Big Springs Egress Project

Located in the southeast part of Nederland, the Big Springs neighborhood is home to approximately 200 residents. A need for an emergency egress from the neighborhood during a forest fire was identified by the US Forest Service due to the limited access from the east end of the neighborhood to highway 119. It is currently estimated that it can take 45 minutes to evacuate the neighborhood in an emergency event.

Town will be working with our on-call engineers, JVA, to complete additional planning activities for a viable egress route from the Big Springs neighborhood.

Project Background

The recent wildfires in the Peak-to-Peak region are a reminder of the need to continue to pursue an emergency egress out of Big Springs. Three routes have been evaluated over the years; however the Nederland Board of Trustees identified that additional routes need to be assessed, as there are noted concerns with each of the three proposed routes.

Big Springs is service by Town's water facility and there is critical infrastructure throughout the neighborhoods. If damaged or destroyed it would the Town's ability to pump water to this area for firefighting use and consumption. While there has not been a fire in Nederland, within the last 6 years there has been two major fires in the communities neighboring Nederland, both of which demonstrated how devastating a wildfire can be and the importance of ensuring egress access to lessen the risk of lives lost.

Current Identified Routes

The following are the routes that have already been identified:

Ridgeline Route:
- The proposed Ridgeline Route (what is referred to int he CPAW document as the Doe Trail Egress Route) includes a preferred access and an alternate access from Doe Trail, which will connect to an established fuel break that is on Boulder County Open Space land and National Forest land. From the perspective of safety and minimal ecological disturbance, the best access for the Doe Trail requires a connection through private land and Boulder County Open Space land (CPAW, 202, p. 15).
- The challenge with this route is that a driveway that is used to access four houses would need to be a part of the egress route. Town staff met with some of the neighbors off the driveway about this route and they shared their concerns regarding the true feasibility of this route, as well as the potential negative impacts it will have on them. The neighbors requested that Town continue to evaluate other routes that do not require using private property to access them.
Doe Trail Route:
- The alternative access for the Doe Trail Egress Route commences at a riparian area and then negotiates a steep slope to access the ridge and established fuel break on National Forest land. Mitigation of the riparian area will be required, which will likely require the construction of a bridge, to establish a viable access from the Doe Trail road. Additionally, significant engineering and cut and fill road building to achieve a connection with the National Forest land is likely (CPAW, 202, p. 15).
Wildewood Route:
- The Wildewood Egress route is proposed to extend form the end of Wildewood Lane and follow an abandoned jeep trail following a drainage to connect with Magnolia Drive. The construction of this route will require significant additional fill and cut, as well as significant and extensive fuel modification to ensure the route offers safe passage for passenger vehicles. This route follows terrain features that are conductive to potential of wildfire entrapment without significant vegetation modification. Furthermore, potential ongoing maintenance will be required for the mitigation of road surface erosion and slope stability challenge to maintain a passable road (CPAW, 202), p. 14).

Recent Colorado wildfires have taught us that landscape-scale fuels reductions efforts may have little effect on an aggressive fire, and while residential mitigation may indeed save some homes, the safety of residents depends upon effective evacuation before a fire reaches a neighborhood. In the Big Springs subdivision, there is additional concern that a house fire anywhere in the western half of the neighborhood could spread to the surrounding forest and cut off escape routes with no warning. The Town of Nederland believes that it is imperative that an alternate egress route be established from the eastern end of the Big Springs subdivision as soon as possible.

Town will be working with our on-call engineers, JVA, to complete additional planning activities for a viable egress route from the Big Springs neighborhood.

Project Background

Current Identified Routes

The following are the routes that have already been identified:

Ridgeline Route:
- The proposed Ridgeline Route (what is referred to int he CPAW document as the Doe Trail Egress Route) includes a preferred access and an alternate access from Doe Trail, which will connect to an established fuel break that is on Boulder County Open Space land and National Forest land. From the perspective of safety and minimal ecological disturbance, the best access for the Doe Trail requires a connection through private land and Boulder County Open Space land (CPAW, 202, p. 15).
- The challenge with this route is that a driveway that is used to access four houses would need to be a part of the egress route. Town staff met with some of the neighbors off the driveway about this route and they shared their concerns regarding the true feasibility of this route, as well as the potential negative impacts it will have on them. The neighbors requested that Town continue to evaluate other routes that do not require using private property to access them.
Doe Trail Route:
- The alternative access for the Doe Trail Egress Route commences at a riparian area and then negotiates a steep slope to access the ridge and established fuel break on National Forest land. Mitigation of the riparian area will be required, which will likely require the construction of a bridge, to establish a viable access from the Doe Trail road. Additionally, significant engineering and cut and fill road building to achieve a connection with the National Forest land is likely (CPAW, 202, p. 15).
Wildewood Route:
- The Wildewood Egress route is proposed to extend form the end of Wildewood Lane and follow an abandoned jeep trail following a drainage to connect with Magnolia Drive. The construction of this route will require significant additional fill and cut, as well as significant and extensive fuel modification to ensure the route offers safe passage for passenger vehicles. This route follows terrain features that are conductive to potential of wildfire entrapment without significant vegetation modification. Furthermore, potential ongoing maintenance will be required for the mitigation of road surface erosion and slope stability challenge to maintain a passable road (CPAW, 202), p. 14).

Questions

Have a question or comment about the Big Springs Egress? Let us know!

You need to be signed in to add your question.

Share My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). on Facebook Share My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). on Twitter Share My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). on Linkedin Email My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). link

My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks).

JoshSchlossberg asked 3 months ago

Thank you, Josh, for taking the time to share your perspective. We appreciate your engagement with this project and have added your comments to the public record.
The Town is committed to working through a complex set of priorities—including safety, environmental conditions, and regional coordination—to evaluate feasible egress options. We recognize that residents bring valuable insight into these discussions, and community input remains a critical part of the process.
An upcoming public meeting will provide additional opportunities to learn more and continue the conversation. We encourage all interested residents to participate and help shape the direction of this effort.
—
Town of Nederland Staff
Share I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. I also just learned that a previous road from Peakview from Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress was needed in this area—not sure it is—this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the road. Did the city forget about this route? Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely, the dam route—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). on Facebook Share I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. I also just learned that a previous road from Peakview from Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress was needed in this area—not sure it is—this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the road. Did the city forget about this route? Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely, the dam route—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). on Twitter Share I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. I also just learned that a previous road from Peakview from Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress was needed in this area—not sure it is—this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the road. Did the city forget about this route? Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely, the dam route—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). on Linkedin Email I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. I also just learned that a previous road from Peakview from Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress was needed in this area—not sure it is—this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the road. Did the city forget about this route? Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely, the dam route—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks). link

I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I am considering purchasing. I and many other neighbors I’ve spoken to do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the list. Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old growth by all definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through close to a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. The third route (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and should also be removed from consideration. I also just learned that a previous road from Peakview from Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress was needed in this area—not sure it is—this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the road. Did the city forget about this route? Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only sensible proposal left out entirely, the dam route—makes many of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire, but spending the $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office (and whatever other taxpayer funding is available) and then checking a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route needs to be the sole proposal. (While I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road is necessary at all. Early warning systems means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere. The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of all us chose to live here knowing the risks).

