trails. First is the Adams County Trail and Open Space Foundation appointed by the Adams County Commissioners in 1983. This foundation was created for the express purposes of raising money for the acquisition of right-of-way and maintenance of Adams County trails, as well as being available to the staff for consultation on trail corridor alignment and overall design. The second main coordinating force in the Adams County trails is the master plan done by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in 1985. This involved the intense coordination of 12 local government entities (each responsible for flood plain maintenance and channel maintenance) and 23 governmental boundaries in all. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District notes that there is an apparent need for centralizing and funding these responsibilities for local and sublocal entities.

The simultaneous coordination and full support of all of these entities is a complex and slippery task. The Adams County experience demonstrates that while all concerned may say that the establishment of trails is a good idea, unqualified support from those entities may be slow in coming. A case in point is the Adams County Commissioners who, although seeming to be outwardly supportive of trail goals, fell short of total commitment in the establishment of adequate funding for those efforts. After the Commissioners established the Adams County Trail and Open Space Foundation, they were supplied with funds from the general county revenues. When Colorado State Lottery money became available for counties and municipalities, the same Board of County Commissioners then cut the general revenue fund money for the foundation assuming that lottery money would meet all its needs. Although the Adams County trail effort has not stopped on account of this posture, the cutting of general revenue funds certainly was a factor in slowing progress. However, this did not deter the faithful.
Adams County trails are mostly acquired in one of two ways: first and most common is the acquisition of trail corridors through grants of easement from private land owners. Once again, State Senator, Joe Shoemaker, played a vital part in this acquisition program through the application of a corollary of Shoemaker's Law. The strategy was to get a temporary, one-year easement from the private land owner, build the trail, and then in such a way the private land owner would be in a difficult situation to deny a permanent easement when the initial one-year easement ran out. There

is a certain amount of risk associated with such a position on the trailmaker's part, although it has proven successful for Adams County.
Additionally, trail corridors are acquired through the required dedication of land for open space for all new development. Adams County standards indicate that 10% of all new residential development, and 2% of all new industrial and commercial development, are to dedicate to the county land within master planed, designated open space and trail corridors. If new development is not within designated open space and trail corridor areas, the developer may then pay a cash-in-lieu fee to the dedication of land. This cash-in-lieu money is then used to negotiate the acquisition of other corridor lands.
Crystal Gray is a landscape planner for the Parks and Recreation Department of Adams County. She has been, more than anyone else, the key trigger person for the implementation of Adams County trails. She stresses that what private land owners, especially along river corridors, have to realize is that time is of the essence. Valuable properties cannot be developed until flood control improvements are made. She indicates that trail easements are a part of this redevelopment package. This approach provides the private land owner, and in Adams County's case, gravel companies, an incentive to get their private lands out of the flood plain and, at the same time, make a contribution to the trail corridor system. Further advice from Crystal is to the point: get a professional to do delicate negotiations between the entity desiring land acquisition and private land owners. An objective, professional and steady approach is the only way to make progress in this difficult area. Such professional negotiators are not inclined to accept a private land owner's

responsive of "no" for an answer. They also understand that they may expect no easy deal.
In a region where the push for trails did not largely come from the county government's higher consciousness, it is common that departmental infighting and public lack of realization of the value of trail systems may be the biggest roadblock to the realization of those trails. Also, the Adams County experience underscores the vital role played by a key trigger individual with the untiring and committed support of a few well-placed individuals.
Most of the general findings we may infer from the Adams County experience are the most terse and practical of all the trail systems studies within the scope of this paper. Probably the foremost and most obvious finding is that those wishing to start trail systems must begin with realistic short-term goals. The establishment of short segments of successful trail provides a firm underpinning for the early establishment and lasting success of later segments of the trail system. Also, as stated earlier, those attempting to acquire rights-of-way and easements for trail corridors should expect no easy deal when negotiating with private land owners. A vital corollary to this finding is that the negotiator must get everything in writing when it comes to making easement agreements. This perhaps seems a bit obvious to the practiced bureaucrat, but is often overlooked because of its very simplicity.
The Adams County experience also tells us to look at local industry as an opportunity and not as a constraint. This is apparent in the inclusion of extensive gravel mining provisions within the Adams County Comprehensive Plan. The county has provided for complete

and efficient extraction of all gravel and mineral resources within the trail corridor, as well as provisions for its ultimate reclamation for flood control and recreation purposes. In order to accomplish these river corridor redevelopment goals, it is vital to have the support of the overall county comprehensive plan, as well as legal support for acquisition and redevelopment within the county ordinance, and, of course, the basis of this support must come from the local or county authority, namely the County Commissioners or City Council.
And, finally, perhaps as an offshoot of the first finding, that of setting realistic, short-term goals, is the understanding that those wishing to establish trail systems must continually make creative and sometimes risky decisions on where and when to initiate trail segments. Perhaps another corollary to Shoemaker's Law can be found in the Adams County practice of starting the trail in its initial phase wherever it is easiest. If this happens to be in the middle of the trail system, so be it. Once an initial successful segment is installed, there will be public pressure upon the local and regional government to finalize and connect the segment with the overall remaining system. In other words, sometimes you have to start from the middle and build outwards.
These three exemplary systems, the South Platte River Greenway through Denver, the Boulder Creek Project and the Adams County Greenway trails all have a number of elements in common: the use of natural corridor linkages, the involvement of interdisciplinary and intergovernmental entities, and a support structure for trails in governmental and private arenas. It is necessary for any municipality or region wishing to establish a trail system to realize that the

initial understanding and effective utilization of these elements is the ticket to getting a trail system underway.

Acquiring land for trail corridors is a complex process of understanding land characteristics, land uses and tools available to leverage that land for trail use. Knowing one's turf, so to speak, is the first step towards understanding how best to approach the acquisition issue.
Each land acquisition for trail corridors is different. The approach varies with the complexity of the deal in the way that the needs and conditions of the land owner and the acquiring entity are met. There is no typical acquisition scenario for any particular land use or levering tool used. Knowing one's turf means to understand the layout of land characteristics and land uses available to the acquiring entity so that it may better understand the appropriate planning or marketing tool to leverage that land for trail use.
"Natural" corridor linkages are most often used in making hike/ bike trails. Each natural corridor linkage comes with an array of opportunities and constraints. Some of the most common are outlined as follows:
1. Irrigation, Ditches, Drainaqeways and Water Courses. The positive reasons to utilize irrigation and drainageways as the location for trail corridors are numerous. These corridors are typically easily accessible from urban areas and many already have service roads and easements alongside the ditch or drainageway. Water course alignments offer valuable scenic settings for

recreational use, a quality that is appreciated by a multiplicity of users. Many water courses additionally offer an opportunity for flood plain management with a bonus of being able to improve the value of land by redeveloping the flood plan in which it sits.
On the other hand, there are a number of negative aspects or disincentives for the establishment of trail corridors along ditches and drainageways. The problems associated with the encountering of multiple land users and their variety and complexity of needs and demands is probably the foremost stumbling block for these natural linkages. Ditch companies themselves are understandably chronically short of operating capital and are not eager to enter into any situation or agreement whereby they may be held liable for safety, structure improvements or maintenance. Ditch companies are traditionally fiscally conservative and, although many are community-minded, they are reticent to find themselves in any situation where there may be additional financial outlay for them. This need must be met and addressed up front before any further planning of trails along ditch rights-of-way can be considered. Beyond the ditch company ownership of the ditch right-of-way itself are all the adjacent private land owners through which the ditch drainageway or water course flows. These private land owners have concerns similar to the ditch companies regarding liability improvements and maintenance of recreational facilities on or adjacent to their land. Beyond ownership constraints are design and development constraints peculiar to waterways. This includes the design and engineering of crossings, bridges, bank stabilization, etc. These design and development

constraints understandably increase funding needs for trails associated with waterways.
2. Utility Easements. .Again, the issue of multiple private ownership of and adjacent to existing utility easements must be addressed. Logically, it makes sense to locate recreational trail facilities where there is already provision made for the permanent clearance and maintenance of an easement corridor. However, in many cases it may be that the easement as it exists is not wide enough for the construction and later, maintenance, of a trail corridor. The common problem resulting from this is that the entity wishing to establish a trail must then negotiate additional easements from adjacent private land owners.
However, despite these drawbacks, existing utility easements are often an attractive linkage for trail systems. Many times they offer good alternate in-town transportation routes. Design and development constraints are minimized when intersections with streets and other public ways are on grade and can be more easily managed through traditional design and management techniques. And, finally, problems associated with the construction of trails within these easements are minimized. As with ditch rights-of-way, there may already be a maintenance road or service road associated with the particular utility easement.
3. Railroad Riqhts-of-Way. Although the utilization of in-use rights-of-way for trails is possible, it is ideal for the entity wishing to establish trails to acquire abandoned tracks and rights-of-way that have become more of a burden for the railroad companies. In many instances, railroad companies are more than willing to

