Denver Mountain Parks

Civilian Conservation Corps Comes to Colorado

2009-03-30T08:51:00.003-06:00

In October 2009, friends and former members of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) will meet in the Denver area to honor the efforts and accomplishments of the most popular New Deal program. Preliminary information is posted in this notice, which will be updated as details become available.

Tours and field trips will complement discussions and speakers at this annual event. A feature of the meeting will be the annual business meeting of the CCC Legacy organization. Attendees will visit Red Rocks Amphitheatre, the "most celebrated" of their works, according to historian Tom Noel.

Final Master Plan Posted

2009-02-05T12:42:00.002-07:00

The Denver Mountain Parks Master Plan was approved by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board in September 2008. The final version is now available online at the Master Plan page.

Remembering CCC Contributions

2009-01-11T12:00:00.007-07:00

Denver Mountain Parks is just one of the many agencies that benefited from the New Deal programs of the 1930s. A feature spread in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News is bringing us renewed benefits in contacts with and stories from the families of some of the men who served. We thank reporters Katie Kerwin McCrimmon and Kevin Flynn and photographer Matt McClain for an excellent job presenting the lasting effects of this program and honoring the men of the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration.

Yesterday, among other emails, we received this photo of Fred Johncox, who enrolled in the CCC in Minnesota in 1934. His son graciously allowed us to share it online. We plan to have more stories and information online at our Mountain Parks History website soon. In the meantime, if you missed yesterday's stories, here are links to the online versions:

The Forgotten Generation

Fruits of the Depression

Historic CCC Camp to Become Museum

Here's another link—this one to an article by historian Tom Noel, aka "Dr. Colorado," in the Denver Post.

Additional Comments on Master Plan

2008-10-31T12:55:00.006-06:00

Besides email comments, survey responses, and other comments from individuals (posted on this blog), we have recently received several letters addressing organization's comments on the Master Plan. These include:

A letter from Inter-neighborhood Cooperation (INC) of Denver.
A letter from the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County.
An email from John Litz, of PLAN Jeffco (open space advocacy group), at previous post.

Recently, the Denver Parks and Recreation Department sent a letter to City Council addressing rock climbing in the Mountain Parks. Copies of the letter were sent to Access Fund.

Comments from Open Space Advocate

2008-10-31T12:44:00.004-06:00

From John Litz, PLAN Jeffco*, October 22, 2008:

I have carefully reviewed the Denver Mountain Parks Draft Master Plan and must say that I am impressed. The PLAN Jeffco Board of Directors have not collectively reviewed the plan, but I believe that I can convey the consensus.

The plan is very ambitious, which it must be after more than 50 years of benign neglect. I would put maintenance, restoration, and updated restrooms at the top of the list. Jefferson County Open Space's (JCOS) experience is that vandals are less apt to chose well-maintained facilities. Next I would put upgrading of trails and attempting to close social trails. JCOS has good experience using volunteers and youth work programs. It seems to me that one can find grants for funding work programs for inner-city youth. That also might impact the park use by African-Americans. (It is interesting to note very high use of the parks by those of Hispanic heritage.)

Following are comments relating to specific pages in the draft.

Page 19: The values used for the land values are low. The Open Space Advisory Committee has just approved a $100,000+ per acre purchase adjacent to Elk Meadow Park. I think that $10,000 per acre would be a better average; since much of the acreage in the larger parks is very developable.
Page 35: In discussing revenue items comment is made on sharing Jefferson County sales tax. Note that this tax is not a use tax so it only would apply to items purchased on site. At 0.1% I doubt that the amount collected could have a significant impact on the DMP budget. Additionally the enabling resolution only allows the tax to the shared with cities based on automobile registrations. Red Rocks is neither a city nor has any resident vehicles.
Page 36: I definitely agree on the need for dedicated funding.
Page 64: I would not count on being able to make fixed facilities on the parks profitable. JCOS has found the maintenance of buildings exceeds the potential revenue. An example is the Boettcher Mansion on Lookout. Jefferson County has had to use Conservation Trust Funds as the financing source for necessary maintenance. The income can cover operating costs, but not major maintenance. The Cody [Buffalo Bill] Museum is unique in that it is an international draw.
Page 153: Because the DMPs are integrated into other County park systems, partnerships can be a way of extending the resources of both parties. Unfortunately, without better funding DMP cannot provide much financial resources to the partnerships.

