pikes peak multi use plan

September 1999

Prepared by:

Design Workshop, Inc.

1390 Lawrence Street, Suite 200

Denver, Colorado 80204

Prepared for:

Colorado Springs Utilities

30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 703

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

U.S. Forest Service

Pikes Peak Ranger District

601 South Weber Street

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

Funded in part by:

Great Outdoors Colorado

Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resources

U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District

Bureau of Land Management

El Paso County

Teller County

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Colorado State Forest Service

City of Manitou Springs

City of Woodland Park

Town of Cripple Creek

Town of Green Mountain Falls

Town of Victor

Pikes Peak - America’s Mountain

Colorado Springs Parks

Lead ConsultantsDesign Workshop, Inc.

Denver

Sub ConsultantsThomas and Thomas

Colorado Springs

Colorado Natural Heritage ProgramFort Collins

Felsburg Holt & UllevigDenver

Montgomery WatsonDenver

Erik OlgeirsonDenver

CTMBoulder

Black & Veatch

........................................i

.........................................................1

Project Context and Significance

Managing Partners

Vision

Goals

Document Organization and Intended Use

.........................................9

Public Involvement Organization

Inventory and Analysis

Program Definition

Alternative Designs

Preferred Alternative

Master Plan Documentation

.............................37

Regional Concepts

Projects

Resource Elements

....................73

Leaders of the Vision

Managing Partners

Non-Profit Foundation

Land Use Management Strategy

Landscape Management Guidelines

.................99

Implementation Priorities

Plan Adoption and Approval

Cooperative Working Agreements

Tools for Resource Protection

.................................................................117

A-1 Framework Diagram.................................................................................ii

A-2 CAG Summary of Confidence Survey........................................iii

A-3 Colorado Springs Local Connections to Regional

Concepts..........................................................................................................iv

A-4 Management Objectives for Stream Crossings......................iv

1-1 Managing Partners Collaboration....................................................4

1-2 Ownership and Jurisdiction Zones.................................................5

2-1 The Planning Process.............................................................................10

2-2 Opportunity Map - Stewardship Issues...................................17

2-3 Opportunity Map - Community Issues...................................18

2-4 Opportunity Map - Economic Issues........................................19

2-5 Carrying Capacity Map........................................................................20

2-6 Land Uses and Capacity Fit Modified Delphi Survey

Results..............................................................................................................21

Source: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resources

2-7 Weighted Capacity Criteria.................................................................21

2-8 Alternative A - Stewardship Scenario........................................22

2-9 Alternative B - Community/Recreation Scenario...............23

2-10 Alternative C - Economic Scenario..............................................24

2-11 Charrette Program Assignments Matrix....................................25

2-12 Alternative Synthesis..............................................................................26

2-13 AB Alternative Futures Scenario....................................................26

2-14 BC Alternative Futures Scenario....................................................27

2-15 Resource Impact Analysis Survey.................................................30

2-16 CAG Summary of Confidence Survey.......................................31

2-17 Model Comparison Matrix................................................................36

3-1 Framework Diagram..............................................................................38

3-2 Limited Use Areas Context Map....................................................39

3-3 Restoration Zones Context Map....................................................39

3-4 Buffer Zones Context Map.................................................................40

3-5 Gateways Context Map........................................................................40

3-6 Scenic Loop Context Map..................................................................41

3-7 Access Portals Context Map..............................................................41

3-8 Perimeter Loop Trail Context Map...............................................42

3-9 Recreation Use Centers Context Map.........................................42

3-10 Recreation Use Center and Locations.........................................42

3-11 Interpretive Centers Context Map.................................................43

3-12 Interpretive Centers and Locations...............................................43

3-13 Alternative Routes to the Summit.................................................44

3-14 Regional Visitors Center Context Map.......................................45

3-15 Manitou Springs Gateway Context Map.................................46

3-16 Manitou Springs Gateway Local Connections to Regional

Concepts.........................................................................................................46

3-17 Cascade Gateway Context Map......................................................47

3-18 Cascade Gateway Local Connections to Regional

Concepts.........................................................................................................47

3-19 Green Mountain Falls Gateway Context Map......................48

3-20 Green Mountain Falls Gateway Local Connections to

Regional Concepts...................................................................................48

3-21 Woodland Park Gateway Context Map....................................49

3-22 Woodland Park Gateway Local Connections to Regional

Concepts.........................................................................................................49

3-23 Colorado Springs Gateway Context Map................................50

3-24 Colorado Springs Gateway Local Connections to


3-25 Cripple Creek & Victor Gateway Context Map...................51

3-26 Cripple Creek & Victor Gateway Local Connections to


3-27 Divide Gateway Context Map.........................................................52

3 - 2 8 Divide Gateway Local Connections to Re g i o na l

C o n c e p t s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2

3-29 Gillett Gateway Context Map...........................................................53

3 - 3 0 Gillett Gateway Local Connections to Re g i o na l

C o n c e p t s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3

3-31 Chipita Park Portal Context Map..................................................54

3-32 Chipita Park Portal Local Connections to Regional

Concepts.........................................................................................................54

3-33 Catamount Ranch Open Space Portal Context Map.......54

3-34 Expanded Barr Camp Portal Context Map.............................55

3-35 Crags Campground Portal Context Map..................................55

3-36 Mueller State Park Portal Context Map....................................55

3-37 South Slope Portal Context Map...................................................56

3-38 Limited Use Areas off the Trail Corridor..................................56

3-39 Wye Campground Portal Context Map....................................56

3-40 Backcountry Portal Context Map..................................................57

3-41 Cheyenne Canyon Portal Context Map....................................58

3-42 Gold Camp Road Context Map.....................................................58

3-43 Pikes Peak Highway Context Map................................................59

4-1 Recommended Management Structure......................................76

4-2 Potential Land Use in Carrying Capacity Zones..................79

4-3 Wetland Types and their Locations..............................................81

4-4 Management Objectives for Stream Crossings.....................84

4-5 Stream-side Plant Communities.....................................................84

4-6 Wildlife and Trails Checklist..............................................................87

4-7 Potential Conservation Areas...........................................................91

4-8 Bridge Construction in Floodplains.............................................92

4-9 Standards for Single Lane Packed Gravel/Dirt Road.......94

4-10 Trail Construction....................................................................................94

5-1 Local Jurisdictions and Agencies Context Map.................104

5-2 Responsibility Matrix..........................................................................105

5-3 Examples of a Signage Program..................................................108

5-4 Funding Sources Legend for Acronyms.................................116

Pikes Peak Regional Vision Plan............................................after page 38

Carrying Capacity Map................................................................after page 76

Potential Wetlands...........................................................................after page 80

Riparian Vegetation Areas..........................................................after page 84

Wildlife Values....................................................................................after page 88

Floodplain.............................................................................................after page 90

Erosion Potential..............................................................................after page 92

Fire and Hazard................................................................................after page 94

Unique Natural Communities.................................................after page 98

Funding Sources Matrix...........................................................after page 116

Source: Design Workshop, Inc.

Pikes Peak is a public landscape of national prominence in which a balance

between preservation of critical water and other natural resources, and desires for

recreational access demanded a comprehensive regional planning effort. The local

division of the U.S. Forest Service, Pikes Peak Ranger District, and Colorado Springs

Utilities recognized the need for a balance, and as co-stewards of Pikes Peak, are

cognizant of the need to balance the demands for recreation and access with the

responsibility to prevent further loss and degradation of the mountain’s natural

resources. For this reason, the planning intentions, approach and products for the

Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan are based on strong public involvement to achieve a new

standard. The effort to develop the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan was directed by the

Managing Partners, a group composed of all resource management agencies and

local municipalities throughout the 168 square mile planning area. The Managing

Partners are listed below. The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is a long-range vision that

will continually be updated overtime so that it remains useful and correct.

The process succeeded at engaging unprecedented public participation through the

Citizen's Advisory Group (CAG) scheduled public meetings. Complex resource

planning issues were addressed by a Technical Advisory Group of local resource


p lanners very knowledgeable about the

p lanning area. The Re g i o nal Vi s i o n

P lan, a product of the Multi-Use Pla n ,

gained broad support from pa r t i c i pa n t s

with 94 percent of the Citizen's

Advisory Group endorsing the plan.

The purpose of the study is to

establish a vision and a set of

guidelines that directs and maintains a

program to prevent damaging the

existing natural resources. The Pikes

Peak Multi-Use Plan is a vision for the

Pikes Peak region based upon common

community values. The vision for the

Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is to

a c c o m m odate recreational activity

while simultaneously protecting na t u r a l

and cultural resources of the mountain

for future generations. The vision was

thoroughly tested during the pla n n i n g

p r ocess and the Re g i o nal Vision Pla n

connects the vision with practical

strategies for implementation and

m a nagement. This document, the Pikes

Peak Multi-Use Plan, is composed of a

p lanning process description, a

Re g i o nal Vision Plan, and Mana g e m e n t

and Implementation Strategies.

Collectively, the components of the

Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan offer a

common vision and management

philosophy for the future that are

consistent for both public and private

lands within the planning area. The

various regional concepts, local

projects and resource elements

combine to form a system that

integrates existing local facilities with

the Pikes Peak vision. The Summit and

surrounding Pikes Peak region is

viewed as a resource with multiple

land use opportunities. The Multi-Us e

P lan is a framework of routes,

g a t e w ays, portals and recreation use

centers that are linked to provide access

and recreational opportunities while

preserving critical natural resources.

Figure A-1 demonstrates this system.

This planning process used a

c o m p r e h e n s i ve public invo l ve m e n t

strategy that included public surve y s

and meetings, a Citizen's Ad v i s o r y

Group, newsletters, and a web site.

Through these means, this proc e s s

collected a clear expression of

community values about the Pikes

Peak region. Because the effort

i n vo l ved multiple resources and

complex planning issues, the approach

included a Technical Advisory Group

( TAG) to help discern the intricacies

through defensible expert assessments.

Managing Partners

• Colorado Springs Utilities - Water

Resources

• U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak

Ranger District

• Bureau of Land Management

• El Paso County

• Teller County

• Colorado Division of Wildlife

• Colorado State Forest Service

• City of Manitou Springs

• City of Woodland Park

• Town of Cripple Creek

• Town of Green Mountain Falls

• Town of Victor

• Pikes Peak America’s Mountain

• Colorado Springs Parks

Figure A-1Framework DiagramSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

A detailed inventory of natural and

cultural resources, the Pikes Peak Atlas,

was collected and published to readily

answer complex questions. A

sophisticated analysis process defined

most appropriate locations for

recreational, economic and

environmental stewardship uses and

o p portunities. A Carrying Capa c i t y

a nalysis defined the ability of the

la n d s c a pe to support these multiple la n d

uses. The Carrying Capacity Map is a

t ool for long-range mana g e m e n t .

The development of the Pikes Peak

Regional Vision Plan included creating

and testing a range of future scenarios

and a refinement process that

considered both public desires and

potential impacts. Public satisfaction

with the final Regional Vision Plan was

evaluated by giving a Confidence

Survey to the Citizen's Advisory Group.

While the composition of the CAG

included diverse interests such as the

Sierra Club and motorized trail

advocates, 94 percent responded that

the plan was a good or very good

representation of the group’s input. All

major concepts in the Regional Vision

Plan were publically evaluated for their

appropriateness and the average for all

concepts combined was an 86 percent

approval by the CAG. The confidence

survey results are shown in Figure A-2.

