Click this link to optimize Flagstaff Community Forum for screen readers Skip to Content
Flagstaff Community Forum
Opengov

The City of Flagstaff is revising the public input process for the Greater Observatory Mesa Draft Trail Plan. This survey is temporarily closed and previously announced public meetings will be rescheduled to a later date.

63 registered responses


1. On average, how often do you use the greater Observatory Mesa area (i.e., Lowell Observatory, Observatory Mesa Natural Area, and abutting National Forest)? (see map, above)

Response Percent Response Count
5 or more times per week 12.7% 8
2 to 5 times per week 38.1% 24
1 to 2 times per week 25.4% 16
Less than once per month 20.6% 13
Never, I don't use this area 3.2% 2

2. When do you typically use the greater Observatory Mesa area?

Response Percent Response Count
Weekdays (Monday-Friday) 30.2% 19
Weekends (Saturday-Sunday) 7.9% 5
Equally on weekdays and weekends 55.6% 35
Never, I don't use this area 3.2% 2
Other 3.2% 2

3. Which of the following activities do you participate in within the greater Observatory Mesa area the most frequently? Pick your top priorities.

Average priorities over 63 responses
  1. Describe the significance of this item

    Walking/hiking/running
  2. Describe the significance of this item

    Biking
  3. Describe the significance of this item

    Wildlife watching
  4. Describe the significance of this item

    Cross country skiing
  5. Describe the significance of this item

    Other
  6. Describe the significance of this item

    Hunting
  7. Describe the significance of this item

    Equestrian

4. The proposed trail system will support recreational opportunities for multi-use (walking/hiking, running, biking, equestrian use, etc.).

Response Percent Response Count
Strongly agree 52.4% 33
Agree 23.8% 15
Neutral 9.5% 6
Disagree 6.3% 4
Strongly disagree 7.9% 5

5. The proposed trail lengths will fit my recreational needs.

Response Percent Response Count
Strongly agree 47.6% 30
Agree 19.0% 12
Neutral 19.0% 12
Disagree 3.2% 2
Strongly disagree 11.1% 7

6. The proposed trail system will preserve the natural character of the area.

Response Percent Response Count
Strongly agree 33.9% 21
Agree 40.3% 25
Neutral 14.5% 9
Disagree 3.2% 2
Strongly disagree 8.1% 5

7. How well do you think the plan addresses these priorities? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed)

Wildlife habitat preservation
Response Percent Response Count
1 8.2% 5
2 31.1% 19
3 57.4% 35
Sensitive watershed and spring buffers
Response Percent Response Count
1 3.3% 2
2 36.1% 22
3 55.7% 34
Cultural resource buffer
Response Percent Response Count
1 3.3% 2
2 39.3% 24
3 52.5% 32
Proposed educational zones
Response Percent Response Count
1 3.3% 2
2 50.8% 31
3 39.3% 24
Parking areas proposed for retention/implementation
Response Percent Response Count
1 13.1% 8
2 37.7% 23
3 45.9% 28
Access points proposed for retention/implementation/naturalization
Response Percent Response Count
1 13.1% 8
2 31.1% 19
3 50.8% 31
Roads proposed for retention/naturalization
Response Percent Response Count
1 8.2% 5
2 41.0% 25
3 45.9% 28
Unauthorized trails proposed for adoption/naturalization
Response Percent Response Count
1 19.7% 12
2 29.5% 18
3 45.9% 28
Proposed adaptive mountain biking alignments
Response Percent Response Count
1 8.2% 5
2 47.5% 29
3 42.6% 26
Proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alignments
Response Percent Response Count
1 4.9% 3
2 50.8% 31
3 37.7% 23
Overall trail alignments proposed for construction
Response Percent Response Count
1 13.1% 8
2 26.2% 16
3 57.4% 35
Supporting signage
Response Percent Response Count
1 6.6% 4
2 34.4% 21
3 54.1% 33

8. The plan’s proposed recreational infrastructure addresses the area’s current level of use (approximately 20-30,000 users per year) and the community’s desire for recreational opportunities. (see map, above)