So it all gets down to dedicated funding. PLAN Jeffco has managed two campaigns to obtain voter approval for funding. Our experience is, with a campaign that gets adequate information to the voters, approval is possible. Our two favorable votes were 60% and 74%. I believe that in 2006, 70% of park and open space issues across the country passed. Your resistance will be the Denver City Council not the voters. In 1972 we had no support from city councils, just their staff.

Good luck as you move the Plan forward.

John Litz, PLAN Jeffco Vice-Chair/Treasurer

*PLAN Jeffco is a citizen’s organization who helped start Jefferson County’s Open Space program in 1972 and is still involved in an oversight capacity.

Last Day of Comment Period

2008-10-17T07:44:00.003-06:00

Today marks the end of the official comment period for the Denver Mountain Parks Master Plan. We'll be taking comments through the end of the day and will post them on this blog. A few new comments are posted immediately below this note.

Thank you for your interest in the Master Plan and for providing input to it. In the coming weeks, we'll be revising and finalizing the draft. We'll continue to keep you posted at this site.

A Few More Comments

2008-10-17T07:43:00.001-06:00

Steve from Denver County, October 17, 2008, says:

Please allow rock climbing in the mountain parks. It works in Boulder. Please enforce the dog leash laws in all the parks.

Adam from Boulder County, October 16, 2008, says:

I am a Boulder resident and a graduate student in Physics at the University of Colorado-Boulder. I am doing my Ph.D. research at the National Renewable energy labs in Golden. As an avid climber, I have explored many of the areas around both Boulder and Golden. Of course, climbing requires a certain amount of technical knowledge and safety is always a concern. However, the climbing community in Colorado is a very well-informed and responsible group who understand and accept the risks involved. They are also taxpayers who help support and fund the park systems across the state. Opening the 1,400+ acres in the Denver parks would not interfere with other use of the land and would end an outdated, unnecessarily restrictive policy. I support the position the Access Fund has taken on this issue.

Alec from Gunnison, October 16, 2008, is "Supportive."

Clint from Boulder County, October 16, 2008, says:

I live in Louisville, Co and spend a lot of time in the mountains here in Colorado. I would like to side with the Access fund an their letter sent to you (see attachment). Rockclimbing is an major part of Colorado history past and in modern times. It is exciting that Denver Mountain Parks is considering allowing rockclimbing in it's parks. I want to thank you for that.

Park Maps Update

2008-10-10T08:32:00.006-06:00

Continued work on interim park maps has resulted in a new Park Maps index page on the website at Mountain Parks History (MPH). This page will be updated whenever new maps are available, and will be linked from the MPH homepage shortly. (It is now linked from the Parks Information page, where you'll also find links to new pages on picnicking and park regulations.)

Maps are posted for Dedisse Park, Echo Lake Park, and Genesee Park; more are on the way. Keep in mind that these are basic working maps to enable you to find the Parks more easily and better enjoy the system. We welcome your suggestions for improving them. A new system map has also been posted in three sizes.

Additional Survey Responses from Rock Climbers

2008-09-27T07:20:00.005-06:00

Jason from Denver County, September 30, 2008, is "Unsupportive" and says:

As an avid rock climber, tax payer, and informed voter, I would like to ensure that the parks my money go to are being used by all recreational groups that do not destroy the resource. This largely includes the banning of rock climbing in denver mountain parks.
The banning of rock climbing in denver mountain parks needs to be addressed. The response given by the DMP is weak and outdated at best. The fact that the fine is steeper than an individual being caught with crack cocaine is also absurd. He recommends Opening rock climbing up as a general recreational activity on all areas aside from Red Rocks Amphitheater.

Robert from Jefferson County, September 29, 2008, is “Supportive” and says:

Please acknowledge the Access Funds position letter and recommendations on the proposed management plan. Except in rare circumstances, rock-climbing should be allowed throughout the park system as the impacts can be mitigated in ways other than closure.

Richard from Jefferson County, September 25, 2008, is “Supportive” and says:

I think that you've done a great job of managing these land assets. However, I strongly support a change to the current use restrictions to include the allowance of rock climbing on Denver Park land. This use is consistent with other agencies such as the NFS, BLM, JeffCo Open Space and CO State Parks.

Wilder from Boulder County, September 25, 2008:

I strongly support climbing and bouldering access in Denver Mountain Parks.