To ensure that the Regional Vision Plan

will be implemented and managed

effectively, research determined the most

appropriate management model based

on advantages and disadvantages of

several model types. A prioritized list of

projects has been developed that

included potential implementation

Figure A-2CAG Summary of Confidence Survey

Question Yes

• Should CAG have long term involvement? 97%

• Support for Back Country Portal 97%

• Do you support the concept of the Regional Visitor Center? 95%

• Is Plan a good representation of those that participated? 94%

• Support for Local Access Portal at Colorado Springs 94%

• Support for Catamount Portal 94%

• Support for Perimeter Loop Trail 94%

• Support for Alternative Routes to Peak 94%

• Support for Restoration Areas 89%

•, Support for Biological Connectedness 89%

• Support for expanding Crags Campground 88%

• Support for Limited Use Areas 86%

• Would you participate again in the long-term effort 85%

• Support for Equestrian Center at Mueller State Park 85%

• Support for combined access for Barr Trail and COG 80%

• Support for South Slope Portal 79%

• Support for New Summit House 79%

• Support for Motorized Area 75%

• Support for Auto Touring Loop (Scenic Loop) 69%

• Support for Lower Gold Camp as a road 56%

• Overall 86%

participants. A tool kit of

implementation mechanisms are

discussed outlining federal, state and

local scales of implementation.

The Regional Vision Plan includes both

a map depicting the physical

components as well as a description for

each major potential project and how it

contributes to the whole vision, a Visitor

Center, Scenic Loop, Perimeter Loop

Trail, Gateway Portals. Interpretive and

Recreation Use Centers and alternative

routes to the Peak. Projects at the local

scale provide detail that identifies the

local implication of these major

potential projects. These projects may

require a National Environmental

Protection Agency (NEPA) process and

documentation. Community parks and

trail plans have been represented to

demonstrate the opportunities for every

community to connect existing facilities

with the Regional Vision Plan. Figure A-

3 shows connections between local

facilities and the Regional Vision Plan.

The Management Strategy begins with a

recommended management framework:

a hybrid of the Non-Profit and

Independent Model. The various

Managing Partners would continue to

manage their lands independently while

being supported by a non-profit

organization focused on coordination

and implementation of the Regional

Vision Plan.

To facilitate common management

objectives for both public and private

lands, the remaining management

chapter discusses landscape

management guidelines. These issues

include: Wetlands, Riparian Areas,

Wildlife, Erosion Prone Areas, Fire

Figure A-4

Management Objectives for

Stream CrossingsSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

Figure A-3

Colorado Springs Local

Connections to Regional Concepts

Source: Thomas & Thomas

Hazard Areas and Conservation. As an

example, management objectives for

wetlands are illustrated in Figure A-4.

The Implementation Strategy begins

with a prioritized list of concepts and

projects to make this Multi-Use Plan

attainable. These implementation

priorities become the action steps

needed to achieve the Regional Vision

Plan. A discussion of each project is

followed by a potential list of

participating agencies and jurisdictions.

Various implementation tools from

federal, state and local agencies are

suggested with detailed information

provided in the Appendix. Potential

funding sources based upon the type of

development considered is included.

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is the

result of a concerted effort by the

natural resource and recreation

stewards of the Pikes Peak region, the

M a naging Partners of this Plan. Th e i r

foresight was two-fold. First, the

continued increased use of the Pe a k ’ s

r e c r e a t i o nal opportunities cha l l e n g e s

the recognized need to continue and in

some cases increase the protection of

s e n s i t i ve natural resources that be n e f i t

both recreationists and the surrounding

u r ban communities. As the region’s

po p u lation continues to increase,

recreation and natural resource

protection needs must work

symbiotically to find new solutions and

i n n ov a t i ve colla boration. Second, the

primary land owners of the Pikes Pe a k

region, Colorado Springs Utilities and

the U.S. Forest Service Pikes Pe a k

Ranger District recognized the Multi-

Use Plan must be genuinely informed

by the stakeholders and surrounding

communities for the Plan to be via b l e

at all governing leve l s .

The allure and beauty of Pikes Peak has been well known and

d ocumented since Zebulon Pike “discovered” the peak in 1806. Th e

“great shining peak” was known to numerous indian tribes for two-

hundred years prior to the coming of the white man. Demands on

the resources of “America’s Mountain,” like America’s po p u la t i o n ,

are escalating -- demands for greater access, increased commercia l

and residential development, and more recreational opportunities.

The local division of the U.S. Forest Service, Pikes Peak Ranger

District and Colorado Springs Utilities recognize these pressures,

and as co-stewards of the majority of the land in the Pikes Peak

region, are cognizant of the need to balance the demands for

recreation and access with the responsibility to prevent further loss

and degradation of the mountain’s natural resources.

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use planning process strives to achieve a

ba lance between the demands for recreation and preservation of

Source: The Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau

critical water and natural resources. Th e

p u r pose of the study is to establish a

vision and a set of guidelines that directs

and maintains a program that will preve n t

damage to the existing natural resources.

The mission of this endeavor is to

c o n s e r ve Pikes Peak, while enabling pru-

dent recreation use which does not cause

loss, decay, waste or injury to its resources.

Pikes Peak, the inspiration for America The

Beautiful, is located west of Colorado

Springs. It is surrounded by urban and

natural areas. The Pikes Peak planning

area totals approximately 168 square

miles, from Colorado Springs to Cripple

Creek. The U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak

Ranger District, Bureau of Land

Management, Colorado Springs Utilities,

Colorado State Land Board and private

land owners all have property within

the study area. From the summit,

Denver is visible 70 miles to the north.

To the south, the Spanish Peaks and

Sangre de Cristo Mountains can be seen,

and to the west, the Sawatch and

Mosquito Ranges are visible. Geologic

history began approximately 300 million

years ago when Frontrangia, a segment

of the ancestral Rocky Mountains

located 30 to 50 miles to the west of the

modern-day Rockies, stopped rising.

Ancient rivers began to carry rocks and

debris from the shrinking mountain,

distributing them in alluvial fans over

the area where Colorado Springs is

today. A great sea covered Colorado for

the next 150 million years. Then,

approximately 60 million years ago, the

Rockies arose again and as a massive

dome grew at the site of Pikes Peak, it

tilted the horizontal rock layers along its

edges into vertical slabs, creating the

majestic peak we see today.

The great droughts of the thirteenth

century AD forced the Mesa Verde

people from their cliff dwellings to the

north in search of water and cooler

weather. It is believed that they knew

the “Great Shinning Peak.” They sought

water and hunting grounds. In the

Manitou area they found springs with

water and a pass (Ute Pass) that lead to

South Park where the high, cool

pastures supported big buffalo, deer, and

elk, and where streams were full of

beaver and fish.

For two hundred years prior to the

coming of the white man, a succession

of Indian tribes roamed through the

This plan is a manage-

ment tool for use in

addressing environmental

stewardship, watershed

quality and conservation,

recreation management

and urban growth.

Study Area Context MapSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

Pikes Peak from Garden of the God s .Source: The Colorado Springs Convention and Vi s i t o r s

B u r e a u

DENVER

COLORADOSPRINGS

Pikes Peak region. The Ute Indians were

the first to roam the area in small bands

in search of buffalo for food, clothing,

and shelter. When out on the plains the

Ute Indians retreated from their enemies

to the base of Pikes Peak where they

built a series of small forts between Bear

Creek and Fountain Creek to protect

their pass into the mountains.

Many tribes lived on the plains near

Pikes Peak, including the Commanches

and the Kiowa who roamed the

mountains and the plains. The

Cheyenne Indians appeared in the

vicinity of Pikes Peak around 1850.

Although the Cheyenne traveled over

the plains to hunt buffalo, their favorite

camping ground was along Cheyenne

Creek, just south of the present City of

Colorado Springs.

Throughout human history, Pikes Peak

has been recognized as a beacon for

orientation and an icon for home. The

Ute tribe inhabited the Peak and areas

surrounding the Peak uncounted years

before Europeans reached the mountain.

It is the focus of their culture.

Zebulon Pike was the first white

explorer to record a sighting of the Peak,

later named in his honor. In November

1806, while following the Arkansas River

east of present-day Pueblo, he saw what

he described as a “small blue cloud''

high above the Plains. The first ascent

came just 14 years later, made by Dr.

Edwin James, a botanist with the Long

Expedition. In 1859, the mountain

gained its enduring place in history. The

gold rush brought thousands of fortune

hunters west in Conestoga wagons with

"Pikes Peak or Bust" emblazoned on the

sides. While most of the flake gold was

actually found 100 miles to the north,

near Central City, the rich ores of the

Peak proved to be a magnet for would-

be millionaires. In 1893 Katharine Lee

Bates penned the now-famous poem,

“America the Beautiful,” while teaching at

Colorado College. By the end of the 19th

Century, Colorado Springs, Manitou

Springs, Cripple Creek and Victor were

well established.

Following the designation of vast

acerages as the Pikes Peak Forest

Preserve (now Pike National Forest),

much of the area on the flanks of the

mountain began to be developed for

water supply collection and storage. U.S.

Congress set aside certain lands on Pikes

Peak in 1913 as a municipal water

supply reserve for the benefit of

Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs.

Pikes Peak Cog Railroad


These were to be administered by the

U.S. Forest Service in cooperation with

the Cities for the purposes of storing

and conserving the water supply,

protecting the lands from pollution, and

preserving the timber on the lands to

accomplish these purposes. Today, the

Forest Service continues to administer

the lands, in c oo peration with the

Cities. The focus of this coo pe r a t i ve

effort is watershed protection,

preservation of wildlife habitat, forest

m a nagement, fire management, and

m a i n t e nance of the land in its na t u r a l

condition to the extent consistent with

these purpo s e s .

The Managing Partners are the client

group that guided the Pikes Peak Multi-

Use Process and Plan. The Partners are

agencies, cities and counties that have

resource responsibility within the

designated Pikes Peak area or are

influenced by all activities within the

area. The U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak

Ranger District and Colorado Springs

Utilities, champions of the process, had

the foresight to recognize that the plan

would be most appreciated if all vested

Partners of the Pikes Peak area were

involved in the process of the plan.

Figure 1-1 shows how all Managing

Partners came together to shape the

vision of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan.

Each Partner is charged with the local

implementation of the concepts and

projects in their jurisdictions.

The Partners represent regional

constituencies that include:

• Colorado Springs Utilities - Water

Resources

• U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger

District


• El Paso County

• Teller County


Zebulon Pike estimated

the mountain’s height at

20,000 feet (it is actually

14,110 feet).

Figure 1-1

Managing Partners CollaborationSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

Agencies:

Bureau of Land Management - Royal Gorge Resource Management Plan, 1996

State of Colorado

Department of Defense

Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument: General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan, 1985

Pike National Forest: PSICCL and Resources Management Plan, 1984

County Jurisdictions:

El Paso County: Ute Pass Comprehensive Plan, 1982; Policy Plan, 1984 (zoning code regulations and master plan currently being revised); Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan, 1997

Fremont County: Fremont County Master Plan, 1990

Park County: Park County Comprehensive Plan, 1991; 1041 Resource Overlay Mapping, 1993

Teller County: Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan, 1997

Local Jurisdictions:

Manitou Springs:Rainbow Vision Plan, 2020; Open Space Master Plan, 1997; Woodland Park: City of Woodland Park Master Plan, 1995; Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan, 1997; Colorado Springs: Multi-Use Trails Master Plan, 1986; Cripple Creek; Green Mountain Falls; Victor

Project BoundaryFigure 1-2

Ownership and Jurisdiction ZonesSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

PIKES PEAK






• Town of Victor

• Pikes Peak - America’s Mountain


In many areas of Pikes Peak, the

Managing Partners have some

overlapping areas of influence that are

jointly managed by the various Partners.