negotiate the transfer of these abandoned rights-of-way. The Rails to Trails Conservancy in Washington, D. C. is one organization that provides assistance to communities wishing to convert abandoned railroad rights-of-way to public trails. There are a number of positive aspects associated with this adaptive reuse, among them being that the lineal configuration of the right-of-way lends itself to efficient and cost-effective trail implementation. Often, these rights-of-way are easily accessible and adaptable to very long trails. Because of the lineal configuration and most common on-grade design and location of railroad rights-of-way, construction problems associated with trail implementation can be minimized.
Negative aspects of the adaptive reuse of abandoned railroad rights-of-way are that these rights-of-way may not be very scenic in many cases. Traditionally, railroads have been aligned through less desirable corridors in terms of scenic values and often are found adjacent to rugged industrial areas. Fences are common which further decrease the scenic value of these particular corridors. Additionally, there is little integration of railroad rights-of-way with other facilities and common trails throughout the community.
4. Newly Developing Projects. The required dedication of land for trail corridor and open space needs within newly developing projects can be seen as a natural corridor linkage in that the most efficient and preferable alignments can be established as part of the primary design of the development. Creative pedestrian/bicycle trail alignments can become an integral part of any planned unit development. Also, these systems may be designed specifically to

cater to the particular needs of the new development and the immediate locale.
5. Existing Open Space-and Parks. There are no or few acquisition problems associated with the alignment of trail corridors through existing and developed open space and parks. Often, the entity, that is the county or city wishing to establish a trail system, is already in full ownership of these existing recreational areas. The trail uses themselves integrate well into overall park plans and are often valued as an amenity which provides increased vitality and enjoyment of the park itself. It may also be noted that the development of trail segments within existing parks can be tied into the funding resources for that park area. The utilization of the hike/bike trail for a segment of an exercise circuit, for example, may increase its funding possibilities through health-oriented grants and funding sources.
There are numerous publications and other resources which address the positive and negative aspects of acquiring land supporting specific land uses for the ultimate use as trail corridor. Most specifically among these is a report by Mary E. Brooks entitled Planning for Urban Trails, published by the Planners Advisory Service dated 1969. Municipalities and regions wishing to establish trail systems would do well to begin their homework with analyzing the pattern of land uses within their own community and familiarizing themselves with other communities' and regions' experience in dealing with the conversion of specific land uses to trail corridors. This basic homework will later provide a framework by which to make decisions on ultimate trail alignments.

Once the municipality's or region's land use and trail corridor alignment has been analyzed, it is time to consider what tools may be available for the leveraging of these lands for use as trail corridors. There are as many combinations of tools for leveraging trail land as there are trails. There is no typical setup. Each negotiation to leverage land for trail use varies with the complexity of the individual situation. Once again, the needs and conditions of the land owner, as well as the acquiring entity, are endless. Very complex needs and arrangements may be typified by the Boulder Creek project which required the delicate balancing of needs of three key entities. A simpler, but no less important approach, is demonstrated within the Adams County Greenway trails whereby land owners are approached to approach easements for trail systems and these negotiations are made between the county and the private land owner himself.
Generally, there are two kinds of tools utilized for the leveraging of land for trail use. First are those tools which derive from government control and land use regulation. These may also be referred to as legislative tools. Secondly, there are market-oriented tools which rely on the negotiation and compensation of the land owner for the transfer of land. By combining both kinds of tools, the legislative and market-oriented, with different support organizations and leveraging strategies, hybrid-type land acquisition is possible. A good example of this is the Boulder Creek project which involved Colorado Open Lands, as well as a private land owner, Flatiron Industries. This kind of innovative public/private venture, which meets the needs and demands of the public and private sectors, may be the wave of the future.

As stated earlier in the paper, this is not a painstaking description of each tool available for leveraging trail land. In keeping with one of the goals of this paper to put existing information in a consumable format. Communities and regions wishing to establish trails should understand that the success of their plan in some part must rest upon their research of resources applicable to their particular situation. The reports and documents provided by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, a division of the United States Department of the Interior, are valuable resources for any community or county. Again, it must be understood that there is no typical scenario for the acquisition of land for trail use. Each community must understand its particular pattern of land uses and available tools and proceed accordingly. It is fundamental that any community understand that land use regulation and other legislative controls are important in that they can be utilized as a policy level action that can be directly networked into the existing municipal or county ordinance. It is an immediate (as much as any bureaucracy can provide immediacy) addition to the entity's mode of operation. Additionally, open market-oriented tools may be used strategically for infill trail development; that is, to deal with existing scenarios and circumstances which lend themselves to negotiation and compensation of a private land owner.
Before outlining common and innovative tools available for trail and acquisition, a word about easements as an order. With the possible exception of the Boulder Creek project, easements are the most common conveyance of land for trail use. Easements can be purchased, donated or condemned by the government body. They can

be temporary or permanent. Easement agreements come in a range of specifics addressing uses, scenic values and conservation and preservation goals. Easements, in general, give a positive but limited right to do something on the land of another.
The flexibility of easement agreements to meet the needs of the land owner, as well as the acquiring entity, makes this a powerful tool for the leveraging of trail land. Harvey S. Moskowitz, in his book, The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, states that an easement is "a grant of one or more property rights by the property owner to and/or for the use by the public, a corporation or other entity."20 it is the negotiation of the granting of these property rights to another that is at the heart of the flexibility of this particular tool. As highlighted within the Adams County Greenway example, the strongest and most efficient use of this tool may be achieved by a knowledgable and experienced negotiator working for the acquisition of trail land.
As mentioned earlier, a fundamental basis for trail land acquisition is through government regulation or legislative means. These are most appropriately applied to newly developing or redeveloping areas within a trail corridor. The adoption of development and subdivision regulation may include the establishment of parks fees, required land dedication or cash-in-lieu, required public improvements in the form of trail construction and required easements for recreational and open space uses.
The adoption of zoning regulations is also fundamental and may include more innovative tools such as the transfer of development rights, flood plain zoning and ecology and conservation zoning for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

Eminent domain is a legislative power that is not commonly used for trail and acquisition and may be considered as, finally, a last resort. Eminent domain is "the power of government to acquire private property for public use for which the owner must receive just compensation21 Eminent domain is never a popular procedure on the part of any authorized government entity and is probably not commonly used because of its negative reflection on the trail system implementation itself. Because trail system implementation is based so much on wide-spread and positive community support, the long-term success of this approach is questionable.
Open market-oriented approaches to leveraging trail land are the most commonly used tools and most highly visible in the trail implementation process. Free market approaches are most appropriately used for infill situations, such as missing trail corridor segments which need to be acquired to complete or extend a system. One of the most obvious approaches, the fee simple purchase of the land itself, or an easement, may also be one of the most expensive approaches to take and for this reason may be often avoided by acquiring entities. A positive aspect of fee simple purchase is that when land is actually transferred to the new ownership of the municipality or county, the liability issues for the private land owner which sold the land become moot.
Other free market-oriented approaches include the direct donation or bargain sale of land the public entity for tax incentives for the private land owner. Both of these approaches were utilized as part of the Boulder Creek project in satisfying the needs of the key players. The use of tax incentives for the involvement of private

corporations is an innovative and complex approach to trail land acquisition and is treated in full by numerous documents and resources available to the public. Again, the Heritage Conservation Recreation Service is an invaluable source.
Other free market-oriented tools include the lease of the land or easement for trail use, purchase of the land and resale with conservation restrictions on it and the acquisition of tax-delinquent properties have all been utilized in combination with other tools with varying degrees of success by communities and regions having established trail systems.
Again, it must be stressed that each acquisition scenario is unique. Even within the same community differing land uses, differing land owners and differing land constraints all combine to create a new situation. By familiarizing themselves as much as possible with all available resources and techniques, the community wishing to establish trail systems will have a better inventory of tools to draw from. The innovative combination and recombination of acquisition tools and negotiating approaches is the answer to the continuing development of trail systems.