This respondent referenced the Access Fund's comment letter, sent to Susan Baird this week.

Carlos from Denver County, September 26, 2008, is “Supportive” and says:

I would love to see climbing opened up in the Denver Parks. I really enjoy living in the urban environment of Denver while being so close to outdoor trails, but right now there aren't too many options for climbing close-in other than Golden. I think climbing in the Denver Parks would make living in Denver even more attractive, and that a good management plan allowing that can be incorporated.

Erik from Boulder County, September 25, 2008, is “Neutral” and says:

The ban on rock climbing does need to be addressed. I understand that the primary reason for the park purchase was primarily for viewshed preservation and therefore does not warrant additional purchase to provide access. However, this would then logically rule out any other public use of the park as well. The main contention is the singular ban on rock climbing, and activity that has very little conflict with other user groups. As can be seen in most Denver metro park systems, rock climbing can very easily coexist with other activities in a manner that preserves both the viewshed and the environment.

He also suggests that Denver should “consider working with locals climbing access groups to develop a climbing management plan” and supports “opening [DMP] to managed rock climbing” as very important in the long term.

Two additional respondents, from Boulder and Weld Counties, supported rock climbing but did not want their comments posted.

Trail Work at Echo Lake: Photo Essay

2008-09-25T09:31:00.024-06:00

Last week (Sept 17-19), crews from Mountain Parks and their counterparts from other Parks & Rec divisions (Forestry, Rivers & Trails, Natural Areas) spent a few days resurfacing trails at Echo Lake Park. How's this for a great place to work? Clear crisp days, at 10,600 feet, and scenic views meant easy recruiting for this special project. (Click on photos to enlarge.)

At this elevation, the sedges around the lake and the willows near the picnic area are already showing signs of fall color. While the crews worked, an artist finished up a pastel painting of Mt. Evans and surrounding scenery. Her cooperative subjects now grace the header of our blog and provided a beautiful background for the trail work.

With 10-20 people on hand each day, a great deal of work was accomplished quickly. Willows were trimmed away from the trail, and fresh crusher fines were spread. The Echo Lake Trail provides fishing access, as well as a comfortable almost-level surface for a pleasant mountain walk. It connects to backcountry hiking trails on adjacent Forest Service lands and into the Mt. Evans Wilderness, including the Chicago Lakes Trail and Bear Track Lakes Trail.

The crew from Forestry brought along special equipment to help remove dead pines and spruces, including a few killed by blue-stain fungus, aka "beetle." Some wood was salvaged for use, but the trees infested by beetles were disposed of. Scouts have volunteered to build rustic barricades of smaller branches to help protect off-trail sensitive areas, especially the fen wetlands at the east end of the lake.

Lunch breaks in the picnic area offered time to get acquainted with people from the other divisions. A.J. Tripp-Addison (right), Mountain Parks superintendent, stopped by to thank several of the workers for their assistance.

Echo Lake Park was acquired by the City of Denver back in 1921. Five years later, the beautiful rustic Echo Lake Lodge was built of local logs and stones at the east end of this natural lake.

In the mid 1920s, this stone picnic shelter was built in the picnic area at the west end of the lake. It still used today; a small concession stand nearby, also built of local stone is no longer in use.

In the afternoon, as clouds gathered over Mt. Evans and the day grew blustery, a local duck came by to check out the new crusher fines on the trail. A somber view of Mt. Evans, with duck, could be seen from inside the Echo Lake Shelter.

Echo Lake Park is 14 miles from Idaho Springs on Highway 103, part of the Mt. Evans Scenic & Historic Byway, and was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1990. For more on Echo Lake, visit our history pages for more photos, information, and maps of the area.

Survey Response, General

2008-09-20T07:54:00.002-06:00

From Erika, Denver County, September 19, 2008:

Overall, how supportive are you of the Plan's recommendations?
Extremely supportive.

1. Are there any outstanding issues that you don’t think the plan addressed? No.

2. Are there any recommendations that you would like to add?
I am wondering about the long-term use of automobiles in the parks. (I think about Rocky Mountain National Park where, in several areas of the park, automobiles are now restricted. These areas are accessible now only through shuttle busses.) The existing strategic plan balances the need for access to the parks with the goal of preserving them. At some point, if the demands on the parks become too great, perhaps some of the access might have to be limited. In the future, visitors might access the parks though light rail or other public transit options. Somehow the issue of over use of the parks must be addressed and monitored.