Other areas of the Peak have little

management strategy or gaps between

zones that have no management plan.

Figure 1-2 demonstrates zones within

the Pikes Peak area that are within

various jurisdictions and the related

management plans.

The Multi-Use Plan defines the vision

for publicly-owned lands and resources

on Pikes Peak. This vision accommoda t e s

r e c r e a t i o nal activity while simultaneously

protecting natural and cultural resources

of the mountain for future generations.

Fundamental issues were used to create

a foundation at the beginning of the

planning process that guided and

defined the vision and goals of the Pikes

Peak Multi-Use Plan. These include:

• The watersheds on Pikes Peak and

consequently the health and safety of

Colorado Springs, Manitou Springs,

Cripple Creek, Victor and Ute Pass citizens,

must be protected.

• Demands for utilization and preservation

should be balanced to the fullest extent

possible, while conserving the mountain’s

r e s o u r c e s .

• National forests are mandated by forest

land resource plans and federal legislation

to allow multi-purpose access.

• A sustainable vision should contemplate

adequate personnel and budget for

resource management and maintenance.

• Damaged areas will be restored using

native vegetation.

• All existing plans and projects relevant to

the study area factor into the Pikes Peak

Multi-Use Plan.

After riding a burro up

the Peak in 1886, Zalmon

Simmons, founder of the

Simmons Mattress

Company, said “there

must be a more

comfortable way to reach

the summit of Pikes

Peak,” and built the cog

railway in 1890.

Fly-FishingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

These five goals for the Pikes Peak

Multi-Use Plan were established by the

Managing Partners at the start of the

planning process.

1. Determine the impact of growth on the

surrounding communities of Pikes Peak.

2. Develop an environmentally-based plan

that establishes the preservation of water

quality as its highest priority.

3. Develop strategies for balancing the

preservation of the Peak with public

access and commercial use.

4 . Identify and protect quality wildlife habitat.

5. Describe stewardship programs that

encourage the public to behave in ways

that will help preserve existing resources.

This document describes the planning

process utilized to develop the Multi-

Use Plan and provides the tools

required to accomplish the goals

established at the beginning of the

process.

Section Two, The Planning Process,

describes the approach used to accom-

plish the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan,

including the Regional Vision Plan, the

public participation groups and process,

and the technical experts involved in the

decision making process.

Section Three, The Regional Vision Plan,

describes the final plan, its key concepts,

specific projects within the Pikes Peak

area and resource elements such as

water resources and transportation.

Section Four, Management Strategy,

discusses recommended management

strategies for multi-jurisdictional efforts

to attain the vision and management

guidelines for areas that may require

specific mitigation measures such as

riparian corridors, wetlands, fire hazard,

unstable slopes, floodways, and

conservation zones.

Section Five, Implementation Strategy,

describes and identifies methods to

implement the plan, prioritizes the

projects to be implemented, and

recommends a strategy for funding and

outlining responsibilities.

The Ap p e n d i x contains pertinent public

pa r t i c i pation information such as the

Horse Riding through Aspen Grove sSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

s u r vey instrument and detailed results,

resource element impact ana l y s i s ,

g l o s sary of terms, and bibliography.

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is

intended to be used by stakeholders of

the Pikes Peak region. This includes the

Managing Partners, surrounding

communities and interested citizens. The

plan serves as a defensible foundation

that informs agency- and jurisdiction-

specific plans. It is anticipated that the

plan may be adopted by municipalities

and counties, and incorporated into the

body of knowledge used in decision-

making at the state and federal level.

Pikes Peak is a prominent public landscape. As such, it was important that the

Pikes Peak planning process center around public outreach and decision-

making. Several public methods were utilized to facilitate public awareness and

inform stakeholders about the planning process and ways in which to

participate. The two-year effort was structured to facilitate a quality Regional

Vision Plan for the Pikes Peak region developed by citizens, government

agencies and technical experts. Timely and relevant information was provided

to all participants in making informed choices and decisions.

This Section reviews the planning process, including the citizen and stakeholder

input, and jurisdictional and technical expertise used to develop the fina l

Re g i o nal Vision Plan and Multi-Use Plan. Figure 2-1 shows how the pla n n i n g

and public processes worked together.


The initial phase of the planning effort

was dedicated to identifying the

primary issues, individuals and loc a l

resources needed to create a defensible

p lan that could be supported by all

stakeholders. The establishment of a

public invo l vement process was critical

to legitimize the planning process and

included:

• Key Informant Interviews

• Stakeholder Meetings

• Citizens Advisory Group

• Technical Advisory Group

• Public Surveys

• Public Outreach

To help identify primary issues and key

pa r t i c i pants, a series of key informant

interviews with local leaders and user-

group representatives initiated the

p lanning process. Th i r t y - m i n u t e

interviews were conducted with the

identified community leaders and

r e s ponses were recorded. A complete

list of key informant and spe c ia l

interest groups that pa r t i c i pated in this

p lanning effort and the findings are

l ocated in the Appendix.

Key Informants expressed the follow i n g

major values in the interviews:

• The mountain area should be managed to

control negative impacts.

• The mountain is currently an economic

asset with continued potential.

• Pikes Peak is a spiritual force that affects

life in Colorado Springs.

• Recreational uses and cultural resources

should be managed.

Figure 2-1The Planning Process

Planning Process

• Public I n v o l v e m e n t

O r g a n i z a t i o n

• Inventory and Analysis

• Program Definition

• Alternative Designs

• Preferred Alternative

• Master Plan Documentation

Confidence Survey Regional Vision Plan

Management Strategies

Natural & CulturalFeatures Inventory

Needs Assessment

Interviews and Meetings

Citizen’s Advisory Group

Te chnical Advisory Group

Surveys

Program

Opportunity Maps

Capacity Maps

Alternative FuturesCharrette

Alternative RefinementResource Impact

Analysis

Invitations were sent out to more than

200 individuals and groups to

encourage attendance and participation

at the Stakeholder Meeting. In addition

to personal invitations, advertisements

in local newspapers encouraged general

public involvement. The focus of this

meeting was to recruit citizens for the

Pikes Peak Citizen’s Advisory Group

(CAG): an active working committee that

would define the Regional Vision Plan.

The stakeholder meeting, conducted by

the planning consultant, Design

Workshop, reviewed the following issues

of the planning process:

• Planning Process and Explanation

• Project Schedule

• Preliminary Goals and Objectives

• Anticipated Products of the Planning Effort

’The CAG played a “hands-on” role in

shaping the Regional Vision Plan

component of the Multi-Use Plan. CAG

members included a broad range of

users and stakeholders representing large

landowners, environmental groups,

tourism interests, motorized trail

proponents, equestrian advocates, hikers,

bikers, miners and other interested

citizens. This group attended more than

20 public meetings, over an 18-month

period, in an effort to define a regional

vision that was both sustainable and

logical. The planning activities they

accomplished include:

• Refine primary goals and objectives

• Refine program list - activities to be

considered in the region

• Learn about various agencies and user-

group perspectives

• Identify, refine and locate desired elements

and projects within the region

• Define important resource areas that need

protection

• Review alternative future scenarios for the

Pikes Peak region

• Synthesize alternative scenarios into a

draft plan

• Confirm level of confidence in final plan

elements

A technical body of local resource

planners was recruited to help identify

challenges, opportunities and solutions

Citizen’s Advisory

Group Worksession.


“Everyone’s voice is

valued in this process.”- Vic Eklund, Colorado Springs

Utilities - Water Resources

resulting from the development of a

complex plan for multiple resources and

uses. The 14-member group of local

resource planners was involved in three

important evaluations:

• Define cri t e ria for the Opportunity Maps.

(See page 16)

• Define criteria for the Carrying Capacity

Map. (See page 20)

• Establish a fit between capacity zones and

land uses including the program list for

Pikes Peak. (See page 15)

A Modified Delphi Survey was used to

develop consensus among the 14-

member TAG regarding the importance

of various criteria. The Modified Delphi

Survey is a method used to gain

consensus among technical experts.

The Delphi Survey was developed to

solicit expert opinions while achieving

consensus. The Rand Corporation

originated the technique to estimate the

length of time required to satisfy

research goals. In its original form, the

experts were anonymous; neither those

in the expert group nor those in the

general population were aware of the

identity of the experts. In Modified

Delphi Survey, the experts may be

known. Opinions are requested of the

experts in series. A statement is made

such as, “Over a ten-year period, what

is the likelihood that mountain biking

will seriously diminish the health of an

alpine meadow?” The experts will

respond with answers that may range

from 100 percent likelihood to 50

percent likelihood. To begin the second

round, each expert will be given a tally

from the first round and asked for a

revised opinion. Let us say that the tally

of answers from the first round of a

group of twenty experts was: one said

100 percent, three said 90 percent, nine

said 80 percent, five said 70 percent and

two said 50 percent. The tally from the

next round might look like this: four

said 90 percent, eleven said 80 percent

and five said 70 percent. The requests

will continue, always with the

knowledge of the answers from the

previous round, until there is consensus

on the issue.

The original survey was presented at the

kickoff meeting where the method and

objectives were described. The results of

the survey were summarized and

circulated back to each expert once

completed. They were then asked to

respond to the results, and to agree or

restate their opinion if it differed from

Technical Advisory Group Wo r k s e s s i o nSource: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resources

Citizen’s Advisory

Group Worksession. Source: Design Workshop, Inc.

the group. The criteria established for

the Opportunity Maps and the Carrying

Capacity Map used this approach.

A public invo l vement strategy was

d e ve l o ped at the beginning of the project.

To discuss the planning process, a series

of public meetings were scheduled

throughout the planning process and

conducted in the following communities:

• Colorado Springs

• Woodland Park

• Cripple Creek

• Manitou Springs

These meetings were scheduled early in

the process to collect public input on

goals, objectives and desired uses. Later

in the process, public input meetings

were held to inform and gather

comments regarding the Regional Vision

Plan. Public meeting comments are

located in the Appendix.

A newsletter, called Peak Vi e w s w a s

created and each volume was distributed

to all pa r t i c i pants. These newsletters

p r ovided information on the progress of

the planning process and the loc a t i o n s

and times of the next meetings. Copies

of Peak Vi e w s are located in the Appe n d i x .

A web site was also designed in

conjunction with Colorado Springs

Utilities’ home page that described the

p lanning effort and announced future

meeting dates and loc a t i o n s .

A Recreation User Survey was designed

and distributed to all interested pa r t i e s

and printed in local newspa pers. It was

also made av a i lable in public facilities

throughout the region to gather

community attitudes about recreation.

The response was tremendous and the

results were used as a point of depa r t u r e

for programming desired uses for the

region. A complete summary of the

Recreation User Survey can be found in

the Appe n d i x .

Inventory is the process of compiling

base information on the region that

informs decision-making throughout the

planning process. The analysis process

synthesized the inventory maps into

summary maps and transformed raw

data into useful information.

Two newsletters were used toinform the public of future

meetings, current activities, andresults of past meetings.

Find out more about the

Pikes Peak Multi-Use

Plan on the web:

www.csu.org/water/ppplan/ppplan.html

The inventory consisted of many

different types of information. First, map

data was assembled from seve n

g overnmental agencies and included

elements such as resource mapping, site

features and political bo u n daries. Other

i n ventory elements included existing

p lans and management reports from all

surrounding agencies and municipa l i t i e s .

This information was compiled within an

A r c View Geographic Information Sy s t e m

( GIS) to facilitate the analysis process.

The process began with the Re c r e a t i o n

User Surve y. A community profile was

then constructed using current

demographic data collected from tow n s

and counties. The community profile

h e l ped to inform the activity and use

desires used to develop the program for

the planning area.

