Changes to parking, shuttle systems, trails, trailheads, camping and more could come to the Southern Tenmile recreation area near Breckenridge, but the U.S. Forest Service is accepting comments on the plan proposing them.

At an open house event Wednesday, Aug. 27, in Breckenridge, representatives from the Forest Service and Summit County stood next to informational signs about the four trailheads featured in the plan and answered visitors’ questions.

​​The Southern Tenmile area includes some of Summit County’s most popular recreation sites — Spruce Creek, McCullough Gulch, Blue Lakes and Quandary Peak — all within the Camp Hale Continental Divide National Monument.

Dan Morris, a Dillon Ranger District recreation staff officer, gave a brief overview of the plan. He encouraged attendees with comments to submit them on the Forest Service’s website at Bit.ly/TenMileAccessPlan.

The Forest Service asks the public to submit comments before Sept. 15. Many comments already submitted focus on the plan’s proposal to expand the Quandary Peak parking reservation and shuttle system to other areas during the peak visitation season.

More than 10 comments expressed discontent with the shuttle and parking proposals. One commenter, Paige Money, wrote that she supported most of the plan but not the shuttle and paid, reserved parking system expansion.

“While the shuttle and reservation model at Quandary Peak may have helped manage crowding, extending this system to additional trailheads or dispersed camping areas turns nature into a gated experience rather than preserving open public access,” Money wrote.

Having fees to access public lands, Money wrote, “creates barriers to enjoying” them.

Danielle Weber wrote in her comment the plans for adding bathrooms and trail connections would bring more hygiene and better access, but she does not support expanding the shuttle and reservation parking.

Keeping up with the news is hard. Keep it simple with one weekly newsletter.

Sign up at SummitDaily.com/newsletter

“I hate the idea of expanding the paid parking and shuttle service,” Weber wrote. “This is a mountain, not an amusement park.”

Neil Rampe, a commenter who visits Colorado yearly to hike 14ers, wrote that he has avoided Quandary Peak since the parking and shuttle systems started. He wrote that expanding the parking lots for the areas in the plan would be better than expanding the shuttle and reserved parking systems.

“The great outdoors are meant to be accessible for anyone,” Rampe wrote. “This ‘pay for play’ model is losing the essence of that.”

Blue Lakes would only get the shuttle and parking reservation system if the planned delineation of trailhead parking spaces, additional trail connections and other improvements do not eliminate parking and traffic issues, according to a Forest Service document outlining the plan.

At Spruce Creek, the document stated, the parking reservation system would come before the shuttle system. It stated managing partners, including the Forest Service, Summit County and town of Breckenridge, would implement the shuttle system in phases, as they did with the Quandary and McCullough Gulch shuttle.

Many comments asked for special treatment for Summit and Park county locals. Andrea Waxler wrote there should be a free locals parking permit to let locals easily access trails. 

Waxler wrote that residents working full-time “may not have all day to shuttle back and forth to enjoy a trail they once frequented.” She added that residents do not contribute to overcrowding issues because they use trails outside of peak times, like in the afternoons or evenings and on weekdays.

Matthew Banas voiced support for the overall plan in his comment, but he wrote that each trailhead should have parking spots designated for locals, available on a first-come, first-served basis.

“One of the reason(s) we all work so hard to live here and make this life happen is due to the proximity to these types of locations,” Banas wrote. “When our ability to recreate and enjoy an area is impacted due to (a) reservation system, it is hard.”

Other comments asked the Forest Service to not require reservations or payment for parking after certain times. The current Quandary parking reservation system does that, with parking at the Quandary trailhead, which also serves McCullough Gulch, free and first-come, first-served after 3 p.m.

One comment proposed the Forest Service make all parking spots be free and first-come, first-served for locals and make all visitors ride shuttles to access the trailheads.

Elke Dratch suggested the Forest Service allow locals unlimited access to the trailhead parking for a yearly fee of $100.

Carol Beckman provided a counterargument in her comment, writing that locals should not receive any special treatment. She wrote that most of the land in the plan is federally owned, and the parts that are not include Colorado Springs Utilities land.

“If Breckenridge and Summit County residents get reduced fees or preferential access, so too should Colorado Springs residents,” Beckman wrote. “This is access to federal lands, which belong to everyone, not to the people that live nearby.”

Two commenters showed support for one of the proposed management structures. 

Management through the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act would have the Forest Service manage sites on federal land while the towns and county would manage sites on their land.

The other option, which is preferred by the company that conducted an access study for the plan, would see the Forest Service issue a special-use permit to a local government to manage sites on federal land.

The Frisco Peninsula Recreation Area uses a special-use permit system, and the two commenters who mentioned management structures both supported it over the enhancement act structure.

Two comments expressed disapproval for the entire proposed access plan. One commenter stated the plan is a “terrible idea” and wrote that, despite Forest Service documents stating the area has seen issues from parking congestion to proliferation of human waste, “cars and people do not pose a problem.”

Another commenter, Cecily Lane, expressed her disapproval for the entire proposed access plan in one sentence.

“I do NOT support this project,” Lane wrote.