3. Are there any statements or recommendations with which you strongly disagree? No.

4. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the short term?
The two issues which I think are most important both in the short and long term are first, securing adequate funding and, second, developing a comprehensive education/marketing strategy to educate the park users. Through the use of signs and exhibits at the parks, and through local media and the internet, park users must be taught about the park's history and significance. Hopefully this will foster an ethic of stewardship and respect for the parks. Ultimately the parks' survival will depend on knowledgeable citizens who will love and care for them.

5. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the long term? See #4.

Other comments:
My great-grandfather, John Brisben Walker, proposed the Denver Mountain Parks system which gives me a special interest in them. Many thanks to Susan Baird and others who have done such a fine job on developing this much-needed plan. Two points that I would like to underscore are: first, the recommendations to preserve the historic buildings as these add a unique flavor to the mountain parks system. Second, protecting and expanding the park's open space is also very critical. As the population increases, demand will also increase to develop these open spaces. The Denver Mountain Parks play a vital role in protecting open space now and for generations to come.

Comment Period Extended to October 17

2008-09-18T15:39:00.010-06:00

We'll be taking comments on the draft Master Plan for three more weeks, until October 17^th. We look forward to hearing from you.

We have received many comments, especially on Rock Climbing, by email and survey form as well as comments on individual posts. Click on the "rock climbing" label in the sidebar to see all posts on that subject. Additional comments will be found at the original post on rock climbing.

Thank you for helping us use this blog to communicate with people interested in the Mountain Parks and for providing feedback on the Plan.

Entry Fees (Comment)

2008-09-18T15:39:00.006-06:00

From Todd, September 15, 2008:

Start charging a entry fee to access these parks. The selling pitch that this will only cost the taxpayer $5 or whatever more per month may seem trivial but it all adds up. Our property taxes have increased over $400/year since moving into our home in 2002. If individuals want to utilize these parks, they should pay the nominal entry fee or a yearly pass just like what is needed to gain entry to a state park or a national park. I live in Denver. We did visit Lookout Mountain on a regular basis but with the increase in fuel prices, we have cut back on these type of excursions and visit the local city parks.

Survey Response: Rock Climbing

2008-09-18T15:39:00.004-06:00

From Joseph, Jefferson County, September 18, 2008:

Overall, how supportive are you of the Plan's recommendations?
Supportive.

1. Are there any outstanding issues that you don’t think the plan addressed?
Rock Climbing - this is mentioned on pgs 54 and 56 (new uses), but the overall tone seems negative. However, rock climbing, when properly managed, can be a valuable addition to a recreational menu. I note that on pg 53 the plan cites heaviest use near water and in shade. Rock climbing would disperse use somewhat. Obviously wildlife (raptor nesting) is a very important concern, but other local areas, such as Boulder Mountain Parks, have effectively dealt with this through seasonal closure. The culture and organization of rock climbing in Colorado has become very advanced in recent years, through educational efforts of organizations like the CMC and the Access Fund. Climbers take their priviledges and responsibilities seriously, and they would be a positive addition to the user base for the Denver Mountain Parks.

2. Are there any recommendations that you would like to add?
Consider opening rock climbing (with seasonal closures to protect raptors) in certain areas. This will expand the use of the parks and the breadth of experience.

3. Are there any statements or recommendations with which you strongly disagree? No response.

4. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the short term? No response.

5. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the long term? No response.

Other comments:
Thanks for all your had work on the plan. I am very happy to have the Denver Mountain Parks as a local resource.

Climbing at Ocelot (Comment)

2008-09-18T15:39:00.001-06:00

From Matthew, September 18, 2008:

I just wanted to comment on the ocelot park project. I would love to see climbing aloud in the park again. We used to climb there years ago and I was shocked to see signs prohibiting it.

Climbers are notorious environmentalists and are famous for leaving an area cleaner than when they found it. Please let us come back into the park to enjoy our sport. Thank you for your consideration.

Survey Response, Rock Climbing (Comment)

2008-09-17T08:48:00.003-06:00

From Angela, Denver County, September 14, 2008

Overall, how supportive are you of the Plan's recommendations?
Unsupportive.