As demonstrated by the three trail system examples detailed earlier, no hike/bike trail system can be planned or implemented without the underlying support of the private community and public entity. Within the public sphere of support for trail systems, the two main mechanisms are inclusion of a trail and open space element within the overall city or county master land use plan, as well as provision for land acquisition within the municipal or county ordinance. Again, this may seem like a simple and obvious fact, but it is the fundamental cornerstone of any successful trail system. The experience of many planners has shown that while they may attempt to acquire future trail land dedication of new development, governing bodies such as city councils or county commissions are not anxious to require this of new development until it is backed by both the master plan and local ordinance.
Of course, the inclusion of a trail and open space element within a master land use plan and the incorporation of leveraging tools within the local ordinance cannot occur without a broad-based community support and further community activation by key trigger individuals and a spear-heading advisory committee. There are numerous players in any implementation plan for a trail system. In Colorado, there is a complex hierarchy of player roles and responsibility for activation that begins on the federal level,

proceeds through state and local responsibilities and includes the private individual as well.
The involvement of the -Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, a division of the United States Department of the Interior as a resource for trail implementation is important because this agency foresees its greatest role in coordinating federal agencies, facilitating information exchange and providing technical assistance in many areas of open space and recreational area acquisition and conservation. The HCRS is helpful in coordinating the participating roles and policies of regional branches of other federally-sponsored such as the Army Corps of Engineers.22
The Colorado state government and its agencies also play a vital role in the ultimate implementation of many trail plans. The Colorado General Assembly controls the funding and mandates under which all state and many local government agencies operate and defines the boundaries of their authority. A major responsibility of the General Assembly is funding for the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.23
Separate from legislated authority, but equally important, is the role of the general public in supporting efforts to establish trail systems. Unless the public can understand that urban trail systems are an integral urban amenity which can help facilitate overall economic development of the community, any plan for implementation has little chance of success. It is this supportive public which will provide key individuals who have the commitment and support and enthusiasm for trails to see the lengthy implementation process through. It is this supporting public which will also be called upon

to at times provide tax revenues. An example is the Boulder Creek project, as well as fundamental input on trail alignment and design in the South Platte River Greenway example that makes these trails viable.
Perhaps the most central role is that of the sponsoring city or county which provides the overall coordinating effort for trail implementation. Without the commitment of the city legislators and city staff, the authority for trail implementation within the auspices of the master plan and local ordinance will never come to fruition. It is also that the local sponsoring agency establish itself as a primary fund raiser for the trail system. It is most important that the city or county be perceived as the primary and most fundamental sponsor for the trail system in order to encourage the financial and political support of private individuals and organizations.
The role of the development community is also vital. Unless the development community recognizes its responsibility to provide urban amenity and to answer to the needs of its market for recreational and open space opportunities, the acquisition of land for trails will always be like pulling teeth. As stated earlier in the paper, many development companies have recognized that the association of their residential and business developments with an established trail system can be perceived as an amenity by the people who live and work within that development. For them this means trail systems can be a strong selling point for their own proposals.
The role of private, not-for-profit foundations is also central in many trail system plans. Foundations may be organized specifically to promote recreational programs where they may be concerned with

an issue which can be shown to be served by a trails project such as overall community development.24 The characteristic of private foundations that makes them so-helpful in the implementation of trail plans is that they are more well equipped than public agencies to compete in the complex and fast-paced arena of private real estate transaction. When this private flexibility is used in the public interest, higher levels of integration can be achieved between public and private needs regarding trails.
Beyond the many public and private groups and agencies that interact with the trail implementation process, there exists a central coordinating committee often shared by a key trigger individual who is the spark of much of the commitment and enthusiasm for trail systems. This is particularly clear in the case of the South Platte River Greenway where State Senator Joe Shoemaker provided much impetus for public and private action. Similarly, the landscape architect and parks planner for the Adams County Department of Recreation, Crystal Gray, provided similar direction and energy for the Adams County Greenway trails. Behind each key trigger individual is an advisory group of participating members of the community. It is most important in terms of the success of this committee for committed leaders to be tapped as a resource. It may be that these so-called pillars of the community do not have an overriding interest in the establishment of trails, per se, but their commitment and activation stems from a dedication to the betterment of their community. Often included as trail advisory committee members are established professionals from a wide variety of occupations, neighborhood activists and recreational enthusiasts. One bit of

advice handed down from many trail planners is to push for the inclusion of a attorney on the citizens advisory committee, not only to tap into their highly regarded community status, but also as an efficient and effective means of writing and evaluating and negotiating land acquisition deals.
Mr. Bob Searns of Urban Edges, Inc., has come up with another bit of advice from experience that makes some sense. He recognizes the importance of having established community leaders on the citizens advisory committee for the trail system, but resists the temptation to include the family of trail users on this committee. It is his feeling that a kind of sibling rivalry will develop within this family of users in an attempt to establish the priority of one use, say bicycling, over another use, such as equestrian. His recommendation is to retain these people and cultivate their input in the form of an ad hoc advisory group to the main trails committee.
The tapping of funding sources and negotiation of land acquisition for trails requires a systematic strategy that seems obvious yet contains sublime aspects of readiness for trail implementation. To put it another way, the coordination and funding of trails projects is not a simple, one-step, one-source matter. EDAW, Inc., in conjunction with the Colorado State Recreational Trails program, has written a report on trail funding sources that addresses the complexity of this undertaking. They state that the implementation of trails requires looking at many funding sources and combining them to complement each other. Communities should look to private, as well as government funding sources, and find ways to incorporate trail projects into seemingly unrelated programs

and grants. Trail committees should create innovative approaches that appeal to funding sources with specialized interests and should look for ways which may not 'actually require money to supplement resources.25 This comprehensive and detailed approach to funding trail plans must be driven by the enthusiasm and organized systematic approach of the trails committee.
A generalized fund-raising strategy can be roughly outlined as follows. It should be noted that situations vary from community to community in that specific fund-raising preparation and steps can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the community.
First, the stage should be set for community support. Often this involves extensive public relations and educational efforts by the key trigger individual and trails committee to create an awareness or a raised consciousness among the community regarding the values of trails. For example, in a family-oriented community, a trail system can be recognized as serving a family recreational function. In other towns which do not support a large family population, perhaps the trail can be sold to the community as an outlet for health and fitness-related recreation.
While setting the stage for community support, the trails program as a whole should be outlined and thought through in its entirety. This includes an objective look at what is needed to develop the program and, in general terms, what the cost will be. It is vital to get the trail program organized and pulled together before funds can be tapped.
As community support for the trail system grows and the organization and component parts of the plan are more fully outlined

and understood, the planners for the trail system should choose an initial goal that is small and realizable. An initial demonstration of success is the key to future successes.
It is also important to analyze special features of the trail proposal which might appeal to specialized funding sources. This relates to making the trail available to a multiplicity of users which qualify the trail system for a variety of funding sources. The inclusion of a segment of the trail within a health and fitness circuit, for example, may make the entire trail eligible for a certain amount of private, health-related foundation grant money.
Beyond understanding public relations and consciousness raising and educational needs and organizing the framework of fund raising for the trail plan, those wishing to establish trail systems must understand some finer points of negotiating trail land acquisition. Some of these tips can be summarized as follows:
1. Doing complete homework is essential. Before negotiating with any private land owner, the case for acquisition must be well prepared and to the point. Understanding the interests of other individuals, groups or organizations and how they effect a trail proposal is important.
2. Approach negotiations with an open mind and do not be discouraged by an initial answer of no.
3. Listen carefully to what the private land owner is saying and always allow ample time for discussion.
4. Acknowledge issues of importance to the private individual or corporation and use them to support the request for land dedication or grant of easement.

5. Try as much as possible to achieve a win-win situation. Knowing what concessions to make and what points to stand firm on are important in seeing that everyones' needs are being met and on one's vulnerabilities are being exploited.
6. Get everything in writing.
Strategic planning and organization for trail plans is probably one of the most fundamental keys to the plan's success. Without a well-thought-out plan, without the coordination of all the key players and without a strategic approach, land cannot be acquired for trail use and money cannot be leveraged for the implementation of the plan.
It would be well for any community considering the establishment of a trail system to first analyze all their resources for funding and acquisition and to formulate a strategic approach to tapping those resources based on a complete, objective and methodical analysis of what they have, what they want and where they're going.