The synthesized data and reports were

organized into a volume of information,

called the Pikes Peak Atlas, that was used

to inform the design and planning

phases of the process. The Pikes Peak Atlas

was published as a separate document

and includes an inventory of natural

and cultural features for the Pikes Peak

region. Examples of the inventory maps

are shown at left, complete maps can be

found in the Pikes Peak Atlas and include

the following:

• Context

• Elevation

• Aerial

• Solar Exposure (Aspect)

• Constructed Water Supply Infrastructure

• Cultural and Historic Sites

• Demographic

• Erosion Potential

• Economic Resources

• Fire Hazard

• Floodplains

• Grant Lands

• Ownership

• Recreation Areas

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

• Riparian Vegetation Areas

• Winter Solar Study

• Soil Series

• Slopes

• Transportation

• Unique Natural Communities

• Vegetation

• Visual Analysis Summary

• Watersheds /Sub-basins

• Wildlife Values

• Wetlands

Vegetation Map ExampleSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

Ownership Map ExampleSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

Elevation Map Example Source: Design Workshop, Inc.

Programs are activities and uses carried

out in the Pikes Peak region, such as

s n ow s h oeing, rock climbing and hiking.

The Program Definition phase of the

p lanning process was structured to

d e velop the list of appropriate uses tha t

should be considered for inclusion

within the Pikes Peak region. The uses

were later tested using alterna t i ve designs

for appropria t e n e s s .

Both existing uses and proposed uses

were considered in the program

definition. The Recreation User Survey

provided useful information about uses

of existing recreational facilities, and

what additional uses might be

considered in the future. The CAG used

the Recreation User Survey results of

potential program elements to refine and

prioritize the program elements into a

list of activities. The activities were later

tested in alternative plans.

The following is a list of the activities

(programs) considered to be appropriate

that were later recommended in the

design alternative phase:

• Agriculture

• Auto touring route

• Backpacking

• Bird watching

• Boating (non-motorized)

• Boy/girl scout camp

• Braille trail

• Camping area (developed)

• Camping area (primitive)

• Cog railway

• Commercial outfitters

• Cross-country skiing

• Environmental education facility

• Exploring

• Hunting

• Interpretive site

• Living history site

• Lodging (cabins)

• Lodging (motel//hotel)

• Lodging (single family homes)

• Logging

• Mineral collecting (rockhounds)

• Mining

• Narrow gauge railroad

• Observatory

• Open space

• Overnight hut system

• Picnic area

• Public transportation shuttle

• Races (automotive)

• Races (bicycle)

• Races (foot)

• Research facility

• Resort

• Roadless area

Rock ClimbingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

SnowshoeingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

HikingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

• Roads (Pikes Peak Highway)

• Roads (other)

• Rock climbing

• Shooting range

• Shore fishing

• Snowmobiling

• Snowshoeing

• Summit house

• Toilet facilities

• Trailhead parking facilities

• Trails (cross-country skiing)

• Trails (equestrian)

• Trails (hiking)

• Trails (motorized ATV, 4WD, motorcycle)

• Trails (mountain bike)

• Utility corridor

• Visitor center

• Water access site (boat launch)

• Water resource preserve

• Water storage

• Wildlife preserve

Based upon the identified issues, goals

and objectives, the complied inve n t o r y

a nalysis, and listed program, three

O p portunity Maps were deve l o pe d :

• Stewardship (natural resources)

• Community (recreation)

• Economic

The Opportunity Maps define spe c i f i c

la n d s c a pe opportunities, such as good

p laces for recreation stewardship and

economic development. Stewardship refers

to protection of natural resources.

Community issues include visual sensitivity,

recreation, open space and historic sites.

Economic issues include deve l o pable la n d s ,

mining, recreation and access.

The technical nature of defining criteria

for uses such as stewardship, economic

and community required input from

e x perienced resource managers. Th e

1 4 - m e m ber TAG was asked to

pa r t i c i pate in an exercise to develop the

c r i t e r ia for the analysis maps. Th e

M odified Delphi Surve y, a consensus

building approach, was used to define

the criteria for the Stewardship,

Economic and Community

O p portunity Maps. Figures 2-2 through

2-4 summarize the criteria established

and the weighting values applied to

each criteria.

The criteria were then applied to the

inventory mapping with GIS models to

produce the Opportunity Maps shown

adjacent to the opportunity criteria. The

Modified Delphi Survey instrument and

results can be found in the Appendix.

The Opportunity Maps

define specific landscape

opportunities, such as

natural resources located

within the planning area.

Figure 2-2 Opportunity Maps

Stewardship IssuesWetlands

Cultural Sites

Habitat Areas

Aquifer

Rare Species

Riparian

Erosion

Waterways

Stewardship refers toresponsiblemanagement ofnatural resources.


Community IssuesVisual Sensitivity

Historic sites

Hazards

Recreation

Watchable Wildlife

Public Lands

Open Spaces

Community issuesinclude visualsensitivity, recreation,open space andhistoric sites.


Economic IssuesAgricultural

Developable Lands

Mining

Timber

Recreation

Water Resources

Access

Economic issues includedevelopable lands, min-ing, recreation anda c c e s s .

A Carrying Capacity Map, Figure 2-5,

a nalyzed the la n d s c a pe’s ability to

s u p port land uses and characterized the

la n d s c a pe into seven capacity zones.

A p p r o p r iate uses for each Capacity Zo n e

were then identified. This map informed

the design process, and serves as a long-

term management tool. The method for

defining the criteria and weighting values

to characterize carrying capacity on the

la n d s c a pe was similar to that used to

define the Opportunity Maps. The TA G

began by brainstorming the spe c i f i c

issues (e.g. slopes) that influence carrying

c a pa c i t y. Land use and capacity fit define

the suitable range for each land use type

(see Figure 2-6). The next step was to

redefine the legend of each identified

issue from one to five, one meaning

most capable and five meaning least

c a pable. For example, slopes from 0-6

percent rated one, and slopes over 50

percent were rated five. Each individual

issue was weighted based upo n

i m portance rela t i ve to the other issues

(e.g., importance of slope compared to

r i pa r ian areas).

The final step to define carrying

c a pacities invo l ved evaluating the entire

list of po t e n t ial program elements that fit

within the seven capacity zones. A

M odified Delphi Survey was used by the

TAG to define the appropriate carrying

c a pacity zones for each program element.

Figure 2-7 summarizes the results of the

s u r ve y. The program elements (activities)

are weighted for compatibility with

c a pacity criteria listed. The Mod i f i e d

Delphi Survey instrument and results can

be found in the Appe n d i x .

The Carrying Capacity

Map demonstrates where

land uses are appropriate

based on seven sensitive

resource criteria.

Figure 2-5

Carrying Capacity Map

The combination of the public input,

Program Definition, and the technical

process provides a powerful tools for

long-term land management. (See

Section Four, Management Strategy, for a

detailed description.)

Figure 2-6

Land Uses and Capacity Fit

Modified Delphi Survey Results

Capacity Criteria

Erosion Potential 4.13

Land Cover 3.76

Hydrology 4.50

Slope Map 3.63

Visual Sensitivity 3.22

Habitat 3.70

Fire Hazard 3.70

Figure 2-7

Weighted Capacity Criteria

1 = most capable: 5 = least capable

Capacity Zones: 1-7 Grey Bar = Land Compatible for Use)

A l t e r na t i ve design scenarios invo l ved the

rigorous testing of multiple land use

design concepts. Concepts were

evaluated by both the Citizen Ad v i s o r y

Group and representatives of loc a l

agencies and municipalities for a

q u a l i t a t i ve response. An impa c t

evaluation was also conducted by water,

cultural, wildlife and transpo r t a t i o n

e x perts to quantify po t e n t ial impacts of

a l t e r na t i ve scenarios. The combination of

both public and expert evaluation of

design concepts enabled the summary

r e c o m m e n dations to address community

desires and be technically respo n s i ve to

natural resource sensitivity.

Three design teams were assembled from

the CAG, local municipalities, and

g overnment agencies. The design teams

came together for a three-day cha r r e t t e

to identify three future scenarios tha t

offered various po t e n t ial land uses. Th r e e

clearly defined scenarios were deve l o pe d

to encourage the design teams to

consider as many possible ideas for each

s c e nario. Figure 2-8 through 2-10 and

the following scenario descriptions were

used as design parameters during the

t h r e e - day cha r r e t t e :

Alternative A

Stewardship Scenario

This Scenario highlighted program

elements with emphasized conservation

and educational components and placed

environmental values first. This Scenario

defined areas that should be closed to

human use, seasonal closure and allows

pedestrians on the Pikes Peak Highway

only. The Summit House would only be

accessible by the Cog Railway. The ficti-

tious premise for the Stewardship

Scenario follows:

Figure 2-8

Alternative A

Stewardship Scenario

Three Alternative Design

Scenarios were developed

• Stewardship

• Community

• Economic

“The year is 2004 and Al Gore is the

president of the United States. Mr. Gore

was elected (some believe) on an

environmental platform that was

popular due to published studies with

quantifiable proof that the Earth’s life

support systems are in serious decline, a

situation much more serious than was

previously believed. His trusted

Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit

has assumed much authority in the new

administration and has fathered a series

of new legislative bills that preserve

natural areas and unique natural

resources and mandates the clean-up of

landscapes that have been adversely

impacted by human habitation.

Aggressive public policy for redemption

and conservation in and around public

land holdings has been imposed, and

management plans are required within

one year. To this end, a multi-

jurisdictional task force has been

convened to develop a plan for the

Pikes Peak region. The design team has

been assembled to confront the issue of

environmental enhancement and

preservation first, and other human

needs where they do not conflict with

this objective.”

Alternative B

Community/Recreation Scenario

" Re c r e a t i o nal Mecca of the We s t e r n

States." This scenario includes program

elements from both stewardship and

c o m m u n i t y. The plan focused on

e x panding recreation significantly within

the Pikes Peak region while areas were

d e voted to either conservation or

r e c r e a t i o nal use. An aggressive recreation

system was established. Key ideas

include a Re g i o nal Visitor Center,

I n t e r p r e t i ve Centers, Recreation Us e

Centers, Perimeter Loop Trails and Ac c e s s

Portals. The premise for the

C o m m u n i t y /Recreation Scenario follow s :Figure 2-9

Alternative B

Community/Recreation Scenario

“The year is 2010. The 2006 Winter

Games have recently been held in

Colorado Springs and the facilities for

the games are located all around the

Pikes Peak region. Even though the

games are over, the world was given a

chance to see Colorado Springs during

the much publicized games and tourists

from all over the country and around

the world just keep coming. The

demand for recreation, natural systems,

education and public infrastructure to

support year-round tourism continues

to grow. The demand far exceeds the

supply, and the region recognizes that

many recreational opportunities need to

be created to meet the needs of local

citizens and visitors. A cooperative

multi-agency task force has convened to

address the issue and seek expanded

recreational opportunities while

preserving resource qualities for the

entire Pikes Peak region.”

Alternative C

Economic Scenario

“Pikes Peak or Bust.” This Scena r i o

includes program elements from all

c harrette program assignment areas.