1. Are there any outstanding issues that you don’t think the plan addressed?
I am very disappointed that the plan does not address rock climbers as a legitimate user group. Current policies towards rock climbers criminilize the activity. Yet in reality, climbing has a similar impact to that of hiking and other mountaineering types of activities. And it has much less of an impact or maintenance requirements than mountain biking.

2. Are there any recommendations that you would like to add?
I would first like to see some specific areas open to rock climbing. I would then like to see you work with local climbing groups such as the Denver Climbers' Coalition to provide long-term solutions to this issue.

3. Are there any statements or recommendations with which you strongly disagree?
On the section regarding parks for conservation . . . it seems as though many of these parks have become private havens for adjacent land owners outside of Denver whose taxes are not even supporting these properties. Yes, it is important to have long-term plans for conserving these areas. However, the idea of conversation is to regulate use of land resources so that they are sustainable for future generations. Currently, no generation has access to them. Instead, Denver is setting a precedent to disallow the public from benefiting from these land resources. Also, conservation does not mean that no user groups should be allowed in the area. Instead, Denver should focus on a sustainable plan that opens the areas up for everyone's appreciation and enjoyment while preserving the natural beauty of the area and keeping it in a wilderness like state.

4. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the short term? No response.

5. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the long term?
I do agree that different areas might support different user groups in different ways. I also support your efforts to create long-term sustainable areas for all of the areas residents.

Other comments:
I hope you will contact local climbing groups such as the Denver Climber's Coalition to be a part of future dialouges. You will also find that climbers will provide labor and support for trail maintenance needs and clean-up events. The climbing community is a large potential resource for you if you will tap into us.

Dogs Off Leash (Comment)

2008-09-16T17:26:00.003-06:00

From Wendy, Denver County, September 3, 2008

Thank you for all your time & effort on the DMP Master Plan. I didn't see any specifics regarding Denver Mountain Parks having areas where it's okay to have your dog off leash, so I would like to respectfully request that the subject be considered.

Reply from Susan Baird, Natural Resource Planner:

Thanks for your letter. We know that having a place for dogs to play off-leash is important to so many people and we did discuss it in our planning. What we found is that the Denver Mountain Parks, as a much smaller system than Jefferson County Open Space, National Forests, or other county systems, actually suffers from overuse and conflicts in many places. And, unlike other open space systems, we are not planning future acquisitions at this time.

And our goal for the more remote parks and "backcountry" is to protect those natural resources. We looked at California research that measured impacts to natural open space systems by dogs and hikers going into remoter areas and felt it was important to keep dogs on leash and to protect those limited resources. Consequently, we did not think that there was a space in the current system for a specialized area. We do want to see dog-owners (and dogs!) served and know that Jefferson County Open Space acquired and designated an area just for dogs-off-leash (Elk Meadows area) and that the surrounding National Forests accommodate dogs off leash. Thanks for your understanding (and we hope, your dog's, too).

Maps for the Mountain Parks

2008-09-12T06:55:00.014-06:00

Although maps for the Denver Mountain Parks are scarce and scattered, they are not nonexistent. New maps are being developed, and there are also several maps available in the draft Master Plan.

We've collected map links available on the web here to help you find Mountain Park lands and trails. All links will open in a new window; most go to pdf files that you can zoom.

Basic maps for several parks are available on our Map Page.

Most of the Denver Mountain Parks are in Jefferson County. Thanks to cooperative efforts with Jefferson County Open Space over the last few years, more parks and trails are accessible. Maps available from other sites include:

Red Rocks Park Trails (Denver Theatres & Arenas)
The 1.4 mile Trading Post Trail stays within the park, but also links to the Dakota Ridge Trail (2.2 miles), with a loop return to Matthews-Winters Park (JCOS).

Bergen Peak Park
Although this is a "conservation/wilderness park," it is accessible via the 2.4-mile Too Long Trail to Bergen Peak, from the Meadow Trail in Elk Meadow Park (JCOS).

Dedisse Park Trails
Alderfer-3 Sisters Park map (JCOS) Take a right from Sisters Trail or Hidden Fawn Trail in this park to find Dedisse Trail, which winds through the western edge and northern section of Dedisse Park and connects northward to the Pioneer Trail through Evergreen.

Matthews Winters Park (JCOS)
1.5 miles of trail in Red Rocks Park connect to the Morrison Slide Trail and the Red Rocks Trail in this 2344-acre OS park.