Today, the issues surrounding insurance and liability risks are of substantial concern to any governing entity, and, in fact, are a great source of concern to any manager of recreational uses. As insurance premiums continue to climb for municipalities and counties, much consideration is being given as to whether or not recreational activities are worth the potential risk they present. Obviously, this is true in the case of recreational trails which often cross private as well as public boundaries.
There are a number of common liability problems that are found with most trail systems. Generally speaking, these problems fall into one of three categories: hazardous areas, privately owned property, and special events. Commonly, municipalities approach the hazardous area liability in one of two attitudes. The first attitude is that it is better to call attention to a hazardous area, such as a gully washer or an unstable bank, with standardized signage with the understanding that the more information provided a trail user, the more we can assume they are taking a known risk by entering that hazardous area. This is the approach that Adams County takes in maintaining and signing the Adams County Greenway trails. On the other hand, the City and County of Denver takes an opposite viewpoint. They believe that if they should indicate a hazardous area with standardized signage that they may be held more liable for not eliminating the risk or hazard in the first place. Both of these

attitudes have a certain degree of validity, although it cannot be shown that courts have upheld one point of view over another.
Liability issues relating to trails crossing private property are often dealt with in many different ways, some of which will be outlined at the end of this chapter. A very common situation in this respect is the attempted alignment of recreational trails along irrigation and ditch company canal rights-of-way. There are a number of creative approaches to meeting the needs of irrigation companies, as well as simultaneously providing for the recreational use of the service roads that so often run alongside these canals. Some of these strategies will be outlined later in the chapter. Similarly, special events on trails such as dedications, sporting and rally events all require special consideration regarding liability issues. More often than not the sponsoring agency, if they are able to obtain insurance at all, can cover only the spectators and not the participants in such events. Usually, this is regulated through special use permits or special event, one time only, insurance packages.
Insurance rates and other insurance premiums for policy holders are increasing at a phenomenal rate. This is due, in part, to several reasons, the first being the deep pock theory of insurance claims. This occurs when a recreational user is injured and files numerous suits for recovery of damages against property owners and managing agencies. With the increase in the number and amounts of claims being filed, insurance companies are increasingly finding themselves in the position of it being cheaper for them to settle up outside of court with claimants rather than fight outrageous insurance claims

in court. The resulting cost to the community is significant. There is no such thing as free money in insurance claims. The amount paid for these claims is simply transferred to insurance rates and premiums for policies which are passed on to policy holders.
The Colorado State Legislature has attempted to alleviate the responsibility of private land owners when it comes to recreational liability insurance claims. Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 33-41-101, attempts to encourage owners of land within rural areas to make land and water areas available for recreational purposes by limiting their lability towards persons entering their property for such reasons.26 Although this limitation on the land owner's liability is clearly spelled out within the context of the code, many land owners are nevertheless reticent to allow their land to be used for recreational purposes.
One recent approach in helping to minimize the impact of liability issues is that of tactical risk management. Risk management attempts to minimize any particular occurrence or situation whereby liability could be incurred by the land owner. There are a number of ways by which risk management can be implemented: avoid the activity altogether; retain but reduce the activity; engage in the complete preventive maintenance program for the facility; and don't pretend that ignorance is bliss.
Pat Blizzard of the Colorado Attorney General's office has given the following suggestions in avoiding risks at her presentation at the Colorado Trail Symposium on April 22, 1986. Her suggestions are as follows:

1. Regulate trail use where you can and actively enforce those regulations. These regulations pertain to specific permitted activities, as well as maintenance conditions.
2. A complete preventive maintenance program is crucial for all recreational trails. Trails must be kept free of any interference or debris and must be field-inspected regularly for hazards in the area.
3. Be sure to get all easement and use agreement in writing so that all facets of trail use and maintenance are understood between the land holder and the sponsoring entity for the trail.
4. Know when to fight outrageous claims in court.
5. Document everything. All maintenance and observations regarding any trail should be written regularly in a log as part of the complete maintenance program.
6. Always be sure there is complete communication between all entities and agencies involved in implementing and maintaining the trail system. This is especially important when attempting to resolved complaints that are phoned or written in by trail users that must be acted on by the maintaining agency.
There are some answer for solving much of the liability problem. Primary among these should be public education of all citizens which serve on juries. It must be made clear to the public that "free money" is a fallacy; that for every amount awarded in or out of court is a cost that will ultimately be passed on to every consumer of insurance policies. Additionally, it is important for citizens and

public officials alike to support legislative limits on insurance claims. The State Legislature needs constant reassurance and pressure to create laws which limit the amount awarded to liability plaintiffs. And, finally, insurance companies should be encouraged to fight outrageous claims in court. Although this may be a more expensive alternative than settling out of court in the short term, in the long run it will help serve an educational function whereby all public entities and private individuals understand that there is no deep pocket. By fighting and overturning insurance claims in court precedent is thereby established for the success or failure of future similar claims.
Each of the three trail systems analyzed have two elements in common when it comes to approaching the insurance liability issue. They all employ an intensive risk management program in which the trails are designed specifically for recreational trail use by a multiplicity of users incorporating all signage and design features of such while also implementing a complete preventive trail maintenance program. While the South Platte River Greenway takes a very conservative and cautious approach to trail liability (in that they do not sign hazardous areas, but rather work to correct any existing hazards and problems), the City of Boulder takes a somewhat more wide open approach in that they do not design around potential hazards or curtail trail activity because of fear of litigation. Rather, they employ a professional staff and design specifically for the use at hand, assuming that thoughtful planning and good design will hold up in any court room decision regarding trail use liability. Adams County Greenway trails take the middle of the road approach

in that they will sign hazardous areas or potential problems, assuming that giving the user information about hazards puts the responsibility on the user himself and that they take a very serious approach to their overall trail maintenance program. Adams County also takes every opportunity to include any trail easement within an overall umbrella insurance coverage policy carried by the county.
There is some sound advice coming out of these existing trail examples. The first bit of advice and, of course, the most obvious, is to be responsible; to design for the specific use or uses; and to have a professional staff. In addition, it is critical to maintain the trail and to document every incident of trail maintenance and/or repair. Secondly, trail liability for private land owners can be eliminated if the private land owner will dedicate the land for trail use to the city or sponsoring agency and that entity in turn will grant back to the original land owner an access, use or maintenance easement which then absolves them of any primary liability. This may be the answer to ditch companies' concerns regarding the alignment of trails on irrigation ditch rights-of-ways. Additionally, it would not hurt to make reference in any grant of easement for trail use to Colorado Revised Statutes, §33-41-101. By making specific reference to this state law in any easement agreement, the owner may then be reassured that his risk of liability has been minimized and therefore may be in a more tolerable mood to grant the easement for a trail. Another profound, yet not entirely obvious bit of advice, would be to appoint an attorney to any coordinating trail advisory committee or foundation. To tap this legal resource will save any committee or foundation not only time and consultation, but also

extensive attorneys fees in interpreting and writing grants, agreements and other legal documents. Finally, it may assist any entity wishing to establish a trail system to know that possibly the worst
trends in liability litigation may be on efforts of state legislation regarding public education is already underway and, of recreation agencies are beginning liability.
the downswing, limitations of once again, the again to find
Extensive claims and most stable insurance

Once again, it is important to emphasize that the purpose here is not to describe in detail each potential resource or compendium of information. That is best left to other papers and a great deal of this work has already been accomplished. Rather, it is the intention of this paper to serve as a reference guide to assist local Colorado entities in understanding what sources of information are available to them. Let this paper serve as a starting point or a springboard for course and direction. It is important, also, to remember that every case of trail implementation is unique; that continued success comes from creative and innovative applications of tools and knowledge already at our disposal. As such, let this chapter serve as a source of ideas for communities needing information.
There are dozens of sources of good, continuously updated material for entities and organizations seeking public and private support. Communities seeking private contributions and grants would do well to consult the Colorado Foundation Directory, the 1984-1985 Fourth Edition. This is co-sponsored by the Junior League of Denver, Inc. at 6300 E. Yale Avenue, Denver, CO 80222. Their phone number is (303) 692-0270. Updated copies of this directory may be purchase for $10 from the Junior League. This is a valuable document in that it also makes recommendations on other valuable publications relating to leveraging grants in general.
Private sources on a national level may be pinpointed within the Foundation Directory put out by the Foundation Center. They are located at 888 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10106. Their phone number

is (800) 424-9836. The Foundation Center keeps active files on over 26,000 foundations nationwide. The Foundation Directory is also commonly available in most public libraries and is updated continuously.
For those communities seeking state-level assistance, the Colorado State Assistance Guide for Local Governments published in February, 1985, is an excellent resource. This may be obtained through the Department of Local Affairs, Room 518, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203. Their phone number is (303) 866-2771. Among the most commonly utilized state programs for Colorado are land and water conservation funds and state trails grant money coming from the Colorado Greenway project.
There are also some federal sources available for trails, although many of these resources have dwindled in recent years. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a guide in helping communities pinpoint federal grants and other funding programs. This catalog is also available in most public libraries and has yearly updates. A community may subscribe to this catalog through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
A strong word of advice is directed toward all communities seeking private assistance in the forms of grants and other funds. Communities must recognize that local support and local funding must be utilized as a first option. By having a firm base of local public and private support, the securing of additional grants becomes easier. Many grantors look for significant local support before they will consider additional funding.Significant forms of local support

include application of state lottery money for trail programs, inclusion of trails within the capital improvements projects budget, the existence of a local trails foundation and evidence of support for trails within the local municipal ordinance in the form of development regulations and development fees applied to trail acquisition and development.
In first getting organized, any community wishing to establish a trail system would do well to consult the 1981 Colorado Outdoor Recreation Plan put out by the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The purpose of this plan is to provide government and private sector decision makers with information and direction to outdoor recreation planning and development in Colorado. 28 Throughout the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Plan, trail acquisition and development plays a significant role. A good contact person who can help local entities understand the role of trail development within Colorado is Mr. Stuart Macdonald. He is the State Trail Coordinator for the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. He may be contacted at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618, Denver, CO 80203. His phone number is (303) 866-3437,
An additional source of assistance in organizing and strategizing for the implementation of a trail system is the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service which is part of the United States Department of the Interior. Their purpose is in the coordination of federal agencies, the exchange of information and the provision of technical assistance for communities and regions developing recreational programs. HCRS publishes a number of valuable documents, including the following: Conservation and Preservation Techniques; Fund