This plan focused on testing numerous

m e t h ods to creatively finance public

recreation. Ideas included land trades, a

g o n d o la from Cripple Creek, resort

d e velopment on public lands, extensive

use of the South Slope and privately-

owned recreation development. Th e

premise for this Scenario follow s :

“The Y2K bug is no hype! The world

economy has taken a big hit and with it

the United States slumped into a five-

year depression. Much public and

political pressure has come to bear on

the new Republican leadership. This

pressure has materialized in the form of

new legislation to stimulate economic

development on and around public

lands. The new legislation has

Figure 2-10

Alternative C

Economic Scenario

mandated economic development while

conserving the land and providing

recreational benefits. Managers of

Public Lands throughout the country

have been charged with developing the

economic opportunities on public lands

and support private landowners in

doing the same. This design team is

charged with developing a plan for

economic development that can be

described as sustainable, yet can provide

both short and long term economic

benefit to the local community. This

plan seeks to maximize the economic

benefit for both public and private lands

within the Pikes Peak region.”

The design team used the matrix shown

in Figure 2-11 to ensure that all poten-

tial program elements were tested. The

matrix associates every program element

with at least one of the three scenarios.

Each team began by defining goals and

objectives for each scenario, followed by

design principles to govern decision-

making and the resulting consequences.

Diagrams of the region were prepared

by each team to explain a logic for the

ways in which site opportunities and

constraints might impact the design

principles. Ultimately, a series of three

plans emerged from the design process,

one for each scenario (Figures 2-8

through 2-10). Each design team

presented to the charrette group, to a

team of agency heads and community

leaders, and finally to the CAG.

Program Elements Steward Community EconomicAgricultureAlpine Skiing-BackcountryAuto Touring RouteBackpackingBird WatchingBoating-non-motorizedBoy/Girl Scout CampBraille TrailCamping Area-developedCamping Area-dispersedCog RailwayCommercial OutfittersEnvironmental Education FacilityExploringHuntingInterpretive SiteLiving History SiteLodging-cabinsLodging-motel/hotelLodging-single family homesLoggingMineral Collecting (rockhounds)MiningNarrow Gauge RailroadObservatoryOpen SpaceOvernight Hut SystemPicnic AreaPublic Transportation ShuttleRaces-automobileRaces-bicycleRaces-footResearch FacilityResortRoadless AreaRoads-otherRoads-Pikes Peak HighwayRock ClimbingShooting RangeShore FishingSnowmobilingSnowshoeingSummit HouseToilet FacilitiesTrailhead Parking FacilitiesTrails-cross-country skiingTrails-equestrianTrails-hikeTrails-motorized use (ATV, 4WD, motorcycle)Trails-mountain bikeUtility CorridorVisitor CenterWater Access Site-boat launchWater Resource PreserveWater StorageWildlife Preserve

Table 2-11

Charrette Program Assignments

Matrix. This was used to assure

that all potential uses were tested

in the alternative design phase

StewardshipCommunity Economic

Alternative Design Scenarios

The CAG made specific comments about

elements they liked and others they felt

were inappropriate. Figure 2-12

represents the process used to facilitate

the final product: the ABC Best

Alternative. This reflects all of the

comments from the three Scenarios,

while eliminating concepts not endorsed

by the CAG or having significant

resource and transportation impacts.

At each step in the synthesis process, the

CAG re-evaluated the alternatives for

agreement or disagreement with the

design concepts. This evaluation was

ultimately applied to the ABC scenario

to derive the first draft of the Regional

Vision Plan. The Regional Vision Plan is

described in its entirety in Section Three.Figure 2-13

AB Alternative Futures Scenario

Figure 2-12

Alternative Synthesis

AB and BC Alterna t i ve Futures Scena r i o s

were created as a result of public and

agency review of the individual A, B and

C Scenarios. The most appropriate ideas

from the A and B Scenarios were

combined into the AB Scenario, while the

weakest concepts were eliminated. Th e

BC Scenario was created using the be s t

concepts from B and C respe c t i ve l y, while

again eliminating the weakest concepts.

AB and BC Scenarios were created as a

result of public and agency review of

the A, B and C Scenarios.

Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show the AB and

BC Alternative Futures Scenarios that

combine the most appropriate program

uses for all alternative scenarios as well

as activities specific to

Stewardship/Recreation (AB) or

Recreation/Economic (BC).

Figure 2-14

BC Alternative Futures Scenario

The Alternative Future Scenarios

propose various levels and degrees of

physical change to the Pikes Peak region.

These changes are important to the vari-

ous resources that are impacted. The

Impact Analysis aided in selecting which

alternative would have greater or fewer

impacts on water, environmental,

cultural and transportation systems.

The consultant team included experts

that conducted physical impact

evaluations on the AB and BC scenarios

to provide a quantitative rationale for

selecting concepts included in the draft

Regional Vision Plan. Water,

transportation, wildlife and cultural

resources were all examined for

potential impacts from the AB and BC

Scenarios specific to concepts presented

on the two alternatives. A full summary

of each impact analysis can be found in

the Appendix. The abstracts below

summarize the resource impact

evaluations:

Water Resources

The impact analysis on water resources

was completed by the engineering firm

of Montgomery Watson. They reported

that the AB Scenario

(Stewardship/Recreation Scenario) has

only minor impacts on surface and

ground water resources in the Pikes

Peak planning area. Scenario elements

which open up new areas for visitor use

and increase the intensity of existing

uses (e.g., new trails, activity centers and

the Auto Touring Loop) could result in

impacts to water quality and watershed

erosion. However, these impacts are

expected to be localized and manageable

through implementation.

The BC Scenario (Re c r e a t i o n /E c o n o m i c s

S c e nario) has more po t e n t ial impa c t s

on water resources than the

S t e w a r d s h i p /Recreation Scena r i o .

P r o posed facilities are more extensive ,

p r ovide for more intensive uses

throughout the planning area, and may

bring more visitors to the area.

Transportation

Tr a n s portation and traffic impacts were

assessed by traffic engineers Felsburg Holt

and Ullevig. They reported that the most

significant difference between the two

s c e narios rela t i ve to transportation is the

i m p r oved accessibility be t w e e n

surrounding communities and

r e c r e a t i o nal opportunities that is

a s s oc iated with Scenario BC. Ad d i t i o na l

or upgraded access portals are prov i d e d ,

pa r t i c u larly on the north and south.

Ad d i t i o nal road and trail access is

p r ovided within the recreation area.

S e veral access routes that are common to

both scenarios would access more

r e c r e a t i o nal opportunities in Scenario BC.

Wildlife Resource

The wildlife resource impact ana l y s i s

was completed by biologist Erik

Olgeirson. He reported that the

p r o posed economic development BC

S c e nario, allows for virtually unlimited

access to the park. The propo s e d

d e velopments will have rela t i vely minor

i m pacts on the natural resources of the

park. It is the increase in ve h i c u lar traf-

fic and recreational users assoc ia t e d

with this Scenario that will have the

greatest impact on the natural resources

in this area. The proposed road

i m p r ovements and the addition of

motorized campsites and lodging in the

southern region of the planning area

are of spe c ial concern. While this

S c e nario may not alter current uses

significantly it does little to preserve and

protect valuable natural areas.

Cultural Resources

The cultural resources impact analysis

was completed by the planning firm of

Thomas and Thomas. They reported

that significant differences between the

two Scenarios are based on the

distribution of access points and activity

centers. Based on an equal number of

potential users, the BC Scenario

potentially distributes users over a

greater area and number of activity

centers, reducing the impact on local or

site-specific resources. The AB Scenario

limits the number of activity areas and

concentrates or controls users access to

a smaller portion of the site, preserving

a greater sense of the “regional” resource.

The overall scoring, shown on Figure 2-

15, reflects slightly higher impacts

associated with Scenario BC. This is

illustrated in a greater number of

developments impacting the regional

context. While many of the individual

sites may benefit from site

improvements and reduced daily visitor

numbers, the proposed distribution

would impact the experience in existing

sensitive areas to local users.

Conversely, non-local users may see the

broader distribution of activity centers

and access points as an improvement to

the regional resource.

Figure 2-15

Resource Impact

Analysis Summary

Transportation Water Resources Wildlife ResourcesCultural

Resources

* Transportation ranking: 1 = poorest transportation solution5 = little or no impact

Other resource rankings: 1 = little or no impact5 = greatest impact

The results of both the qualitative

evaluation and the expert evaluations

(resource impact analysis) were used to

inform the final decision making that

determined which concepts would be

represented on the ABC Scenario.

Refinements to the ABC Scenario were

determined in meetings with key

agencies, municipalities, public meetings

and the CAG committee.

A Confidence Survey was circulated to

the CAG following the presentation of

the Regional Draft Vision Plan. The

result of rigorous public involvement,

detailed inventory, innovative analysis

and appropriate public and expert

evaluations produced a plan developed

through consensus by all of those that

participated. The final Confidence

Survey asked "Is the plan a good

representation of all those that

participated?" and 94 percent of

participants responded positively. The

high level of success is confirmed by the

diverse groups that responded, such as

the motorized trail users and members

of the Sierra Club. The full results of

the Confidence Survey are listed in

Figure 2-16.

Management of a region such as Pikes

Peak cannot be implemented without a

clear vision of desired outcomes. The

Regional Vision Plan outlines roles and

responsibilities for the vested parties and

managing authorities for the plan to

Figure 2-16CAG Summary of Confidence Survey

Yes

• Should CAG have long term involvement? 97%

• Support for Back Country Portal 97%

• Do you support the concept of the Regional Visitor Center? 95%

• Is Plan a good representation of those that participated? 94%

• Support for Local Access Portal at Colorado Springs 94%

• Support for Catamount Portal 94%

• Support for Perimeter Loop Trail 94%

• Support for Alternative Routes to Peak 94%

• Support for Restoration Areas 89%

• Support for Biological Connectedness 89%

• Support for Expanding Crags Campgrounds 88%

• Support for Limited Use Areas 86%

• Would you participate again in the long-term effort 85%

• Support for Equestrian Center at Mueller State Park 85%

• Support for Combined Access for Barr Trail and COG 80%

• Support for South Slope Portal 79%

• Support for New Summit House 79%

• Support for Motorized Area 75%

• Support for Auto Touring Loop (Scenic Loop) 69%

• Support for Lower Gold Camp as a road 56%

succeed. Once the Regional Vision Plan

was completed, the Managing Partners

discussed potential organizational and

management models and existing

management structures employed in the

Pikes Peak region today.

The project team from Design Workshop

identified four potential organizational

structures that could be utilized to

manage the short and long-term

operational needs of Pikes Peak Multi-

Use Plan area.

The desire to accommodate involvement

from all Managing Partners, however,

should not supersede efforts to

streamline and maintain quality

decision-making. Given the complex

and fragile nature of the subject area,

the future operational and advising

organization should be both technically

skilled and able to facilitate consensus-

building in order to achieve the

following:

• Administration and Business Management

• Cooperative land owner relationships

• Coordination with public land owners

• Fee collection

• Fund-raising

• Interpretive programming

• Operations and maintenance of the trail

systems

• Patrol and emergency

• Programming and event staging

• Resource management

• Safety and risk management

• Visitor needs

The po t e n t ial members of the appropria t e

organization are listed to the left. Fo u r

e xamples of organizational structures are

d e s c r i bed be l ow. The models are

complemented by details of existing

organizations that were formed to solve

s i m i lar issues to those faced by the Pikes

Peak planning team, CAG and TAG.

This model presents one agency (U.S.

Forest Service, Pikes Peak Ranger District

for example) as the lead coordinator for

the overall management of the Pikes

Peak Multi-Use area. The agency-led

model requires that the neighboring

agencies accept the agency as lead and

enter a cooperative agreement (official

or unofficial) to jointly manage the

entire area, regardless of ownership.

Strengths

• Provides a clear line of communication

and leadership with designated authority

and funding sources.