Mt. Falcon Park (JCOS)
Three DMP parcels totaling 160 acres adjoin Mt Falcon. The 1.1 mile Devil’s Elbow loop trail uses the 80-acre DMP parcel.

Flying J Ranch Park (JCOS)
The 2-mile Shadow Pine Loop trail in this park uses small DMP parcels (80 acres) to create access for a longer hike in this new 361-acre OS park.

Survey Response: Outdoor Education

2008-09-12T06:48:00.003-06:00

From Micah, Denver County, Sept 11, 2008

Overall, how supportive are you of the Plan's recommendations?
Extremely Supportive

1. Are there any outstanding issues that you don’t think the plan addressed?
As a Representative of the Wonderful Outdoor World Colorado operating out of the Chief Hosa Campground, I would like to recognize Denver Mountain Parks for their support. Over the past four years we have served over 2,000 urban youth with the opportunity to first time camping experiences and to learn environmental responsibility. Our program targets children from low income areas of Denver to ensure that every child; no matter race, color, creed or socio-economic standing is given an opportunity to experience the wonders of the outdoors. Without the support and space donated by Mountain Parks this program could not serve as many youth as it is able.

We at WOW believe in the plans support of making available and accessible the beauty the parks have to offer. As an organization we look to partner with Mountain Parks in making this happen. As our organization continues to grow we will look for new opportunities to educate youth on the fragile state of the Colorado and global environment. Our youth have acted as ambassadors of Leave No Trace Principals, transforming the Chief Hosa Campground and bringing wildlife back to the area.

2. Are there any recommendations that you would like to add?
We would like to suggest Denver Mountain Parks use this plan to strengthen partnership between itself, Denver Parks and Recreation and Wonderful Outdoor World Colorado as an outlet to serve even more youth (especially at-risk) in the Denver-metro. Over four years and two thousand youth served we have learned how important the advocacy of our youth truly is. They are the stewards of environmental and social change and every one of them capable of success. We are obligated to creating opportunities in the wilderness and beyond so this might be possible. Thank You!

3. Are there any statements or recommendations with which you strongly disagree? No response.

4. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the short term? No response.

5. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the long term? No response.

Other comments: No response.

Conservation/Wilderness Parks

2008-09-11T15:20:00.002-06:00

Some of the most scenic and important open space lands in the Denver Mountain Park system were purchased for their open space value, and were intended never to be developed. The prominent mountaintops, forested ridges, steep slopes of dense mixed evergreen forests, rocky outcrops, and narrow riparian corridors of Denver’s conservation/wilderness parks provide critical wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and dramatic scenic backdrops. Most of the highly visible peaks and ridges along the main routes west, including US 285, Highways 73 and 74 through Evergreen, and US I-70, that are not dotted with houses today are Denver Mountain Parks. They continue to fulfill their original role—to protect the natural and scenic character of the Denver foothills.

Their permanent, protected role in the system was clearly intended. When Denver acquired land for these mountain parks, deed restrictions were included in the transfer from state or private property to city ownership. These included deed restrictions for more than 5,000 acres from USDA Forest Service Lands restricting sale of the land—“that said city and county shall not have the right to sell or convey the land.” Other parks, such as those acquired from private ownership, restricted the land “for park and parkway purposes only.”

The protection of watershed and wildlife habitat is becoming increasingly important as the metropolitan region’s population grows, and open space disappears. The Denver Mountain Parks have land that contributes to the integrity of the region’s watersheds, notably Bear Creek, Clear Creek, and smaller tributaries, all of which eventually reach the Platte River.

Many of the mountain ridges and peaks originally set aside for scenic quality provide important cliff habitat, including Snyder Mountain, Hicks Mountain, Mount Judge, and the southern portion of Deer Creek Park.

Challenges and Opportunities

The conservation/wilderness parks of the Denver Mountain Parks system have continually upheld the values that were essential to the founding of the system in 1912 – to protect scenic resources for recreational, aesthetic, and environmental reasons, both for today and for the future. These parks were originally intended to be undeveloped lands in perpetuity. Their role in resource protection has become more important over the years, and as neighboring communities have grown, their role as a scenic background today is even more valuable.