Raising; Foundations, a Handbook; and Private Sector Involvement Workbook. These publications may be obtained through the HCRS Information Exchange, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 440 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20243. The Information Exchange phone number is (202) 343-6767.
There are other sources of assistance from private entities whose purpose is to enable communities to utilize their own resources to solve open space trail and recreation problems. The Trust for Public Lands is a national level, not-for-profit corporation which is deeply involved in open space issues. They may be contacted at 85 Second Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Their phone number is (415) 495-4014.
In the same vein, The Nature Conservancy is a national level, not-for-profit corporation which promotes the ecological diversity through protection of significant natural lands. This may be appropriate in the leveraging of some trail corridors, particularly along waterways. The Nature Conservancy can be found at 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209. Their phone number is (703)524-3151.
One case study examined earlier in this paper was the Boulder Creek Project which utilized the assistance and resources of Colorado Open Lands. Colorado Open Lands is a non-profit corporation working on significant open space projects through the creative application of business techniques. They are located at 1410 Grant Street, Suite C307, Denver, CO 80203. Their phone number is (303) 837-0654.
Additionally, there may be other corporations dedicated to the preservation and promotion of specific land uses. One such is the Rails to Trails Conservancy, a national, not-for-profit organization

dedicated to providing legal advice to communities for developing trails within railroad rights-of-way. The contact at the Rails to Trails Conservancy is Mr. Peter Harnak whose telephone number is (202) 659-8520.

The jumping-off point, of course, for the establishment of any trail system is the plan itself. Official recognition of the plan is the basis for any action in the implementation and development of that plan. That means the trail planner will have to sell the City Council and the community on the value of the plan. Once that is accomplished, it is necessary to have the trail plan adopted as an element in the master land use plan for the community or officially adopted as part of an overall parks plan. It is necessary to keep this trail element broad and flexible and to stress cooperative joint uses for economy of scale in keeping all options and courses of action open. Once the trail element has been officially recognized as part of a larger adopted plan, acquisition and implementation of the trail system then be backed up through the municipal ordinance. This can take the form of anything from development regulations and park fees to conservation zones and easements.
The kick-off for a new trail system must be a good demonstration project. A good demonstration project has easy access, high visibility, addresses a multiplicity of uses and actually connects up from point A to point B. That is, the trail will start at one significant point and end at another significant or accessible point. The South Platte River Greenway in Denver is a good example of an initial demonstration project that lead to a larger, successful system.

It is also essential for the community and the planner to have realistic short-term goals. It may only be possible to build only one-mile segments per year at a time. The Adams County trail systems are a good example of this. By starting with small and easily managed short-term goals, the long-term success of the Adams County trail system is more of a likelihood.
If a trail element is already part of a recognized master land use plan, or the plan itself is currently being developed, the next task is to set up a trail foundation, which is a non-profit corporation, to foster the advancement of trail system opportunities within the community. Many private funding sources find it easier for political and tax reasons to donate or sell land to a trails foundation rather than a public entity such as a city. An advisory committee must also be established to make recommendations to the trail foundation or other overseeing organization. The key trigger person on any advisory committee is the focus of energy which motivates everyone and everything else. As in the case of Joe Shoemaker and the South Platte River Greenway through Denver, high visibility and the ability to tap resources directly must be qualities possessed by the key trigger person.
Other members of an advisory committee should be broad in their interests and dedicated to the development of a trail system for the community. Likely members are politicians, local attorneys, chamber types, property owners within river corridors or other transportation networks, industry representatives and local members of Audobon Society, the Sierra Club and other environmentally activated organizations. Remember the caveat from a few chapters before: sibling rivalry within the family of users is a common

phenomena and may short-circuit the effectiveness of the advisory committee. Actual trail users themselves, such as hikers, bikers, roller skiers and equestrians, are best utilized in an ad hoc advisory committee format.
Then a marketing strategy must be set to broaden the basis of community and private support for the trail system. The advisory committee must target community values and emphasize though within the scope of their marketing strategy.
Continued strong public relations and fund-raising campaigns are vital to the future success of any trail system. This can be evidenced in the example of the Colorado Greenway, which is a vast network of front range trails that originally sprang from the efforts of the South Platte River Greenway through Denver. Continuing publicity and tying in to community values are essential elements in an on-going marketing and public relations activity.
The recruitment of local legislators is also recommended, as once they are supportive of a trail system, they may be tapped as sources to help cut deals with railroads, ditch companies and other public utility organizations which are sensitive to the direction and needs of state legislators.
When it is time to tap resources to begin the acquisition and implementation of a trail system, it must be remembered that are as many combinations of tools to leverage trail land as there are trails. Much of this information, and tools, are current knowledge and the key to their success is the innovative and creative combination of these tools within the right circumstances to produce successful results.

A primary base for successful result is the local public contribution of funds towards a trail system. This may include lottery money, development fees and capital improvement project money directed specifically towards trails. This local public contribution must be a visible and on-going contributing force. Again, this makes the securing of private grants easier in the long run.
It cannot be stressed enough that respect for a private property owner's needs, rights and interests may go a long way toward obtaining support for the trail system. It is vital to keep land owners involved throughout the process of acquisition of the land and development and later maintenance of the trail itself. Private land owners will not be amenable to granting easement or dedicating land if they sense that such action will not be in their interest.
Finally, out of Adams County, there are bits of practical advice when it comes to tapping resources for trails. The first is to get a professional to do delicate negotiations for the acquisition of land and negotiation of contracts. It is important to expect to easy deal, and yet to not give up when things don't work out at the first run through.
Coming to terms with liability issues will also be a task faced by any trails advisory committee. So much in the insurance and liability field has changed in the past decade that solutions or studies offered 10 years ago may not be practical today. It is very important to have a sense of where legal precedent is at the current time before assessing options to reduce liability risk. Preventing lawsuits is not possible, but minimizing exposure to lawsuits is.

A comprehensive risk management program incorporating good attitude, good design, good maintenance, good documentation and professional staff is the best step towards resolving liability problems that any community can take. It is recommended that communities planning trail systems utilize the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Trails Management Handbook as a guide for the construction and maintenance of trails with risk management in mind.
Beyond these practical and immediate approaches to liability problems, there are other long-range efforts that a community or interest group can take in helping to resolve insurance liability problems. First and foremost is education of the public and hence juries in the realization that there is no such thing as free money from insurance lawsuits. Large settlements are always passed down to the consumer through higher premiums for insurance. It is also possible to pressure state legislators into establishing laws which regulate and limit the amount of awards for insurance lawsuits. Some in the business feel that without these legislated caps, plaintiffs, their attorneys and juries will continue to run roughshod over common sense applications of insurance settlements.
And, finally, it cannot be stressed often enough that an attorney's expertise will continuously be needed throughout the implementation of a trail plan. It makes a lot of sense to appoint a local attorney to the trails advisory committee so that his or her experience and expertise can be used in negotiations for land acquisition and contract negotiation.

From the three case examples examined earlier and from numerous other examples through publication and field application, there comes a great deal of general advice in the establishment of trail systems. They can be enumerated as follows: (1) citizen education, awareness and involvement in the entire trail planning and implementation is vital. This is the broadest base of support for any trail system; (2) cultivate the cooperation of businesses and industries. It is good public relations for them. The combination of resources and talents to address a multiplicity of goals and uses is a major underpinning for the continued success of any trail system; (3) go for the win-win situation. It is necessary to balance public and private interests. The Boulder Creek project is a sterling example of a good balance between public and private needs; (4) remain flexible and innovative in approach. Each new segment of the trail system is unique in character and complexity and what worked for the initial segment may not work at all for the acquisition and installation of the final segment; (5) keep realistic short-term goals. Go one segment at a time. It is very true that the next mile of trail is the most important. Sometimes it may be necessary to start in the middle and work outward in the establishment of a continuous trail; (6) try to utilize natural corridors as much as possible. Waterways and utility easements are good examples of natural corridors; (7) keep the momentum going all the time. Never let a hiatus inactivity occur or public interest in the trail will dwindle; and, (8) get everything in writing.

