Across Northern Colorado’s foothills and forests, the problem is easy to miss until you’re standing in it: a web of narrow, unofficial trails branching off from established paths, worn into the landscape by years of informal use.
Now a regional coalition of land managers is beginning the slow work of deciding which of those paths should disappear and which, in some cases, should stay.
NoCo Places, a regional outdoors partnership that includes Boulder County, neighboring counties, and state and federal land agencies, is launching a coordinated effort to address nearly 350 miles of unauthorized, or “social,” trails identified across its territory. The work will focus on closing and rehabilitating some routes while formally adopting others into the existing trail system, according to NoCo Places Executive Director JD Tanner.
The effort is supported by $560,000 in state funding from a new grant round aimed at strengthening regional coordination among land managers. According to Tanner, the money will help the coalition begin prioritizing trail segments and maintain staff capacity to manage the work across jurisdictions that often overlap on the ground but not on paper.
“Hopefully what people will start to see is — especially in some of those spaces where you’re on a trail and you see a lot of different offshoots and unauthorized trails — they’ll start to see that minimized and cleaned up,” Tanner said.
“We’re going to see a lot of that taking place in Forest Service areas,” he said. “But when you get into some of those larger counties with extensive open space systems, like Larimer and Boulder, it’s going to be a combination of both,” referring to Forest Service land and local open space systems.
Deciding what stays, and what doesn’t
Unauthorized trails form for many reasons: shortcuts, social media–popular viewpoints, wildlife paths mistaken for hiking routes, or simple overflow from heavily used systems. Tanner said the coalition will consider a range of factors in consultation with 50 to 60 community partners representing different user groups.
Safety is one concern. Unmapped trails can lead people into remote areas where search-and-rescue responses are more difficult. Environmental impacts are another. Some routes cut through sensitive plant and wildlife habitat.
“It’s really easy to see those game trails, and if you’re not very aware of that and you just start hiking on them, you’ve immediately impacted the regular travel or habits of the wildlife using those routes,” Tanner said. “Now they’re suddenly looking for different paths to reach water, feeding areas or nesting spaces.”
At the same time, not every unofficial trail is necessarily destined for closure. Some may have been built sustainably and fill gaps in existing networks. In those cases, agencies may choose to formalize them.
“Even though they’re unauthorized, if they were sustainably built and we’re not seeing a lot of erosion or other issues, they could be considered for adoption,” Tanner said. “Sometimes those trails lead to a lookout, and an agency may decide it’s worth accepting that small impact to protect larger surrounding areas.”
What Boulder County residents may notice
Tanner said Boulder County residents may begin seeing youth corps trail crews at work as early as late spring. He expects a team of eight to 10 people to work for roughly three months, with signage and educational materials at trailheads explaining what’s happening and why.
The coalition won’t be able to address all roughly 350 miles of unauthorized trails identified across the region in a single year. Instead, it plans to focus on a limited number of priority segments, likely 10 to 15 in 2026, depending on length, location and ecological sensitivity.
“If a trail segment is really long, it may take more time,” he said. “If it’s short, we might be able to rehabilitate multiple trails in a week.”
A regional approach to a regional problem
NoCo Places was formed in 2018 to address a recurring challenge in Colorado’s outdoor landscape: Trails, rivers and open space don’t stop at county lines, National Forest boundaries or other jurisdictional borders, but rules and management often do.
The coalition is one of several regional partnerships now operating across the state, brought together under the Colorado Outdoor Regional Partnerships Initiative to better align policies on recreation, conservation and land use. In 2025, Gov. Jared Polis formalized that approach through Colorado’s Outdoors Strategy, which is providing the first round of funding for locally defined, multi-agency projects.
For now, the funding offers a starting point rather than a long-term commitment. The grant comes from a $50 million state program spread over five years, an approach designed to distribute money across regions rather than fund multiyear projects.