JoshSchlossberg asked 3 months ago

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the Big Springs Egress project. Your comments have been added to the public record and will be considered alongside others as the planning process continues.
We recognize that this is a high-priority topic for the community, and that there are a range of perspectives regarding the best path forward. The Town is working to identify routes that responsibly balance safety, environmental considerations, and interagency coordination.
A public meeting is scheduled later this month to provide additional project context and opportunities for community engagement. We appreciate your participation and welcome your continued involvement.
—
Town of Nederland Staff
Share Egress Route (May 2025) My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I’m possibly considering purchasing. I, and other neighbors I’ve spoken to, do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the Town’s existing list on the Engage Nederland website. Nor, after several months of communicating with the Town, why this and other public comments submitted to the site have still not been posted. https://engagenederland.us.engagementhq.com/big-springs-egress (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. It’s my understanding that the City of Boulder doesn’t want people driving across the dam (despite their own trucks routinely doing so). First of all, if getting Big Springs residents out of the path of a wildfire is truly a community concern, why would City of Boulder refuse to allow this route? And second, why would Town of Nederland not speak up for its residents? Even if the dam isn’t an option, there is an existing access road on the south side of the reservoir that runs perpendicular to the dam. In other words, while some road construction would be required to get from Big Springs up the hill (and across the inlet), at that point it could simply connect to that existing road. Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old-growth by even the U.S. Forest Service’s definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through about a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. Further, the County of Boulder opposes the Doe Trail route because of the harm it would do to this rare, sensitive parcel of old-growth forest and natural springs (I verified this again with a Boulder County Open Space staff member a couple of weeks ago). If the Town of Nederland is claiming that City of Boulder’s objection to the dam route is enough of a reason to leave that proposal off the list, then Doe Trail should also immediately be removed from consideration. The third route at the end of Wildewood Lane (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and therefore should also be removed from consideration. So, what options are left for an egress? I recently learned from a longtime resident that a previous dirt road from Peakview to Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress is truly needed in Big Springs up to Magnolia (I’m not sure that it is), this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the existing road. Did the city forget about this route, known to some locals as the “Drunk Road” (as apparently it was sometimes used by those under the influence to get from town up to Magnolia without going on the highway). Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only two sensible proposals left out entirely, the dam route and “drunk road”—makes some of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire but spending the free federal money (including $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office) while allowing local government and elected officials to check a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. Does Ned want to simply “do something” or “do this right”? https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route or the “drunk road” not only need to be included as official options, they should be the sole proposals so we can get the community to a kind of consensus. Lastly, while I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road in Big Springs is necessary at all. Early warning systems (along with possible improvements to such systems) means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere, but with hours to sometimes days’ advance notice (my father is a volunteer firefighter and my cousin worked for years as a wildland firefighter). The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of us chose to live here knowing the risks. Could it be time to ask whether it’s realistic that every single neighborhood adjacent to National Forest across the West be taxpayer subsidized to punch yet another route through sensitive public lands? And maybe that those of us who aren’t willing to bear the risks of living in the fire plain of the forest move down to Denver? on Facebook Share Egress Route (May 2025) My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I’m possibly considering purchasing. I, and other neighbors I’ve spoken to, do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the Town’s existing list on the Engage Nederland website. Nor, after several months of communicating with the Town, why this and other public comments submitted to the site have still not been posted. https://engagenederland.us.engagementhq.com/big-springs-egress (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. It’s my understanding that the City of Boulder doesn’t want people driving across the dam (despite their own trucks routinely doing so). First of all, if getting Big Springs residents out of the path of a wildfire is truly a community concern, why would City of Boulder refuse to allow this route? And second, why would Town of Nederland not speak up for its residents? Even if the dam isn’t an option, there is an existing access road on the south side of the reservoir that runs perpendicular to the dam. In other words, while some road construction would be required to get from Big Springs up the hill (and across the inlet), at that point it could simply connect to that existing road. Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old-growth by even the U.S. Forest Service’s definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through about a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. Further, the County of Boulder opposes the Doe Trail route because of the harm it would do to this rare, sensitive parcel of old-growth forest and natural springs (I verified this again with a Boulder County Open Space staff member a couple of weeks ago). If the Town of Nederland is claiming that City of Boulder’s objection to the dam route is enough of a reason to leave that proposal off the list, then Doe Trail should also immediately be removed from consideration. The third route at the end of Wildewood Lane (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and therefore should also be removed from consideration. So, what options are left for an egress? I recently learned from a longtime resident that a previous dirt road from Peakview to Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress is truly needed in Big Springs up to Magnolia (I’m not sure that it is), this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the existing road. Did the city forget about this route, known to some locals as the “Drunk Road” (as apparently it was sometimes used by those under the influence to get from town up to Magnolia without going on the highway). Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only two sensible proposals left out entirely, the dam route and “drunk road”—makes some of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire but spending the free federal money (including $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office) while allowing local government and elected officials to check a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. Does Ned want to simply “do something” or “do this right”? https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route or the “drunk road” not only need to be included as official options, they should be the sole proposals so we can get the community to a kind of consensus. Lastly, while I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road in Big Springs is necessary at all. Early warning systems (along with possible improvements to such systems) means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere, but with hours to sometimes days’ advance notice (my father is a volunteer firefighter and my cousin worked for years as a wildland firefighter). The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of us chose to live here knowing the risks. Could it be time to ask whether it’s realistic that every single neighborhood adjacent to National Forest across the West be taxpayer subsidized to punch yet another route through sensitive public lands? And maybe that those of us who aren’t willing to bear the risks of living in the fire plain of the forest move down to Denver? on Twitter Share Egress Route (May 2025) My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I’m possibly considering purchasing. I, and other neighbors I’ve spoken to, do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the Town’s existing list on the Engage Nederland website. Nor, after several months of communicating with the Town, why this and other public comments submitted to the site have still not been posted. https://engagenederland.us.engagementhq.com/big-springs-egress (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. It’s my understanding that the City of Boulder doesn’t want people driving across the dam (despite their own trucks routinely doing so). First of all, if getting Big Springs residents out of the path of a wildfire is truly a community concern, why would City of Boulder refuse to allow this route? And second, why would Town of Nederland not speak up for its residents? Even if the dam isn’t an option, there is an existing access road on the south side of the reservoir that runs perpendicular to the dam. In other words, while some road construction would be required to get from Big Springs up the hill (and across the inlet), at that point it could simply connect to that existing road. Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old-growth by even the U.S. Forest Service’s definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through about a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. Further, the County of Boulder opposes the Doe Trail route because of the harm it would do to this rare, sensitive parcel of old-growth forest and natural springs (I verified this again with a Boulder County Open Space staff member a couple of weeks ago). If the Town of Nederland is claiming that City of Boulder’s objection to the dam route is enough of a reason to leave that proposal off the list, then Doe Trail should also immediately be removed from consideration. The third route at the end of Wildewood Lane (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and therefore should also be removed from consideration. So, what options are left for an egress? I recently learned from a longtime resident that a previous dirt road from Peakview to Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress is truly needed in Big Springs up to Magnolia (I’m not sure that it is), this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the existing road. Did the city forget about this route, known to some locals as the “Drunk Road” (as apparently it was sometimes used by those under the influence to get from town up to Magnolia without going on the highway). Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only two sensible proposals left out entirely, the dam route and “drunk road”—makes some of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire but spending the free federal money (including $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office) while allowing local government and elected officials to check a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. Does Ned want to simply “do something” or “do this right”? https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route or the “drunk road” not only need to be included as official options, they should be the sole proposals so we can get the community to a kind of consensus. Lastly, while I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road in Big Springs is necessary at all. Early warning systems (along with possible improvements to such systems) means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere, but with hours to sometimes days’ advance notice (my father is a volunteer firefighter and my cousin worked for years as a wildland firefighter). The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of us chose to live here knowing the risks. Could it be time to ask whether it’s realistic that every single neighborhood adjacent to National Forest across the West be taxpayer subsidized to punch yet another route through sensitive public lands? And maybe that those of us who aren’t willing to bear the risks of living in the fire plain of the forest move down to Denver? on Linkedin Email Egress Route (May 2025) My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I’m possibly considering purchasing. I, and other neighbors I’ve spoken to, do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the Town’s existing list on the Engage Nederland website. Nor, after several months of communicating with the Town, why this and other public comments submitted to the site have still not been posted. https://engagenederland.us.engagementhq.com/big-springs-egress (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. It’s my understanding that the City of Boulder doesn’t want people driving across the dam (despite their own trucks routinely doing so). First of all, if getting Big Springs residents out of the path of a wildfire is truly a community concern, why would City of Boulder refuse to allow this route? And second, why would Town of Nederland not speak up for its residents? Even if the dam isn’t an option, there is an existing access road on the south side of the reservoir that runs perpendicular to the dam. In other words, while some road construction would be required to get from Big Springs up the hill (and across the inlet), at that point it could simply connect to that existing road. Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old-growth by even the U.S. Forest Service’s definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through about a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. Further, the County of Boulder opposes the Doe Trail route because of the harm it would do to this rare, sensitive parcel of old-growth forest and natural springs (I verified this again with a Boulder County Open Space staff member a couple of weeks ago). If the Town of Nederland is claiming that City of Boulder’s objection to the dam route is enough of a reason to leave that proposal off the list, then Doe Trail should also immediately be removed from consideration. The third route at the end of Wildewood Lane (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and therefore should also be removed from consideration. So, what options are left for an egress? I recently learned from a longtime resident that a previous dirt road from Peakview to Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress is truly needed in Big Springs up to Magnolia (I’m not sure that it is), this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the existing road. Did the city forget about this route, known to some locals as the “Drunk Road” (as apparently it was sometimes used by those under the influence to get from town up to Magnolia without going on the highway). Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only two sensible proposals left out entirely, the dam route and “drunk road”—makes some of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire but spending the free federal money (including $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office) while allowing local government and elected officials to check a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. Does Ned want to simply “do something” or “do this right”? https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route or the “drunk road” not only need to be included as official options, they should be the sole proposals so we can get the community to a kind of consensus. Lastly, while I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road in Big Springs is necessary at all. Early warning systems (along with possible improvements to such systems) means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere, but with hours to sometimes days’ advance notice (my father is a volunteer firefighter and my cousin worked for years as a wildland firefighter). The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of us chose to live here knowing the risks. Could it be time to ask whether it’s realistic that every single neighborhood adjacent to National Forest across the West be taxpayer subsidized to punch yet another route through sensitive public lands? And maybe that those of us who aren’t willing to bear the risks of living in the fire plain of the forest move down to Denver? link