It is apparent, with the adoption of federal and state enabling legislation for trail planning, and the application of that legislation on a local level as seen in several examples, that the public mandate for trail planning and- the implementation of trail plans is abundant. The diversity of communities which have adopted local trail plans and begun the implementation of their own trail systems and their own unique combinations of accepted and innovative planning and zoning tools and methods of community organization in support of trails lends evidence to the assertion that any community or region can plan for a quality trail experience and implement those plans within the parameter of their own abilities, provided they are enthusiastic about trails and committed to their development. Because planning for and development of trails crosses so many boundaries of professional expertise and public and private interests, successful planning for trails can only be done with the support and commitment of citizens, planners, leaders and legislators.
The off-road, urban trail that runs through flood plain, park land and central business districts is not unlike the flow and diversity of experiences of life itself. As our own communities develop, form values, and provide a safe habitat for its occupants, the inclusion of a trail system will add just a bit more of that element of liveliness upon which the best communities exhibit.

Selected References
Moskowitz, Harvey S., and Lindblook, Carl G. The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. Piscataway, New Jersey, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1981.
Shoemaker, Joe, and Stevens, Leonard. Returning the Platte to the People. Denver, the Greenway Foundation, 1981.
Smith, Herbert H. The Citizen1s Guide to Planning. Washington, DC, American Planning Association, 1979.
Ditmer, Joanne. "Dreams: They Can Come True," The Denver Post, June 1, 1986.
Walker, Donald V. H., and Zeller, Martin E. "Promoting Public/
Private Initiatives for Preservation." Urban Land, November, 1985.
Adams County. Adams County Comprehensive Plan, 1984.
City of Loveland, Department of Parks and Recreation.
Loveland Trail System Plan. 1982.
Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), 1981.
Design Studios West. Concept Plan: An Open Space Plan for Lower Boulder Creek, 1984.
The Junior League of Denver, Inc. Colorado Foundation Directory, 1984-1985 Edition, Denver, Colorado.
National Systems Trail Act, 1968 (PL 90-543).
Parker, Bill. Open Space Planning for Rural Growth Impacted Colorado Counties, 1980. (Master's thesis presented at University of Colorado at Denver, College of Environmental Design.)
State of Colorado, Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. State Recreational Trails Master Plan, Non-motorized, 1985.
State of Colorado, Colorado Recreational Trails Systems Act of
1971, Title 33, Article 11, Section 33-11, CRS, as amended.
State of Colorado, Dept. Local Affairs. Colorado State Assistance Guide for Local Governments, 1985.

Selected References
Page 2
State of Colorado, State Lottery Act of 1982, Title 24, Article 35, Part 2, CRS, as amended.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Trails Management Handbook, Washington, 1985.
Arabe, Michael. Foundations .... A Handbook. Washington, DC, United States Dept, of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1979.
Brooks, Mary E. Planning for Urban Trails, A.S.P.O. (Planner's Advisory Service), 1969.
EDAW, Inc., in conjunction with the Colorado State Recreational Program, Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Trail Funding Sources, 1980.
Fox, Timothy, Esq. Conservation and Preservation Techniques.
Washington, DC, United States Dept, of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1979.
Palent, Shelli A. Fundraising. Washington, DC, United States
Dept, of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1979.
Private Sector Involvement Workbook, Second Edition (no author
credit), Washington, DC, United States Dept, of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1979.
City of Boulder, Department of Planning and Community Development. A Plan for Boulder Creek, 1984.
City of Boulder Real Estate/Open Space Department. Boulder1s Open Space, 1986.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The South Platte River: A Plan for the Future Chatfield to Brighton.
Denver, 1985.

Selected References
Page 3
I would formally like to acknowledge the individuals whom I interviewed and conversed with on trail planning issues, as follows:
Pat Blizzard Attorney General's Office K-Lynn Cameron Larimer County Parks Department Mary Carter South Suburban Parks Foundation Kathy Connolly Volunteer Mounted Patrol
Jim Crane Director, City of Boulder Open Space and Real Estate Dept.
Crystal Gray Adams County Parks Department
Karen Stephens Griffith City of Longmont Planning Department
Peter Harnick Rails to Trails Conservancy
Gary Lacy City of Boulder Planning Department
Stuart Macdonald State Trails Coordinator
Robert Searns Urban Edges
John Spitzer Attorney, Ashcroft Development
Delani Wheeler City of Boulder Open Space and Real Estate Dept.

1. National Trails System Act, Public Law 90-543, 16 USC, §1241, 1968.
2. Colorado Recreational Trails System Act of 1971, Article II, §33-11, CRS, as amended.
3. State Lottery Act of 1982, Title 24, Article 35, CRS, as amended.
4. Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, State Recreational Trails Master Plan, Non-Motorized, 1985, p. 3.
5. Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, State Compre-hensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1981.
6. Joe Shoemaker, Returning the Platte to the People, p. 89.
7. ibid, p. 36.
8. ibid, p. 76.
9. ibid, p. 106.
10. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, The South Platte
River, A Plan for the Future, p. 4 (pamphlet).
11. Shelli A. Pallent, Fundraising, (HCRS), p. 24.
12. Joanne Ditmer, "Dreams: They Can Come True," Denver Post, June 1, 1986.
13. City of Boulder, Boulder's Open Space.
14. City of Boulder, A Plan for the Preservation and Development of Boulder Creek.
15. Donald Walker and Martin Zeller, "Promoting Public/Private Initiatives for Preservation," Urban Land, November, 1985.
16. ibid.
17. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, The South Platte
River, A Plan for the Future, p. 4.
18. ibid, p. 4.
19. ibid, p. 3.
20. Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, p. 76.

Page 2
21. Herbert H. Smith, The Citizen's Guide to Planninq, p. 164.
22. Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Colorado Outdoor Recreation Plan, p. 2-9. 1981
23. ibid, p. 2-9.
24. EDAW, Inc., Trail Fundinq Sources, 1980, p. 20.
25. ibid, p. 2.
26. CRS, §33-41-101, as amended.
27. Department of Local Affairs, 1985 Colorado State Assistance Guide for Local Governments, p. 1.
00 CN Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Colorado Outdoor Recreation Plan, p. 1.1. 1981

(taken from State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1981)
Statewide Total Recreation Activity Days
let Skating

(taken from Colorado Revised Statutes)
63 Recreational Trails 33-11-102
congress entitled the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended. In connection with obtaining for the state of Colorado the benefits of any such programs, the division shall coordinate its activities with and represent the interest of all agencies of the state and of counties, cities, and other local governments having an interest in the planning, development, and maintenance of outdoor recreation resources within the state.
Source: L. 84, p. 888, § 2.
Cross reference: For the "Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965". sec 78 Stat. 897-903. 16 U.S.C.A. 460d. 4601-4 to 4601-11.
33-10-114. Limitation on division and board authority. (1) Neither the board nor the division shall enter into any mitigation agreements with any agency of the federal government relating to the transfer or exchange of land or water condemned by the federal government without the express consent of the general assembly.
(2) The provisions of subsection (I) of this section shall not be construed to prevent the board or the division from entering into common agreements with a federal agency pertaining to the administration or management of federally owned lands.
Source: L. 84, p. 888, § 2.
ARTICLE 11 Recreational Trails
Editors note: (I) Section 20 of chapter 245. Session Laws of Colorado 1984, provides that the act enacting this article is effective January I, 1985. and applies to acts occurring on or after said date.
(2) Prior to its enactment in 1984. the substantive provisions of this article were contained in article 42 of this title. (For the historical record of article 42 prior to 1984, see said article as contained in the original Volume 14. Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, including amendments thereto through L. 83 as contained in cumulative supplements to said volume.)
33-11-101. Short title. 33-11-108. State trails system.
33-11-102. Legislative declaration. 33-11-109. Trail categories.
33-11-103. Definitions. 33-11-110. Uniform signs and markers.
33-11-104. 33-11-105. Acquisition. Recreational trails committee. 33-11-111. Cooperation with slate agencies.
33-11-106. 33-11-107. Responsibilities of committee. Aid to local governments. 33-11-112. Trails enforcement.
33-11- 101. Short title. This article shall be known and may be cited as
the Recreational Trails System Act of 1971. Source: L. 84. p. 888, § 2.
33-11-102. Legislative declaration.,(I) In order to provide for the greatly increasing outdoor needs of a rapidly expanding Colorado population for