Response Percent Response Count
Strongly agree 36.1% 22
Agree 32.8% 20
Neutral 18.0% 11
Disagree 6.6% 4
Strongly disagree 6.6% 4

9. How well does this plan address the five Observatory Mesa recommendations identified in the Flagstaff Trail Initiative’s (FTI) regional trail strategy? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed) FTI's Trail Strategy: http://flagstafftrailsinitiative.org/

Construct a stacked loop system (trail loops connected to give users varied options)
Response Percent Response Count
1 9.8% 6
2 24.6% 15
3 65.6% 40
Connect to the Fort Valley trail system
Response Percent Response Count
1 8.2% 5
2 27.9% 17
3 60.7% 37
Adopt unauthorized trails on Lowell Observatory
Response Percent Response Count
1 11.5% 7
2 31.1% 19
3 55.7% 34
Evaluate unauthorized trails for naturalization/adoption
Response Percent Response Count
1 19.7% 12
2 21.3% 13
3 54.1% 33
Connect to Fort Valley via a FUTS commuter route
Response Percent Response Count
1 6.6% 4
2 27.9% 17
3 60.7% 37

10. If priorities 1 – 3 are implemented as funding becomes available, do the steps identified in the priorities meet the needs for recreational use and community goals in the short term while funding is being secured for the complete project? (see maps, above)

Response Percent Response Count
Yes 57.4% 35
Moderately 16.4% 10
No 19.7% 12
Unsure 6.6% 4

11. The proposed formal trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area would be an improvement of the current conditions? (see maps, above)

Response Percent Response Count
Strongly agree 46.8% 29
Agree 30.6% 19
Neutral 8.1% 5
Disagree 4.8% 3
Strongly disagree 9.7% 6

12. How would the implementation of this plan affect the way you use the area?

Response Percent Response Count
Increase my use 64.5% 40
No change 22.6% 14
Lessen my use 12.9% 8

13. Please provide further direction on your views associated with any other priorities you think this plan should include. This feedback will be used to make plan revisions. Please be as specific and clear as you can. (i.e., include: location, solutions, identification numbers, etc.).

Answered
42
Skipped
21

14. Please provide additional detail regarding your views on the overall trail plan. This feedback will be used to make plan revisions. Please be as specific and clear as you can. (i.e., include: location, solutions, identification numbers, etc.).

Answered
38
Skipped
25

15. Would you like to receive future news about the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? Enter e-mail if interested.

Answered
49
Skipped
14

16. What is your home ZIP code?

Answered
63
Skipped
0
Name not available inside City Limits
July 13, 2022, 5:55 PM
  • 1. On average, how often do you use the greater Observatory Mesa area (i.e., Lowell Observatory, Observatory Mesa Natural Area, and abutting National Forest)? (see map, above)
    • 2 to 5 times per week
  • 2. When do you typically use the greater Observatory Mesa area?
    • Equally on weekdays and weekends
  • 3. Which of the following activities do you participate in within the greater Observatory Mesa area the most frequently? Pick your top priorities.
    1. Describe the significance of this item