Egress Route (May 2025) My name is Josh Schlossberg, I’m a Nederland resident renting a home in Big Springs which I’m possibly considering purchasing. I, and other neighbors I’ve spoken to, do not understand why the egress route that would work best for safely evacuating us—across the dam over Barker Reservoir to connect with 119 to head down to Boulder—isn’t even on the Town’s existing list on the Engage Nederland website. Nor, after several months of communicating with the Town, why this and other public comments submitted to the site have still not been posted. https://engagenederland.us.engagementhq.com/big-springs-egress (Sadly, until I personally spoke to them, I found many of my neighbors weren’t even aware of the current proposals or public process, and many probably still aren’t aware. To remedy this, the Town should do a better job communicating with us neighbors, interface more with media, and engage more often on social media platforms—while addressing the ongoing censorship of this and related discussions by certain admins and gatekeepers.) Clearly, the Barker Dam route is by far the shortest, quickest, and easiest way to get us neighbors to safety in the event of a wildfire, and the fact that it’s not even on the list is troubling and makes it hard for some of us to believe in the current decision-making process. It’s my understanding that the City of Boulder doesn’t want people driving across the dam (despite their own trucks routinely doing so). First of all, if getting Big Springs residents out of the path of a wildfire is truly a community concern, why would City of Boulder refuse to allow this route? And second, why would Town of Nederland not speak up for its residents? Even if the dam isn’t an option, there is an existing access road on the south side of the reservoir that runs perpendicular to the dam. In other words, while some road construction would be required to get from Big Springs up the hill (and across the inlet), at that point it could simply connect to that existing road. Instead, two of the proposals (Ridgeline and Doe Trail) would aggressively cut through mature and old-growth forest (yes, old-growth by even the U.S. Forest Service’s definitions) and sensitive riparian areas through about a mile of Boulder County Open Space and National Forest. Due to the expense and ecological harm, these proposals should immediately be removed from consideration. Further, the County of Boulder opposes the Doe Trail route because of the harm it would do to this rare, sensitive parcel of old-growth forest and natural springs (I verified this again with a Boulder County Open Space staff member a couple of weeks ago). If the Town of Nederland is claiming that City of Boulder’s objection to the dam route is enough of a reason to leave that proposal off the list, then Doe Trail should also immediately be removed from consideration. The third route at the end of Wildewood Lane (also through National Forest) is redundant because it is less than ¼ mile from the two other existing egress routes down Big Springs towards town and up Peakview to Highway 72. A third route in the same location only to lead residents deeper into the forest—almost certainly where any wildfire would be coming from—would at best have next to no value and at worst be a death trap, and therefore should also be removed from consideration. So, what options are left for an egress? I recently learned from a longtime resident that a previous dirt road from Peakview to Magnolia that was closed several years ago and is now an infrequently used trail also isn’t on the list for consideration. If an egress is truly needed in Big Springs up to Magnolia (I’m not sure that it is), this would be both the most direct route and require the least amount of engineering and expense to re-open the existing road. Did the city forget about this route, known to some locals as the “Drunk Road” (as apparently it was sometimes used by those under the influence to get from town up to Magnolia without going on the highway). Due to the fact that three bad proposals are the only ones currently on the table—with the only two sensible proposals left out entirely, the dam route and “drunk road”—makes some of us worry that the current goal of the project isn’t so much getting us residents to safety in the event of a wildfire but spending the free federal money (including $600,000 grant funding from Rep. Neguse’s office) while allowing local government and elected officials to check a box to say it’s “done” to avoid further responsibility. Does Ned want to simply “do something” or “do this right”? https://neguse.house.gov/services/community-project-funding-selections Another factor to consider is that 84% of wildfires are human caused, with 94.9% of those ignited within 800 meters of a road, and 60.7% within 200 meters. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf Building yet another road through our already heavily-roaded forests means spending taxpayer money to create an additional vector for human-caused wildfires to threaten our homes and lives. If this process is to retain credibility as to its stated goal and to reach consensus among us neighbors who this route is ostensibly for—getting Big Springs residents to safety during a wildfire—the Barker Dam route or the “drunk road” not only need to be included as official options, they should be the sole proposals so we can get the community to a kind of consensus. Lastly, while I personally support the Barker Dam egress, it’s also important to acknowledge that some neighbors I’ve spoken to don’t believe an egress road in Big Springs is necessary at all. Early warning systems (along with possible improvements to such systems) means quick and safe evacuation is already feasible for residents, as fires rarely come out of nowhere, but with hours to sometimes days’ advance notice (my father is a volunteer firefighter and my cousin worked for years as a wildland firefighter). The reality of Big Springs is that many of us moved here specifically because there aren’t more roads bringing in traffic, construction, and increased fire danger to our homes, and ALL of us chose to live here knowing the risks. Could it be time to ask whether it’s realistic that every single neighborhood adjacent to National Forest across the West be taxpayer subsidized to punch yet another route through sensitive public lands? And maybe that those of us who aren’t willing to bear the risks of living in the fire plain of the forest move down to Denver?