Some of the recommendations in the draft Master Plan for these parks are:

Preserve the Conservation/Wilderness Parks as undeveloped Denver Mountain Park lands.
Preserve each park in its historic role as a scenic backdrop, as an important natural resource, or as both. Identify and close problematic social trails within the conservation/wilderness parks.
Engage private property owners, where their land abuts Denver’s land, in an informal stewardship role.
Manage Similar or Adjacent Conservation/Wilderness Parks as One Natural Resource Area by creating comprehensive management plans and system-wide policies to preserve and protect the significant natural resources.
Identify those parks that are contiguous to one another and/or that share natural resource issues or attributes such as significant wetlands or rock outcrops.
Develop natural resource management plans for contiguous parcels, and natural resource policies for the Conservation/Wilderness Parks.
Use Conservation Easements, Trail Easements, and Acquisition to Protect The Parks. Work with adjacent property owners to acquire land or to obtain conservation easements for those properties that buffer or protect the open space/wilderness parks from encroaching development.
Clearly Define Park Boundaries to control illegal dumping, social trails, off-road vehicle use, and other unauthorized uses.

Introducing the Picnic Parks

2008-09-11T14:36:00.003-06:00

The following paragraphs are extracted from Section 4 of the draft Master Plan. For more complete information, please review the source document. In the draft Master Plan, Denver's Mountain Parks were classified into four tiers based on similar qualities. See page 121 for more information on "The Picnic Parks". You may use our Survey Form to provide comments on this or other parts of the draft plan.

In the early 1900s Denver began the task of building scenic drives through the foothills to access the mountain peaks and flowing streams just west of the city. The scenic canyon of Bear Creek and Mount Evans were two such places. Known collectively as the picnic parks, these parks are further organized by their specific role and locations as a Bear Creek Picnic Park or as a Gateway Picnic Park.

The Bear Creek Picnic Parks

With the growing popularity of the car in the early 1900s, groups could venture out for the day, making Bear Creek a favorite destination for a picnic outing. Between 1912 and 1917, many of the Bear Creek picnic spots officially became a part of the Denver Mountain Park System. The curving, scenic drive (Highway 74) connects four of the picnic parks, and the tributary creeks of Bell and Cub Creek south of Evergreen connect the other two.

Each Bear Creek Picnic Park offers its own unique natural setting, but they also all share special features such as access to flowing stream waters, rustic shelters, shaded picnic sites, and nearby hiking trails.
- Little Park
- Corwina Park
- O'Fallon Park; Pence Park
- Bell Park
- Cub Creek Park
For a map of trails connecting some of these Bear Creek parks, visit the map page at Denvergov.org.
The Gateway Picnic Parks

One of the more scenic routes was the road through steep mountain terrain to Mount Evans. Before reaching Squaw Pass, the early road extended through wooded hillsides in what would eventually be known as the Town of Evergreen. Another route traveled southwesterly from Denver, turning west to follow North Turkey Creek. Along each of these roads, Denver built a picnic park as a gateway to western scenery.
- Fillius Park
- Bergen Park
- Turkey Creek Park

You can find more on each of these Picnic Parks in Section 4c of the Master Plan.

For an overview of the park tiers described in the draft Master Plan, see Four Tiers of Mountain Parks, posted below.

For a map of the system showing locations of these parks, visit the Mountain Parks map page at Denvergov.org.

Rock Climbing (Comment)

2008-09-11T09:07:00.002-06:00

From Thomas, Sept 11, 2008:

It’s just hard for me to understand why climbing, or any other form of harmless recreation would be prohibited on public land. Especially since Denver is publicly pro rock climbing. It doesn't seem right to advertise rock climbing on the front page of the city's website, http://www.denver.org/) then tell people the can't climb in a public park because "the rock cliffs and faces that have potential for rock climbing were originally purchased to preserve views and the land, and not for recreation." Isn’t it public land maintained out of money raised from the public? Wasn't it purchased with public money? Shouldn’t the public have access to it?

See Susan Baird's responses on Rock Climbing at earlier post. (The City's website is at Denvergov.org.)