      Wildlife watching
    2. Describe the significance of this item

      Walking/hiking/running
  • 4. The proposed trail system will support recreational opportunities for multi-use (walking/hiking, running, biking, equestrian use, etc.).
    • Disagree
  • 5. The proposed trail lengths will fit my recreational needs.
    • Strongly disagree
  • 6. The proposed trail system will preserve the natural character of the area.
    • Strongly disagree
  • 7. How well do you think the plan addresses these priorities? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed)
    • Wildlife habitat preservation - 1
    • Sensitive watershed and spring buffers - 2
    • Cultural resource buffer - 2
    • Proposed educational zones - 2
    • Parking areas proposed for retention/implementation - 1
    • Access points proposed for retention/implementation/naturalization - 1
    • Roads proposed for retention/naturalization - 1
    • Unauthorized trails proposed for adoption/naturalization - 1
    • Proposed adaptive mountain biking alignments - 1
    • Proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alignments - 2
    • Overall trail alignments proposed for construction - 1
    • Supporting signage - 1
  • 8. The plan’s proposed recreational infrastructure addresses the area’s current level of use (approximately 20-30,000 users per year) and the community’s desire for recreational opportunities. (see map, above)
    • Strongly disagree
  • 9. How well does this plan address the five Observatory Mesa recommendations identified in the Flagstaff Trail Initiative’s (FTI) regional trail strategy? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed) FTI's Trail Strategy: http://flagstafftrailsinitiative.org/
    • Construct a stacked loop system (trail loops connected to give users varied options) - 1
    • Connect to the Fort Valley trail system - 1
    • Adopt unauthorized trails on Lowell Observatory - 2
    • Evaluate unauthorized trails for naturalization/adoption - 1
    • Connect to Fort Valley via a FUTS commuter route - 1
  • 10. If priorities 1 – 3 are implemented as funding becomes available, do the steps identified in the priorities meet the needs for recreational use and community goals in the short term while funding is being secured for the complete project? (see maps, above)
    • No
  • 11. The proposed formal trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area would be an improvement of the current conditions? (see maps, above)
    • Strongly disagree
  • 12. How would the implementation of this plan affect the way you use the area?
    • Lessen my use
  • 13. Please provide further direction on your views associated with any other priorities you think this plan should include. This feedback will be used to make plan revisions. Please be as specific and clear as you can. (i.e., include: location, solutions, identification numbers, etc.).
    WILDFIRE RISK WILL INCREASE! The City's plan will predictably increase the foot traffic on the Observatory Mesa, and that will increase the wildfire risk. In the wake of the Pipeline Fire in Flagstaff, there must be a solid plan in place to ensure the increase in visitors to the Observatory Mesa would not lead to another wildfire. What is the City going to do to ensure more visitors won't increase the risk of wildfires on the Observatory Mesa? The City also bears responsibility to ensure that the boundaries between Observatory Mesa land and adjacent private property is clearly demarcated.
  • 14. Please provide additional detail regarding your views on the overall trail plan. This feedback will be used to make plan revisions. Please be as specific and clear as you can. (i.e., include: location, solutions, identification numbers, etc.).
    Poorly planned, increases wildfire risk, violates homeowners' private property, and encourages illegal activity. LEAVE NATURAL AREAS ALONE. Proposed access points 2.9 and 2.10 are located on private property. Any trail from those access points would pass through privately owned land. Anyone who uses that trail and who is not a Linwood Heights homeowner would be criminally trespassing on private property. Jesse Gregg Park (JGP) is privately owned. The fact that the City proceeded with this proposal to put public trails on privately owned land, without even reaching out to the Linwood Heights homeowners and/or HOA, constitutes harm done to the Linwood Heights homeowners. This proposal encourages illegal activity (trespassing on private land). Moving forward, the City must make every effort to correct the damage that has already been done by creating this proposal.
  • 15. Would you like to receive future news about the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? Enter e-mail if interested.
    manfromkansas@hotmail.com
  • 16. What is your home ZIP code?
    86001
Flagstaff Community Forum is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Flagstaff Community Forum is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.

Your answers will NOT be saved

This is the form that was used to collect responses. It's here so you can try it and see how it worked when the topic was open.

The topic is now closed, and anything you enter into this form will not be saved.


Item Up Down Remove
Item Up Down Remove

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item

Describe the significance of this item


1
2
3
Wildlife habitat preservation
Sensitive watershed and spring buffers
Cultural resource buffer
Proposed educational zones
Parking areas proposed for retention/implementation
Access points proposed for retention/implementation/naturalization
Roads proposed for retention/naturalization
Unauthorized trails proposed for adoption/naturalization
Proposed adaptive mountain biking alignments
Proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alignments
Overall trail alignments proposed for construction
Supporting signage


1
2
3
Construct a stacked loop system (trail loops connected to give users varied options)
Connect to the Fort Valley trail system
Adopt unauthorized trails on Lowell Observatory
Evaluate unauthorized trails for naturalization/adoption
Connect to Fort Valley via a FUTS commuter route



Check out our guidelines for civility
Back to Intro