JoshSchlossberg asked 13 days ago

Thank you, Josh, for sharing your comments and engaging with the Big Springs Egress project. Your input has been added to the public record and will be reviewed as part of the ongoing process.
We recognize that this project brings forward a range of perspectives and priorities, and we’re working to identify routes that best reflect community safety, environmental stewardship, and interagency coordination.
An upcoming community meeting will provide further opportunities to learn more and participate. We hope you’ll continue to stay involved as the project progresses.
—
Town of Nederland Staff
Share This is a difficult decision to make. Our home is at the east end of Doe Trail and we hope that a carefully considered decision is made soon. Of the three proposed sites, I think the Wildewood Route is the best alternative. on Facebook Share This is a difficult decision to make. Our home is at the east end of Doe Trail and we hope that a carefully considered decision is made soon. Of the three proposed sites, I think the Wildewood Route is the best alternative. on Twitter Share This is a difficult decision to make. Our home is at the east end of Doe Trail and we hope that a carefully considered decision is made soon. Of the three proposed sites, I think the Wildewood Route is the best alternative. on Linkedin Email This is a difficult decision to make. Our home is at the east end of Doe Trail and we hope that a carefully considered decision is made soon. Of the three proposed sites, I think the Wildewood Route is the best alternative. link

This is a difficult decision to make. Our home is at the east end of Doe Trail and we hope that a carefully considered decision is made soon. Of the three proposed sites, I think the Wildewood Route is the best alternative.

Jeff Yansura asked about 1 year ago

Thanks Jeff! I'll make sure to include this with the rest of the feedback we get.

big springs,egress
big springs egress

Page last updated: 16 Oct 2024, 01:11 PM

Big Springs Egress Project

Project Background

Current Identified Routes

Project Background

Current Identified Routes

Have a question or comment about the Big Springs Egress? Let us know!

This is a difficult decision to make. Our home is at the east end of Doe Trail and we hope that a carefully considered decision is made soon. Of the three proposed sites, I think the Wildewood Route is the best alternative.

Signup Banner

Who's Listening

Lifecycle

Project Management Coordination

Develop Guiding Principles

Evaluate Current State of Big Springs Neighborhood

Collect, Develop, & Analyze Data

Engage Public & Stakeholders

Make Recommendations

Draft & Final Big Springs Plan

Project Close-Out

Documents