33-11-103 Wildlife and Parks and Outdoor Recreation w
public access to. travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the out-of-doors areas of Colorado and for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources against fire and other natural and geological hazards, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state and among the purposes of this article to: Increase the accessibility and encourage the use of suen natural resources by the residents of this state and by nonresidents: provide opportunity for the development of public and private facilities for perso" visiting and utilizing the natural resources of this state; encourage an increa'e in riding, hiking, bicycling, and other compatible recreational activitie- a-influences for the improvement of the health and welfare of the people: and to provide for the needs of specialized recreational motor vehicles. It is recognized that joint simultaneous trail use by motorized and nonmotonzed interests may at times be incompatible, and it is the intent of this article to provide separate trails and facilities for each of such motorized and non-motorized interests, when feasible.
<2) To implement the provisions of subsection (I) of this section and as additional purposes of this article, the state may: Establish and maintain trails on a statewide basis to connect, when feasible and practical, the units of the parks and outdoor recreation system, federal recreational lands, and other trails systems; perpetuate and provide the use of and access to regions and trails of special or historic interest within the state; assist local governments in serving the requirements of the urban and other population centers of the state: encourage the multiple use of public rights-of-way and utilize to the fullest extent the existing and future scenic roads, highways, parkways, and federally administered trails where feasible as recreational trails; encourage the development and maintenance of recreational trails by counties, cities, and special improvement districts and assist in such development and maintenance by all means available; coojjiinate trail plans and development among legal jurisdictions and with the state and federal governments: encourage, when possible, the development of trails on federal lands by the federal gov-ernment; and promote at all levels of government a more complete use of all or any portion of public property for recreational purposes.
Source: L. 84. p. 888, § 2.
33-11-103. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) Committee means the Colorado recreational trails committee.
(2) Local government" means a city, town, county, city and county, or political subdivision of the state charged by law with and engaged in the administration of a parks or recreation program.
(3) Motorized trails" means trails for the use of motorized vehicles where designated in the trail plan and as posted on the trail, as may be required by law.
(4) Nonmotorized trails" means riding, hiking, bicycling, and other recreational trails for the use of the public on which motorized vehicles are prohibited except in emergencies.
(5) "Recreational trail" means a trail which is used for a recreational purpose. such as hiking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing.

65 Recreational Trails 33-11-105
bicycling, or the riding of motorized recreational vehicles along routes of scenic, natural, historic, geologic, or water-oriented interest.
<6) "Riders and "riding" means, respectively, horseback riders and horseback riding, snowmobile riders and snowmobiling. and recreational vehicle riders and recreational vehicle riding.
(7) Trail corridor" means the recreational trail plus a scenic or recreational easement, if such easement is acquired as a part of the recreational trail and if it is essential to the recreational experience of the trail user.
Source: L. 84, p. 889, § 2.
33-11-104. Acquisition. (I) In order to provide recreational trails in a statewide system of positive recreational value, the division may acquire reasonable trail rights-of-way or easements. In selecting the rights-of-way. full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the trails system shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land. Acquisition shall be, whenever possible, through donations, purchased with donated funds, or through easements and exchanges. When such methods fail, the division may authorize expenditure of state appropriations for acquisition in fee. Agreements for less than fee shall be for terms of not less than twenty-five years whenever possible.
(2) The division may abandon all or any portion of a trail or easement acquired for trail purposes which is no longer necessary for such purposes, or it may transfer any trail or easement acquired for trail purposes to a local government having jurisdiction over the^rea in which the trail or easement is located if such local government agrees to maintain and operate the trail.
(3) The division shall notify the owner of land through which any trail or easement acquired for trail purposes passes prior to entering into an operating agreement for that trail with any local government, and it shall secure the consent of the landowner prior to the transfer of any trail or easement acquired for trail purposes to a local government.
(4) Nothing in this article shall permit the acquisition of recreational trails by proceedings in eminent domain by any state agency; except that, when a recreational trail is included within a highway right-of-way. the state department of highways may acquire such contiguous land as a part of the right-of-way as is necessary to permit the uninterrupted continuation of the recreational trail.
Source: L. 84, p. 889, § 2.
33-11-105. Recreational trails committee. (I) There is hereby created the Colorado recreational trails committee, which shall be advisory and shall consist of seven members to be appointed by the board. Members shall be appointed for terms of four years. No member shall serve more than two consecutive terms. One member shall be appointed from each congressional district, and one member shall be appointed from the state at large. The committee shall include in its membership representation of the broad spectrum

appendix b
33-11-106 Wildlife and Parks and Outdoor Recreation 66
of trail users. Vacancies on the committee shall be filled for the unexpired term by the board.
(2) The committee shall meet not less than four times annually to advise the division on all matters directly or indirectly pertaining to trails and their use, extent, and location and the objectives and purposes of this article.
Source: L. 84. p. 890,'§ 2.
33-11-106. Responsibilities of committee. The committee, with the approval of the board, shall coordinate trail development among local governments and shall assist local governments in the formation of their trail plans and advise the board quarterly of its findings. In carrying out this responsibility, the committee shall review records of casements and other interests in land which are available and may be adapted for recreational trail usage, including public lands, utility easements, floodplains, railroad and other rights-of-way, geological hazard areas, gifts of land or interests therein, and steep slope areas. The committee shall advise the board in the development of uniform standards for trail construction which may be adopted by the board for statewide use and which shall be made available to participating local governments. The committee shall offer plans and methods for funding a trails system through user fees or other financing methods.
Source: L. 84. p. 890, § 2.
33-11-107. Aid to local governments. The board is authorized to make funds, appropriated by the general assembly for the purposes of this article, available to local governments in accordance with criteria developed by the committee and adopted by the board. The committee shall advise the board of its recommendations for the allocation of such funds among participating local governments.
Source: L. 84, p. 890, § 2.
33-11-108. State trails system. (I) The board shall designate a state trails system. The trails comprising such system shall meet criteria established by the board and shall be consistent with the objectives of this article.
(2) The board shall establish a procedure whereby federal, state, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations may propose trails for inclusion within the system.
(3) In consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations, the board shall establish a procedure for review and public hearings upon proposals for the inclusion of trails in the system.
(4) The board may participate in the planning, establishment, development, and long-term operation and maintenance of segments of national scenic trails which might be authorized by the congress of the United States.
Source: L. 84, p. 891, § 2.

appendix b
67 Recreational Trails 33-11 -111
33-11-109. Trail categories. (I) Any of the following categories of trails may be established:
(a) Cross-state trails which connect scenic, historical, geological, or other significant features which are characteristic of the state;
(b) Water-oriented trails which provide a designated path to or along lakes, streams, or reservoirs in which water and other water-oriented recreational opportunities are the primary points of interest;
(c) Scenic-access trails which give access to quality recreation, scenic, historic, or cultural areas of statewide or nationwide significance;
(d) Urban trails which provide opportunities within an urban setting for walking, bicycling, horseback riding, or other compatible activities. Where appropriate, urban trails shall connect parks, scenic areas, historical points, and neighboring communities.
(e) Historical trails which identify and interpret routes which were significant in the historical settlement and development of the state.
(2) The planning and designation of trails for the state trails system shall take into account and give due regard to the interests of federal agencies, state agencies, individuals, and interested recreation organizations. The categories set forth in subsection (I) of this section need not be used to label specific trails, but the division shall assure that full consideration is given to including trails from all categories within the system.
Source: L. 84, p. 891, § 2.
33-11-110. Uniform signs and markers. The board may establish uniform signs and markers including thereon appropriate and distinctive symbols. Where trails cross lands administered by federal agencies, such markers may be provided and erected by the appropriate federal agency at appropriate points along trails and maintained by the federal agency administering the trails in accordance with standards mutually established by the division and the federal agency concerned. Where trails cross lands of state or local governmental agencies, the division may provide such uniform signs and markers to such agencies in accordance with written agreements and may require such agencies to erect and maintain them in accordance with standards established in such agreements.
Source: L. 84, p. 891, § 2.
33-11-111.. Cooperation with state agencies. The state department of highways, the state board of land commissioners, the Colorado land use commission, the urban drainage and flood control district, and other state agencies and political subdivisions having jurisdiction or control over or information concerning the use, abandonment, or disposition of highway or utility rights-of-way or other properties which may be suitable for the purpose of improving or expanding the state trails system shall cooperate with the division to assure, to the extent practicable, that any such properties which are suitable for trail purposes may be made available for such use.
Source: L. 84, p. 892, § 2.