Tanner said NoCo Places plans to apply for a second year of funding around midsummer. While its other proposals, including funding for trail ambassador programs and additional regional projects, were not approved in this round, continued funding through 2027 for two staff positions will allow the coalition to maintain capacity and prepare future applications as the work unfolds.
This article perfectly illustrates the core problem with the region’s approach to trail management: they’re treating the symptom rather than the disease.
Yes, there are 350 miles of unauthorized trails. But why? The article glosses over the obvious answer: people create social trails when official trail systems fail to meet their needs. This is especially true for mountain bikers who have essentially zero miles of purpose-built, bike-specific trails across the region’s vast public land holdings—land they’ve paid for through taxes but are effectively locked out of by overzealous land managers.
While the article quotes JD Tanner saying some unauthorized trails “were sustainably built” and might be formalized, it misses the larger point: land managers have forced residents into this position by refusing to adopt the user-specific, directional trail design that has become the professional standard in modern trail management.
Conservation and quality recreation aren’t opposed goals—they’re complementary. Riders who have trails they actually want to ride stay on those trails. The proliferation of social trails is direct evidence that the current “conservation at all costs” approach is failing on its own terms. You cannot protect land by refusing to provide adequate sanctioned trails and then acting surprised when people create their own.
Instead of spending $560,000 to close trails and send out youth crews with shovels, land managers should be partnering with qualified mountain bike organizations to build the user-specific trail systems riders have been requesting for years. Give mountain bikers purpose-built, directional, bike-optimized singletrack. The social trail problem would largely solve itself.
The powers that be are directly responsible for creating the problem they’re now scrambling to fix.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
The above comment strikes a chord with our family and neighbors. Well said, Rex!
Such a problem accepting limits! From my perspective there’s a plethora of trails. In some places too many and very poorly ‘built” – to the detriment of soil, water and habitat. Forest fragmentation and disturbance to others and wildlife result. People can’t be everywhere. Bikers need to evolve beyond their self interested rogue persona. Bring it on: “conservation at all costs”. You know, as in Earth First.
Private individuals don’t get to selfishly decide what happens to the common property and greatest heritage of the people of the USA.
Some of the trails are well considered, designed, and built. Most of them are complete disasters…for erosion, impacts on the local features and attractions, impacts on wildlife, and more. They need to be erased.
Claiming to be a private party who gets to decide for themselves how to manage the land –for themselves and their personal interests- is the height of entitlement, and I’ll continue to support efforts to obliterate the most absurd disasters these kinds of people inflict on our wild spaces. Demanding whatever uses of the land you feel you deserve for you and yours at the expense of others is a reliable indication of crazy. If you want to engage with land management to create more opportunities for your preferred personal recreation activities, do it.
I like the outlines of these efforts: look at what is working, get rid of the rest before the place gets turned to swiss cheese with growth in the area. Control the stupid now before it gets out of hand as it has in so many other places. Preserve what we have. There is already way too much metastatic stupid to behold out there to bring it to our shared public lands.
While some may consider it selfish for people to use public land for their own recreational purposes, is it selfish when they are give none to begin with? Sure bikes, side by sides tear all over the state of Colorado and Boulder county, yet Boulder County has refused to make ANY purpose built downhill bike trails besides Valmont Bike park, a little chunk of vacant land next to the jail. “Conservation and all costs” in my views just means “hikers only and all costs”. States all over the country have addressed this user group, but not Boulder County. It’s a shame to see.
Wholeheartedly agree with Rex and Tristan.
Denying a major user group appropriate recreational access is a failure of Boulder County leadership. This is one of the most fit, cyclist-dense counties in the country, yet there has been virtually zero investment in purpose-built mountain bike trails.
Purpose-built bike trails are standard throughout the state, country, and world and especially where great mountain terrain exists. Dedicated trails reduce user conflict and are the most environmentally sustainable solution.
Land managers should engage the mountain bike community—groups like Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance have repeatedly offered to collaborate.
All user groups can coexist. Providing legitimate access is how you prevent rogue trails and protect the landscape long-term.