Survey Response, Rock Climbing

2008-09-11T08:55:00.005-06:00

From J, Clear Creek County, Sept 10, 2008:

Overall, how supportive are you of the Plan's recommendations?
Neutral

1. Are there any outstanding issues that you don’t think the plan addressed?
Rock climbing on land that has been used for that exact purpose for atleast 20-30 years. For some reason it's a criminal offence as far as I can tell with nearly a thousand dollar fine and 180 days jail time! I can't understand how a non criminal recreational activity can produce such a foul repurcussion. Especially when the victims are usually of a local residence or bordering county. Just good hardworking law abiding tax paying citizens of colorado. It's not like we impact the land anymore then your average user, infact we are usually concious of keeping our sacred cliffs clean. We are a user group that is well known for working with other user groups and organizations to establish boundries and rules, trails, and logistic issues. The crime doesn't fit the punishment if you ask me.If nothing else consider a way to allow limited access especially to locals. I would jump through what ever hoops necessary to climb on the formations in marshdale known as ocelot (in jefferson county) and the snyder mtn tract(clear creek county. I work around ocelot all the time and I live near snyder so it's just a shame to constantly see this beautiful rock but not be allowed to interact with it. The access fund is a great organization for help with all the issues that could arise, there is no reason that this is an illegitimate request.

2. Are there any recommendations that you would like to add?
work with climbers more instead of treating them like criminals. we are a legitimate user group just as hikers and mtn bikers. We aren't fairly represented and we should be as the sport has a long rich history. dating back longer then you have owned the land.

3. Are there any statements or recommendations with which you strongly disagree?
Not allowing climbing with the outragous punishment of jail time and a bigger fine then you get for walking down the street with a joint of weed. You fail your predicessors as many state and national parks allow the activity, even in places with fragile environments like zion for instance. Obviously it's regulated, so it seems your just neglecting us and being lazy.

4. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the short term?
incorperating climbers as a more legitimate user group and working with them to allow climbing in areas that have previously been used for exactly that.

5. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the long term?
Same as above.

Other comments:
That about sums it up, Please contact the access fund and get the ball rolling, it will be the constitutional thing to do in consideration of the pursuit of happiness.

See Susan Baird's responses on Rock Climbing at earlier post.

Rock Climbing (Comment)

2008-09-10T10:40:00.001-06:00

From Ryan, Sept 9, 2008

As a member of the climbing community, I am very curious about why an effort has not been made to work with climbers to create a mutually benificial relationship. Throughout the master plan, the need to encourage more users is a common theme, as is creating working relationships with user groups. Eldorado canyon, Lumpy ridge and North Table Mountain(Golden cliffs) are examples of places where climbers commonly organize trail work and cleanup days.

See Susan Baird's responses on Rock Climbing at earlier post.

Survey Response, Rock Climbing

2008-09-10T10:32:00.003-06:00

From Rick, Denver County, Sept 9, 2008:

Overall, how supportive are you of the Plan's recommendations?
Neutral.

1. Are there any outstanding issues that you don’t think the plan addressed?
I think climbing is not well addressed in these plans. Climbing is an activity that is often associated with mountains even by non-climbers, kind of like expecting to see surfers at the beach in LA county. Climbing is also a subset of mountaineering. Other mountaineering activities could be hiking/walking, scrambling, snowshoeing, skiing. Those activities are not explicitly prohibited. If I am hiking and I get on steeper terrain, I may have to put my hands on the rock for balance, am I doing a prohibited activity that can result in jail time? What if the trail gets so steep that I must use my hands to pull myself up?

2. Are there any recommendations that you would like to add?
Denver's policy on no climbing in Mountain Parks is at odds with a City that promotes its vicinity to the mountains and the activities inherently associated with the mountains. This policy has closed down many decades old climbing areas which is not a positive image for our neighbors in surrounding counties or visitors.

3. Are there any statements or recommendations with which you strongly disagree?
Under "Accessibility and New Uses" I would like to strongly object to grouping rock climbing with camping, dogs off leash and mountain biking. Since climbing is a subset of the mountaineering similar to hiking, it should be viewed in the same context. These other activities place a much higher demand on the environment than responsible rock climbing or hiking for that matter. One of the ways "Leave no Trace" ethics recommend travelers to minimize their impact is by traveling on rock. Rock climbing can be done without chalk marks and using "clean anchoring" systems which leave no visual impact.

4. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the short term?
Trail maintenance and evaluating new areas for climbing.

5. Which recommendations do you consider most important in the long term?
Same as above.

Other comments:
I would suggest that DMP examine climbing policies of the National Parks Service, Boulder, Jefferson County open space and the city of Colorado Springs. All of these places have various policies which allow rock climbing.

See Susan Baird's responses on Rock Climbing at earlier post.