33-11-112 Wildlife and Parks and Outdoor Recreation 68
33-1I-II2. Trails enforcement. It is unlawful for any person, except a parks and recreation officer or other peace officer, to operate a motorized vehicle on a designated nonmotorized trail. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and. upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of twenty-five dollars.
Source: L. 84. p. 892. § 2.
Passes and Registrations
Editors note: (I) Section 20 of chapter 24$. Session Laws of Colorado 1984. provides that the act enacting this article is effective January I. 198$. and applies to acts occurring on or after said date.
(21 Prior to its enactment in 1984. the substantive provisions of this article were contained in article 4 of this title and in section 33-7-102. (For the historical record of article 4 and section 33-7-102 prior to 1984. sec said article and section as they appear in the original Volume 14. Colorado Revised Statutes 1973. including amendments thereto through L. 83 as contained in cumulative supplements to said volume.)
33-12-101. Passes and registrations. 33-12-104.
33-12-102. Types of passes and registrations fees.
33-12-103. Aspen leaf annual pass. 33-12-10$.
Pass and registration agents reports board of claims unlawful acts.
Licensing violations.
33-12-101. Passes and registrations. (I) (a) Every pass or registration shall expire on the date printed or written on the face of said document. As used in this article, "document mChns pass or registration.
(b) When, in articles 10 to 15 of this title or a rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, the doing of an act between certain dates or from one date to another is allowed or prohibited, the period of time indicated includes both dates specified.
(2) Money received in payment for passes and registrations issued under articles 10 to 15 of this title shall not be refunded, except as follows:
(a) For proven errors committed by the division in issuing passes or registrations;
(b) For bona fide emergencies as may be determined by the division.
(3) In the event of loss or destruction of a pass or registration, the person to whom the document was issued, upon payment of a fee of fifty percent of the cost of the original document, but not to exceed five dollars, may obtain a replacement pass or registration by signing an affidavit stating where and by whom said document was issued and the circumstances under which the document was lost or destroyed. If the division determines that a pass or registration has been lost or destroyed in the mail, the person to whom the document was issued may obtain a replacement pass or registration without charge by signing an affidavit stating that such document was never received. The division shall supply agents selling such documents with affidavit forms for obtaining a replacement pass or registration.
Source: L. 84. p. 892. § 2.

(taken from Colorado Revised Statutes)
33-41-101. Legislative declaration. The purpose of this article is to encourage owners of land within rural areas to make land and water areas available for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.
33-41-102. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Charge" means a consideration paid for entry upon or use of the land or any faclities thereon or adjacent thereto.
(2) "Land" also means roads, water, watercourses, private ways, and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment thereon, when attached to real property.
(3) "Owner" includes,- but is not limited to, the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant, the possessor of any other interest in land, or any person having a right to grant permission to use the land, or any public entity as defined in the "Colorado Governmental Immunity Act", article 10 of title 24,
C.R.S., which has an interest in land.
(4) "Person" includes any individual, regardless of age, maturity, or experience, or any corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, or association, or any other legal entity.
(5) "Recreational purpose" includes, not limited to, any sports or other recreational activity of whatever nature undertaken by a person while using the land, including ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, paths, and trails appurtenant thereto, of another and includes, but is not limited to, any hobby, diversion, or other sports or other recreational activity such as: Hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, bicycling, riding or driving motorized recreational vehicles, swimming, tubing, diving, spelunking, sight-seeing, exploring, hang gliding, rock climbing, kite flying, roller skating, bird watching, gold panning, target shooting, ice skating, ice fishing, photography, or engaging in any other form of sports or other recreational activity.
33-41-103. Limitation on landowner's liability. (1) Subject to the provision of section 33-41-105, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits, without charge, any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby:
(a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for

any purpose;
(b) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;
(c) Assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to person or property or for the death of any person caused by an act or omission of such person.
33-41-104. When liability is not limited. (1) Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which would otherwise exist:
(a) For willful or malicious against a known dangerous condition likely to cause harm;
failure to guard or warn use, structure, or activity
(b) For injury suffered by any person in any case where the owner of land charges the person who enters or goes on the land for the recreational use thereof; except that, in case of land leased to the state or a political subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for such lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this article nor shall any consideration received by an owner from any federal governmental agency for the purpose of admitting any person constitute such a charge;
(c) For maintaining an attractive nuisance;
(d) For injury received -Dn land incidental to the use of land on which a commercial or business enterprise of any description is being carried on.
33-41-105. Article not to create liability or relieve obligation. (1) Nothing in this article shall be construed to:
(a) Create, enlarge, or affect in any manner any liability for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity likely to cause harm, or for injury suffered by any person in any case where the owner of land.charges for that person to enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof;
(b) Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this article to exercise care in his use of such land and in his activities thereon or from the legal consequences of failure to employ such care;

(c) Limit any liability of any owner to any person for damages resulting from any occurrence which took place prior to January 1, 1970.

(taken from State Recreational Trails Master Plan, Non-motorized)
Bicycle Federation
1055 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Bicycle Manufacturers Assoc, of America 1101 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Crested Butte Mountain Bicycling Assoc. P.0. Box 782
Crested Butte, Colorado 81224
Mountain Bicyclists' Association 1290 Williams St.
Denver, Colorado 80218
National Off-Road Bicycle Association
2175 Holly Lane
Solvang, California 93463
U.S. Cycling Federation 1750 E. Boulder St.
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909
American Ski Association % Genevieve Parrish 155 So. Madison St.
Denver, Colorado 80209
Colorado Cross Country Ski Assoc.
P.O. Box 378
Cranby, Colorado 80446
Denver Alpine Club Z Phi1 Atwater 4662 S. Yank St.
Morrison, CO 80465
Tenth Mountain Trail Association
P.O. Box 9000
Aspen, Colorado 81612
U.S. Ski Association 7. Bob Thompson 1726 Champa
Denver, Colorado 80202
Adams County Horseman's Association
c/o Jessie Waddle
Adams County Sheriff's Department
4201 E. 72nd Avenue
Commerce City, Colorado 80022
American Horse Council 1700 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 296-4031
Arvada Area Horsemen's Association c/o George Pratt Rt. I, Box 613E Golden, Colorado 80401 424-2966 (Bert Cregg)
Aurora Horsemen's Council P.O. Box 31381 Aurora, Colorado 80014
Buffalo Bill Saddle Cluh c/o Janis Schafer 430 Indeoendence St.
Lakewood, Colorado 80226 233-7623

EQUESTRIAN (continued)
Colorado Horsemen's Council Box 493
Golden, Colorado 80401 424-0013 (Helen Eagan)
4-H Hoofprints 6400 Field St.
Arvada, Colorado 80004
4-H Horse Program 15200 W. 6th Avenue Golden, Colorado 80401 277-8980
Jefferson County Horsemen's Association
P.0. Box 1177
Golden, Colorado 80402
279-2976 (Kay Rowe)
Lakewood Horsemen's Association
500 Garland Street Lakewood, Colorado 80226 233-6276 (Hildy Schultz)
Lakewood Riding Club 7735 Westview Drive Lakewood, Colorado 80215 237-1225 (David East)
Larimer County Horse Association
% M.W. March
5200 N. CO. Rd., #11
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Mesa Wranglers
501 Reed Mesa Drive
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Parker Trail Riders P.O. Box 1363 Parker, Colorado 80134
EQUESTRIAN (continued)
Prairie Ramblers % Glen Evans 2965 Conniff Rd.
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80917
Ute Country Horse Association % Peggy Bilvert P.O. Box 995 Delta, Colorado 81416
Westernaires 15200 W. 6th Avenue Golden, Colorado 80201 279-3767
Bureau of Land Management
% Don Bruns
2020 Arapahoe
Denver, Colorado 80205
Colorado Div. of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
7. Stuart Macdonald
1313 Sherman St., Room 618
Denver, Colorado 80203
National Park Service % Lennon Hooper P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 234-2495
United States Forest Service % Chuck McConnell P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood Colorado 80225 236-9501

Appalachian Trail Conference P.0. Box 236
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425
Colorado Mountain Club 2530 W. Alameda Denver, Colorado 80219 922-8315
Colorado Mountain Trail System c/o Gudy Gaskill 548 Pine Song Trail Golden, Colorado 80401
Continental Divide Trail Society P.O. Box 30002 Washington, D.C. 20014
National Trails Council P.O. Box 493
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
Public Environment Center
One Milligan Place
New York, New York 10011
Rocky Mountain Wanderers (Colorado Volkssport) 6309 W. Roxbury Place Littleton, Colorado 80123
University of the Wilderness % Bill Mounsev 29952 Dorothy Blvd.
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado 1313 Sherman St., Room 419 Denver, Colorado 80203 866-2595
Walkers Club of America 445 East 86th St.
New York, New York 10028
Ciavonne and Associates
420 Teller Avenue
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Design Core 1607 Race St.
Denver, Colorado 80206 755-6315
Mason Consulting Group
1776 So. Jackson St., Suite 1102
Denver, Colorado 80210
National Nordic Consultants P.O. Box 3483
Jackson Hole, Wyoming 83001 (307) 733-7013
Urban Edges 1624 Humboldt St.
Denver, Colorado 80218 837-0118
Urban Environments, Ltd.
2050 Grape St.
Denver, Colorado 80207 388-9100

l tHA
Adams County Trails & Open Space Foundation
4955 E. 74th Avenue
Commerce City, Colorado 80022
Arapahoe Greenway
6315 So. University Blvd.
Littleton, Colorado 80121
Castle Rock -Greenway Foundation P.0. Box 625
Castle Rock, Colorado 80104
Platte River Greenway Foundation 1666 So. University Blvd.
Denver, Colorado 80210 698-1322
Pueblo Greenway Foundation 1 City Hall Place Pueblo, Colorado 81002