Potential Managing Partner Members

• Colorado Springs Utilities -

Water Resources


Ranger District


• El Paso County

• Teller County







• Town of Victor

• Pikes Peak - America’s Mountain


Pikes Peak Multi-

Resource Plan Criteria:

• System-wide coordination

• Efficiency

• Administrative skills

• Vision thru implementation

• Task expertise

• Multi-resource objectives

Weaknesses

• Does not facilitate consensus across all

political and ownership boundaries.

• The agency leading the organization

would prescribe their philosophy and

legislative authority.

The non-profit model involves the

formation of a volunteer board of

directors, who raises money from grants

and corporate donations, and hires an

Executive Director. The Executive

Director would spearhead the non-profit

visioning and fund-raising, in concert

with the Board of Directors, as well as

develop budgets and implementation

strategies to realize the vision. A

government entity would still be the

responsible authority to which the Non-

Profit reports.

Strengths

• Minimizes "conflicts of interest" issues

that other models with multiple agencies

may face.

• Enhances relationships between govern-

ment agencies and private land owners.

• Provides an organization to “carry the

torch” and be the keepers of the vision.

• Establishes a regional promotion

framework.

• Develops clear responsibility for fund-

raising by the non-profit.

Weakness

• Limited funds may hinder the level of

commitment the Board of Directors is able

to generate.

• Funds are the results of fund-raising

efforts, which would not supply a steady

stream of financial support.

Case Study

The Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC)

is a private, non-profit educational

organization of individuals, volunteers,

maintainers and clubs, formed in 1925.

The National Park Service has

administrative responsibility for the Trail

and the ATC is accountable to the

National Park Service for the proper

management of the Trail.

A 25-member Board of Directors, the

policy-making governing body, guides

thirty-five affiliated volunteer groups. A

small professional staff of approximately

30 people helps coordinate the trail

maintenance and management activities

of the volunteers. A complete

description of The Appalachian Trail

Conference is located in the Appendix.

The Conservation Agency model is

formatted around the hiring of a

conservation management agency (i.e., the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to fulfill a

r e g i o nal vision plan’s stated objective s .

Strengths

• Model led by a group whose sole purpose is

to heighten conservation efforts. The future

of the land and its ability to sustain

targeted uses would be the primary focus of

the managing organization.

The Independent Model allows each type

of la n d owner (public and private) to

m a nage their part of a defined area. Fo r

e xample, Colorado Springs Utilities

would manage their watershed, the U.S.

Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District

would manage their lands, etc. Each

individual or group may agree to

m a nage their part of the Multi-Use area,

consistent with a single mana g e m e n t

p h i l o s o p h y, but day - t o - day ope r a t i o n s

and maintenance would be site spe c i f i c .

A solid process for managing difficult

issues should be deve l o ped at the initia l

o r g a n i z a t i o nal stage.

Strengths

• Each land owner and operator manages

land based on their own jurisdiction of it.

• Agreements of the best management

practices would be minimized, and all

individual interests could be pursued with

limited conflict.

Weaknesses

• Individual interests could lead to contro-

versy if not managed as a team effort.

Case Study

Mt. Washington Observatory, located in

New Hampshire, is managed by a group

that includes both public and private

landowners. The public land agencies

represented include the U.S. Forest

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

and National Park Service. For daily

management requirements, each group

is responsible for its own area, but all sit

"at the table" together in order to solve

issues that ultimately affect everyone.

The Cooperative Management

Agreement engages the sustained

involvement of the local host

community residents and their

governments, recreation-tourism

business and industry, and public land

management agencies.

According to Don Bruns, a recreational

planner for the Bureau of Land

Management, this model addresses

many elements faced by managers of

broad, natural resource based activities.

Bruns adds that because no single group

land managing agency, service provider,

or local government actually provides

the benefits of activities, management of

the area needs to incorporate all

providers. The management structure

must allow for functional lines of

communication, authority and

commerce, without sacrificing

responsibility, decision making and

entrepreneurial opportunities.

Strengths

• Builds community consensus and synergy

among all stakeholders.

Weaknesses

• The decision making process may be

hindered by the complex nature of "everyone

is at the table" type of organization.

• Technical expertise is limited to those

involved.

Case Study

The Owl Mountain Partnership is a

prototype for ecosystem management in

North Park, Colorado. This project is

orchestrated by Seeking Common

Ground, which is a partnership of

federal land management agencies, state

fish and wildlife agencies, wildlife

conservation organizations and others.

The mission statement of the Owl

Mountain Partnership is to serve the

economic, cultural, and social needs of

the community, while developing long-

term landscape management programs,

policies and practices that ensure

ecosystem sustainability.

Case Study

When Colorado became a State in 1876,

the federal government gave the state

approximately 4.5 million acres of

federal lands, of which the state still

owns three million. All of these acres

are managed by the five person State

Land Board and a staff of 29 to benefit

the School Trust and seven smaller

trusts. The Board is the "trustee" for

state trust lands and has a fiduciary

responsibility to the beneficiaries of the

land, which are the individuals in the

Colorado public school system.

Management, operations and project

implementation are the key strengths of

the Non-Profit Model and Conservation

Agency Model. The Agency-Led Model’s

main focus is the implementation of

projects and day-to-day responsibilities,

Very CapableModerately CapableMinimally Capable

Functions & Capabilities RequiredAgency Non-Profit Conservation Independent Cooperative

Led Agency Management Agreements

Administration/Business ManagementBuild Trails and FacilitiesDevise, build and maintain educational programEmergency Response (fire/ambulance)Fee CollectionsFund-RaisingHabitat/Environmental Restoration (Design & Implement)Historic InterpretationInfluence Private LandownersInter-agency/Municipality CoordinationLaw Enforcement Capabilities (Patrol)MaintenanceOperationsProgramming & Event StagingPromotionResource Management (Water/Timber/Wildlife/T&E)Resource Survey (continued)Transportation (safety/maintenance/construction)Trash pickupSafety and Risk ManagementVisioning

Models

it is limited in the areas of fund-raising,

administration and its ability to

influence private land owners. The

Cooperative Management Agreement

Model only exhibits moderate strengths

in day-to-day responsibilities but it is

least capable to raise funds, vision, and

promote the Pikes Peak region. The

Independent Model is the weakest

model in a number of categories and

shows only moderate capabilities for

operations and maintenance. Based on

strengths and weaknesses inherent in

the Independent Model, it is

recommended that a hybrid

management model be implemented to

enhance the currently employed

Independent Model.Figure 2-17

Model Comparison Matrix

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Planning Process was created as a common vision based on

community values. To properly manage this region, an understanding of end-use desires

and a clear vision of future conditions is necessary. The Regional Vision Plan is the result

of the planning process of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan that involved public

participation, planning and design, and technical expert analysis. The Regional Vision

Plan represents the heart of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan. After more than eighteen

months the Regional Vision Plan evolved from ideas, concepts and knowledge from

public meetings and the Citizen Advisory Group, combined with the guidance and

expertise of consultants and local resource experts. The diligent work and concerted

effort from all of these groups together with the Managing Partners, the Regional Vision

Plan is a tremendous opportunity that provides multiple recreation opportunities while

protecting sensitive natural resources for the surrounding communities today and for

future generations.

The Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG) worked with the managing partners to develop the

Regional Vision Plan. This group represented the broadest possible set of users in the

Pikes Peak area including: participants from environmental groups, motorized trails

representatives, climbers, mountain bikers and other users that were interested in

Source: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resources Department

participating in the process. The CAG

helped to define the goals and objectives

for the Regional Vision Plan, refine the

program elements from broader user

survey results, critique the inventory

and analysis process, and direct the

synthesis of a range of possible futures

into a final draft. Because of the high

level of CAG involvement, the final

Regional Vision Plan reflects the values

and input from broad representation.

Ninety-four percent of the CAG agreed

on the plan in the final Confidence

Survey circulated to all members. A

description and summary of the survey

findings is located in Section Two, and

the instrument and detailed results can

be found in the Appendix.

The concepts discussed in the Regional

Vision Plan are delineated into two

categories:

• Regional Concepts

• Site Specific Projects

Accordingly, this chapter has been

organized into these two categories and

discusses the concepts and projects in

detail.

Regional Concepts define and

distinguish the Pikes Peak area based on

environmental stewardship (Limited Use

Areas and Restoration Zones) and

community and visitor services

(gateways, scenic loops and portals, etc.).

These concepts are found in various

areas of the region and may be a part of

site specific projects.

The various regional concepts, local

projects and resource elements combine

to form a system that integrates existing

local facilities with the Pikes Peak vision.

The Summit and surrounding Pikes Pe a k

region is viewed as a resource with multi-

ple land use opportunities. The Multi-Us e

P lan is a framework of routes, gateway s ,

portals and recreation use centers that are

linked to provide access and recreationa l

o p portunities while preserving critical

natural resources. Figure 3-1

demonstrates this system.

Regional Concepts

• Limited Use Areas

• Restoration Zones

• Buffer Zones

• Gateways

• Scenic Loop

• Access Portals

• Perimeter Loop Trail

• Recreation Use Centers

• Interpretive Centers

• Al t e rnative Routes to the Summit

Figure 3-1

Framework Diagram

RECREATION USE CENTERS

Buffer Zone(traditional agriculture to be encouraged)

Buffer Zone(traditional agriculture to be encouraged)

Woodland Park Gateway- Visitor Services

Manitou Springs Gateway- Visitor Services

Victor Gateway- Visitor Services

Cripple Creek Gateway- Visitor Services

Divide Gateway- Visitor Services

H

H

Wye Campgound -Motorized Trail Center

Barr Trail AccessCOG Rail Access

Back Country (Primitive)- Camping/Hiking

Gillett Portal

Pike Peak Summit- New Summit House- New Observatory

Winter Center

AdditionalLocal Access

Mueller Portal

BLM Wilderness Study Area

Glen Cove

Crystal Reservoir

DudeRanch

DudeRanch

DudeRanch

EnhancedBarr Camp

H

South Slope Portal

HH

HH

H

Crags Campground

Water Rec. Center

ColoradoSpringsGateway- Visitor Services

Catamount Ranch Open Space

PIKES PEAK REGIONALVISITOR CENTER- Visitor Orientation (system-wide) Use Centers / Interpretive Centers

Miles31 2 4 5

Restoration Zones

Limited Use Area

Motorized Trail

Activity Trail

Perimeter Loop Trail- Multi-use

Scenic Loop (Auto Touring / Access)

Access Portal

Gateways -Community Base Visitor Services

Regional Visitor Center

LEGEND:

Paved Gravel (treated)

Buffer Zones

Ute Nation Education

Mining History/Presents

Pikes Peak Highway

Railroads, regional history

Environmental Education

Agriculture, past and present

Water Resource Story

INTERPRETIVE THEME CENTERS

Wildlife

Winter Sports

Water Sports

Equestrian Center

Back Country (Primative)

Mountain Biking

Motorized Trail Uses

Climbing

Auto TouringDESIGN WORKSHOP, Inc. Denver Colorado Sept./1999

LAND COVER

Deciduous Forest

Disturbed/Rock OutcropHuman Settlement

Pine ForestPrairie LandscapeAlpine Tundra

Water

Cheyenne CanyonEnvironmentalEducation Center

Pikes Peak Regional Vision Plan

Limited Use Areas are primarily defined

by the environment and are often used

in ecosystem management. Limited Use

Areas have the highest level of resource

sensitivity, such as critical habitat, rare

and endangered species, selected

wetlands and riparian corridors, and

valuable water resources. Figure 3-2

shows the Limited Use Areas within the

planning area. These sensitive resource

lands are connected into a system that

further enhances the benefits of these

resources while increasing their

protection. The Limited Use Areas have

been identified on the Regional Vision

P lan and are intended to be managed by

a common approach for use and

preservation. All activities within the

area would follow the objective s

established for the Limited Use Area and

p r o posed uses must demonstrate no

a d verse impact to the resource.

The objectives established for the

Limited Use Areas include:

• Manage these lands for resource protection

and enhancement.

• Design and construct structured facilities

to absorb potential impacts due to access

and recreation.

• Retain control of these areas through

permit-only access system and ensure that

users uphold management objectives.

In addition to establishing proper

planning, design and management of the

Limited Use Areas, a signage system

could accompany the Permit Use system

to inform users that they are recreating

in a protected area.

Restoration Zones are used in ecosystem

management and are primarily defined

by the environment. Restoration zones

have been identified in areas where

erosion and natural resource

degradation have occurred. The zones

indicated on the Regional Vision Plan

include the areas below Pikes Peak

Highway, Barr Trail, and the motorized

trail area in the vicinity of Wye

Campground in the southeastern part of

Pikes Peak. Figure 3-3 identifies the

Restoration Zones within the planning

area. Additional areas are likely to be

defined as Restoration Zones as more

information is collected for the region.

The zones identified should be surveyed

and fully understood as a part of the

reclamation strategy. In addition, the

Pikes Peak Region should continuously

monitor for other potential areas that

may be candidates as Restoration Zones.

A reclamation strategy should be

developed and implemented for each

area to repair existing damage.

Figure 3-2

Limited Use Areas Context Map

Figure 3-3

Restoration Zones Context Map

The Buffer Zones identified on the

Regional Vision Plan are an

acknowledgement of the important role

these lands play in the long-term

management of the planning area.

Unlike the majority of the planning area,

these buffer zone represent large private

land holding immediately adjacent to

the Resource Boundary, internal to the

Scenic Loop system. This plan also

acknowledges that present uses of these

lands is very compatible with proposed

management objectives of adjacent

public lands. It would be advantageous

if these lands were to remain in

agricultural uses, thus minimizing

conflicts between adjacent management

practices. This Buffer Zone delineation

does not, however, seek to suggest

future land use change is not

appropriate. If land owners desire to

remain in existing agricultural practices,

encouragement and incentives should be

provided by local governments to

enable them to do so. Significant

changes to existing land use practices

within the designated Buffer Zones,

should be undertaken with a full

understanding of contextual issues

identified in the Pikes Peak Multi-Use

Plan and the adoption of the

philosophy of multi-resource

management is strongly encouraged.

G a t e w ays have been defined as

o p portunities to provide community-

based recreational and visitor services.

Restaurants, accommoda t i o n s ,

information, privately-owned recreation

businesses, recreation rentals, groc e r i e s ,

education, and entertainment may be

included as services av a i lable at the

G a t e w ays. Figure 3-5 highlights the

G a t e w ays on the Plan. The eight

G a t e w ays identified on the Re g i o na l

Vision Plan have been selected based on

their location as entry points into the

Pikes Peak Region and as access points to

the po t e n t ial recreation program. Th e

G a t e w ays that are identified include:

• City of Colorado Springs


• Town of Cascade



• Town of Divide


• Town of Victor

The establishment of Gateways requires

a commitment from the surrounding

communities to:

• Orient visitors to local attractions and

recreation opportunities within the region,

and connections to the regional network.

Figure 3-5

Gateways Context Map

Figure 3-4

Buffer Zones Context Map

• Provide services to regional and local

visitors to meet their needs and desires.

• Provide adequate signage and inform a t i o n

that orients the visitor within the context of

the Pikes Peak Region.

The Scenic Loop consists of Highway 24,

Highway 67 and Gold Camp Road. This

auto-oriented loop around Pikes Peak

provides access to the abundant

recreational activities that surround the

Peak. The concept brings visitors

through the Gateways arranged along the

automobile roadways, or Scenic Loop as

identified in Figure 3-6. The Scenic Loop

recognizes that “driving for pleasure” is

the most popular recreational activity in

the area. Communities along the Scenic

Loop may choose to participate in a

variety of tourism-based activities.

Signage along the road is critical to the

success of the concept, both for

orientation and educational uses.

Signage should be displayed at turnouts

and used as a means of conveying the

natural resource and historic themes of

the region. A signage system that

represents both the region and

individual communities should be

developed. Implementation of a signage

plan is discussed in Section Five.

Portals are access points within the Pikes

Peak study area. Ten Portals have been

established between the Scenic Loop and

recreation opportunities within the

planning area. Figure 3-7 identifies the

Access Portals in the Pikes Peak region.

The Portals are designed to accomplish

the following specific functions:

• Serve as transition points between vehicles

and recreational activities such as hiking

and biking.

• Provide services such as trash receptacles,

parking areas, information, drinking

water, and restroom facilities.

• Provide locational information to the

visitor on recreational opportunities in the

immediate area and region.

• Limit the users within the area by

designing parking areas to accommodate a

specific number of vehicles.

• Provide user information about

appropriate recreational activities, trail

use, and safety tips. Figure 3-7

Access Portals Context Map

Figure 3-6

Scenic Loop Context Map

Red: paved Yellow: unpaved

The Perimeter Loop Trail is a multi-use

system of connected trails that circles

Pikes Peak, as shown in Figure 3-8. Th i s

system of trails relies on existing roads

and trails, both designated and

u n d e s i g nated, to complete the Loop. Th e

Perimeter Loop Trail has been designed

to connect the Ac c e s s Po r t a l s and create a

pe d e s t r ian system linked to the S c e n i c

L o o p. Trails that lead from the Pe r i m e t e r

L oop Trail to other areas and activities

within Pikes Peak are also accessible. Th e

Perimeter Loop Trail has been cla s s i f i e d

as a “multi-use” trail that is appropria t e

for all trail uses except motorized uses.

In order to maintain safety standa r d s ,

f i nal construction grades of trails may

further limit trail uses.

Recreation Use Centers have been

identified throughout the Pikes Peak

region for a range of specific users. The

concept of Recreation USe Centers

emerged as a means to provide facilities

for all user groups. How and where do

you find areas for both motorized

vehicle recreation or trails and back

county activities such as back packing

and wildlife viewing? The CAG worked

closely with the Managing Partners,

planning consultants and technical

experts to identify Recreation Use

Centers that responded to the program

needs identified by the Recreation User

Survey while not negatively impacting

sensitive lands called out for

preservation. This system of Recreation

Use Centers allows for different needs to

be met without diminishing the quality

of the experience for any recreationalist.

It also provides an opportunity for the

stewards of natural resources to inform

users about appropriate types of

behavior and what they can do to help

preserve sensitive areas and zones.

While these centers are not the only

d e s i g nated location for a pa r t i c u lar use,

they have been defined as the hub or

staging area for the various uses. Fo r

Mountain Biking North Cheyenne Canyon

B a ck Country Activities Back Country Portal

Motorized VehiclesWye Campground

Equestrian CenterGillett

Winter SportsMueller State Park

Water Sports CenterCatamount Ranch Open Space

ClimbingUpper Pikes Peak Highway

TouringRegional Visitors Center

Figure 3-9

Recreation Use Centers Context Map

Figure 3-10

Recreation Use Centers and Locations

Figure 3-8

Perimeter Loop Trail Context Map

e xample, a mountain bike enthusia s t

would be guided through signage to

the Cheyenne Canyon Mountain

Recreation Use Center and would find

information specific to mountain

biking in the entire Pikes Peak region.

The information av a i lable for

mountain biking at the Recreation Us e

Centers could include:

• Mountain bike rules and responsibilities.

• Maps of mountain bike trails in the

specific Recreation Use Center and

throughout the Pikes Peak region.

• Designated facilities and areas for loading

and unloading, maintenance and repair,

and rental concessions are applicable.

Access to the Recreation Use Center

could begin at the Regional Visitor Center

(see description to follow in Projects)

where locations and recreationa l

o p portunities of all Recreation Us e

Centers are described in detail. At each

Recreation Use Center visitors may

gather additional information abo u t

rules and responsibilities and other

l ocations where simular activities are

a p p r o p r iate. Figure 3-10 shows the

s y m bols and locations for spe c i f i c

Recreation Use Centers in the Re g i o na l

Vision Pla n .

Interpretive Centers recognize the

importance of local history and

natural history located throughout the

Pikes Peak region. From the Ute tribe

respecting the region as a sacred place,

hunting grounds and lookout points

to urban growth pressures on water

resources originating on the Peak, the

Interpretive Centers inform visitors and

locals alike about the history, current

issues and the future sustainability of

Pikes Peak. Similar to Recreation Use

Centers, the Regional Visitor Center will ori-

ent the visitor to the Interpretive

Centers throughout the region as

shown in Figure 3-11. Visitors arriving

at the Regional Visitor Center can

receive information on all ten

Interpretive Centers. Displays will

briefly describe the various centers and

provide information to guide the

visitor to them. Figure 3-12 shows the

symbols for each Interpretive Center

and their locations.

Figure 3-11

Interpretive Centers Context Map

Figure 3-12

Interpretive Centers and Locations

Native AmericansPikes Peak Summit

Mining HistoryCripple Creek and Victor

Pikes Peak HighwayPikes Peak Highway & Summit

RailroadsCog Rail Entrance & Divide

EnvironmentalNorth Cheyenne Canyon

AgriculturalD i v i d e

Water ResourcesCrystal Reservoir

WildlifePikes Peak Highway

The Barr Trail is the only hiking trail

whose final destination is the summit of

Pikes Peak. This trail has experienced

overuse resulting in erosion problems

and maintenance issues. Throughout

the planning process, a strong desire

was expressed to find alternative routes

to the summit that would increase

recreational opportunities and reduce

overuse of Barr Trail. The Crags Trail, an

officially recognized trail within the

Pike-San Isabel National Forest, reaches

the summit. This trail originates from

the Crags Campground on the west side

of Pikes Peak, accessible from Highway

67. An extension at the west end of this

system trail would allow a user to

access the Pikes Peak Highway near

Devil’s Playground, cross the highway,

and continue directly eastward toward

the summit without using the highway

as an access route.

An alternative route proposed by the

Regional Vision Plan begins near the

Gillett Portal in the southwest corner of

the study area, adjacent to Highway 67

at Cripple Creek. The proposed

alignment uses an existing trail along

Beaver Creek and proceeds north along

that drainage. This route does not use

an existing system trail, resides within

the Cripple Creek-Victor watershed and

would require careful planning and

design to ensure compatibility with

natural resource management objectives.

Figure 3-13

Alternative Routes to the Summit

Context Map

Projects in the Regional Vision Plan are

uses and activities at the site-specific

scale that incorporate many of the

regional concepts previously described.

Planning and design for projects is

based on existing or proposed concepts

from local planning documents that

coincide with the objectives of the

Regional Vision Plan.

The following seven Gateways and two

Access Points illustrate the interface

between the Regional Vision Plan and

the opportunities near surrounding

communities. It is not intended to show

site-specific designs, but simply to

express the general visions of the

Regional Vision Plan.

The following diagrams reflect the

general understanding of the existing

and proposed concepts and projects of

the Regional Vision Plan.

Each plan identifies the gateway visitor

centers, local portals and recreation use

centers, existing and planned trails, and

proposed trail links. Each of the

community’s facilities is illustrated at an

appropriate scale to reflect the general

local and regional relationships to the

planning area. The conditions and user

levels of the individual existing trails

and facilities have not been evaluated

but are identified as existing access

points for consideration. The diagrams

begin to illustrate the integration of the

local resources with the Regional Vision

Plan concepts.

The Regional Visitor Center is the largest

and most significant single project

recommended by the Regional Vision

Plan. The implementation of this project

requires a significant effort, careful

planning and a considerable time frame

before it is actualized because it

functions as the main hub of

information for the region. An interim

solution should include a visitor stop

with outdoor kiosks that describe the

Regional Vision Plan and the proposed

Visitor Center. The location of this

facility adjacent to Highway 24 ensures

visibility and orients the visitors to the

region as shown in Figure 3-14. Placing

it along Highway 24, close to the Pikes

Peak Highway entrance, is also

important, as this is the major entrance

for a visitor. Pikes Peak Highway is the

most visited attraction in the region and

may be utilized to help both local users

and visitors appreciate and understand

the entire range of recreational and

educational opportunities throughout

the region.

Projects

• Regional Visitor Center

• Manitou Springs Gateway

• Cascade Gateway

• Green Mountain Falls Gateway

• Woodland Park Gateway

• Colorado Springs Gateway

• Cripple Creek & Victor Gateways

• Divide Gateway

• Gillett Portal

• Crystola Portal

• Chipita Park Portal

• Catamount Ranch Open Space

• Enhanced Barr Camp Portal

• Crags Campground Portal

• Mueller State Park Portal

• South Slope Portal

• Wye Campground Portal

• Back Country Portal

• Cheyenne Canyon Portal and

Environmental Education Center

• Gold Camp Road

• Pikes Peak Highway

Figure 3-14

Re g i o nal Visitor Center Context Map

Many formal and informal social trails

and historic links exist in and around

Manitou Springs making it a great

candidate to be a Gateway, as shown in

Figure 3-15. Figure 3-16 demonstrates

the existing and proposed facilities in

the Regional Vision Plan. The Barr Trail

and Cog Railroad provides two major

routes to the Pikes Peak Summit and the

region. Both of these connections, along

with the Iron Springs Trailhead are

accessed by way of Ruxton Road, from

downtown, and function as Portals and

Recreation Use Centers. These two Portals

are extensively utilized by a wide variety

of users creating periods of congestion

The Iron Springs Trailhead also provides

an opportunity to create an access point

along the proposed Perimeter Loop Trail.

The Perimeter Loop Trail, or Multi-Use Trail,

links the Ute Indian and Red Mountain

Trails. The Manitou Mesa Open Space,

located on the southeast side of town,

may also support a third local Portal

along the proposed Perimeter Loop Trail

just north of the Bear Creek Regional

Park. Further consideration should be

given to connections from the adjoining

residential areas to the Ute Indian Trail.

Manitou Springs and the Cog Railroad

have been identified as possible

locations for a regional Historic Railroad

Interpretive Center.

Manitou Springs also serves as an

important regional connection and link

to Colorado Springs by way of the

Fountain Creek, Midland, and Garden of

the Gods trail systems. These

connections reinforce the importance of

Manitou Springs as a Gateway to

provide visitor services such as

information, toilet facilities, telephones,

parking, handicapped access and help

visitors find connections to various

trails for different uses.

Figure 3-15

Manitou Springs Gateway

Context Map

Figure 3-16

Manitou Springs Local Connections

to Regional Concepts

Cascade, a community located on the

eastern side of the Pikes Peak region

could serve as a Gateway, as shown in

Figure 3-17. The community of Cascade

offers two main connections to the

region:the Pikes Peak Highway, and the

Mt. Heizer and Ute Pass Trail links

shown in Figure 3-18. A third element

of the Cascade Gateway is a proposed

Regional Visitor Center.

The historic Pikes Peak Highway is a

natural draw for visitors and would

support a Regional Visitor Center location.

The Regional Visitor Center could be part of

the Highway’s toll facilities or operated

at a different location closer to the

intersection of Highway 24 and

Fountain Avenue. The Regional Visitor

Center would service as a starting point

for eco/adventure tours and tours of the

Pikes Peak region, regional auto tours

and multi-use trail users. With the

connections of the planned Ute Pass,

existing Mt. Heizer, and French trails, a

local Portal may be considered in the

existing Cascade community park.

Figure 3-18

Cascade Local Connections to

Regional Concepts

Figure 3-17

Cascade Gateway Context Map

Green Mountain Falls with its historic

Lakeside Park and Pavilion provides a

unique opportunity for a northern

G a t e w ay to the planned Ute Pass Tr a i l

(see Figure 3-19) . At Green Mountain

Falls, the planned Ute Pass Tr a i l

s e parates from the Highway 24

corridor and enters into the adja c e n t

small communities. Green Mountain

Falls offers the first opportunity south

of Wood land Park for creating a loc a l

visitor center and Po r t a l.

With a possible Po r t a l and winter spo r t s

and Recreation Use Center l ocated in the

existing Lakeside Park, access links

would be provided along existing forest

trails and City water services roads

s h own in Figure 3-20. Green

Mountain Falls supports alterna t i ve

connections to the propo s e d

Catamount Ranch Open Space and

Crystal Creek reservoir facilities. Th e s e

links include the Mount De w e y, New

Catamount, and Felton Thomas Trails.

Unique cultural and natural features of

the area include Catamount Creek Falls

and the Garden of Eden. Winter spo r t s

activities may include ice skating,

sledding and cross country skiing. Th e

Recreation Use Center would provide a

meeting place and parking area.

Figure 3-19

Green Mountain Falls Gateway

Context Map

Figure 3-20

Green Mountain Falls Local


L ocated on the northern edge of the

Pikes Peak region (see Figure 3-21),

Wood land Park offers a broad range of

established services and facilities as well

as regional and local trail connections.

The regional trails include the Ute Pass,

C e n t e n n ial, and American Discove r y

Trails. The American Discovery and Ute

Pass Trail connections are provided via

H i g h w ay 24 running south to Colorado

Springs and west to Divide. Th e

C e n t e n n ial Trail along Highway 67 also

connects Wood land Park to the north.

The Ute Pass and American Discove r y

Trails and Highway 24 provide the

i m portant links north of the identified

Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l and Scenic Loop.

A community-based Visitor Center and

Gateway is a natural part of the area’s

existing visitor services and facilities.

Visitor services are provided by the

Woodland Park Chamber of Commerce

at the Ute Pass Cultural Center or Lion’s

Park Memorial Visitor Center shown in

Figure 3-22. Several local parks also

provide visitor amenities. An

Agricultural Interpretive Center that focuses

on the historical and continued

significance of agriculture could occur in

Woodland Park.

Local access to the Pikes Peak region is

provided west of town from Meadow

Wood Park and south along Woodland

Avenue in Crystola to other parts of the

region and National Forest land.

Figure 3-21

Woodland Park Gateway

Context Map

Figure 3-22

Woodland Park Local Connections

to Regional Concepts

Ute Pass Cultural Center

The Colorado Springs Gateway is

located on the eastern edge of the Pikes

Peak region (see Figure 3-23) and serves

as a Gateway for the urban populations

of Colorado Springs and surrounding

suburbs. Colorado Springs’ existing

roads and trails provide a broad range

of local and regional connections to the

Pikes Peak region. The North Cheyenne

Canyon Park continues to offer a great

variety of visitor services. As shown in

Figure 3-24, the existing Starsmore

Discovery Center, trailheads and picnic

areas provide supporting facilities for

the proposed local Po r t a l s and visitor

services. A second Po r t a l has been

recommended to the north for the Gold

Camp Road and High Drive Junction.

The Fountain Creek and Ute Pass Tr a i l s

link to statewide trail connections. A

major part of the Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l i s

completed with the links along

Intermann and High Drive Trails. High

D r i ve also offers an alterna t i ve link to

the Au t o -To u ring Loop through the Old

Stage Road and Bear Creek Drive .

Other trail connections include 26t h a n d

2 1s t S t r e e t s .

Two existing access Po r t a l s along the

western edge of Colorado Springs

already receives heavy use, and, as a

result, an additional Po r t a l is needed to

distribute the vehicles, and reduce the

n e g a t i ve impacts upon these existing

Po r t a l s. The Re g i o nal Vision Pla n

suggests a Po r t a l between Barr Trail and

North Cheyenne Canyon Re c r e a t i o n

Area that links visitors to the Core

Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l and most recreationa l

activities throughout the region.

Figure 3-23

Colorado Springs Gateway

Context Map

Figure 3-24

Colorado Springs Local


The Cripple Creek and Victor

communities located on the

southeastern edge of the planning area

(see Figure 3-25) share a mining history

and are key stops along the proposed

Auto-Touring Loop, American Discovery

Trail and the Perimeter Loop Trail. The

existing Gold Belt Touring route support

this regional loop system. Local access

to historic sites and points of interest are

made possible as local trails and parks

are created.

Both Cripple Creek and Victor are

communities where local Interpretive

Centers could tell the mining story.

Individual or shared visitor services

may be incorporated into the local

historic parks and museums (i.e., City

Central and Gold Bowl Parks).

An alternative local Po r t a l may be

located at the American Eagle Historical

Park and Lookout, or at the Range View

Road junctions (see Figure 3-26). From

here, links could be created to the

adjacent Cripple Creek, Victor, and Gillett

locations in conjunction with the local

Cripple Creek Trail Plan.

Figure 3-25

Cripple Creek and Victor

Gateways Context Map

Figure 3-26

Cripple Creek and Victor Local


While Divide, like other communities

noted, is outside of the immediate Pikes

Peak region, (see Figure 3-27), this

community provides an important link

to the State and regional trails.

Highways 24 and 67 have been

identified as links in the Perimeter Loop

Trail and in the Auto-Touring Loop. These

links include connections along Four-

Mile and Shelf Roads.

Visitor services have also been identified

for Divide. The services could be loc a t e d

in the existing commercial node at

H i g h w ay 24, the old De pot or in the

H ayden Divide Park South on Highway

67. Also, as part of the Re g i o nal Vi s i o n

P lan, it would share Po r t a l and R e c r e a t i o n

Use Center services with the Mueller State

Park. These concepts would prov i d e

visitors trail and equestrian access to the

Peak through the existing Crag Camp

Ro a d .

Figure 3-27

Divide Gateway Context Map

Figure 3-28

Divide Local Connections to

Regional Concepts

The proposed Gillett Portal and R e c r e a t i o n

Use Center could support a wide range of

r e c r e a t i o nal opportunities. The Re g i o na l

Vision Plan recommends an Recreation Us e

Center t hat would maintain a traditiona l

ranching character while prov i d i n g

services for users of the Pe rimeter Loop

Trail, Au t o -To u ring Loop and local trails.

The plan would utilize existing service

roads and gateways. The Gillett Po r t a l

s h own in Figure 3-29 provides an

o p portunity to enhance access from the

western slope of Pikes Pe a k .

Access to the Pikes Peak Region from

the Cripple Creek and Victor areas on

Highway 67 is very limited. The Gillett

Portal takes advantage of the close

proximity between public lands and

Highway 67. The Portal would provide

needed trailhead facilities and allow

access to the Perimeter Loop Tail (Multi-

Use Trail) and alternative spoke trails

that are additional routes to the summit

(see Figure 3-30). Issues needing

resolution include the design of trails to

safeguard watershed quality. The

capacity of area trails will need to be

assessed for compatibility with the range

of uses that has been recommended by

the CAG and technical experts. The

trails designated multi-use, include

equestrian use, mountain bikes and

hiking. A complete analysis is required

to verify compatibility and capacity with

long-term water quality.

Figure 3-29

Gillett Portal Context Map

Figure 3-30

Gillett Local Connections to

Regional Concepts

Chipita Park lies along the Ute Pass trail

corridor (see Figure 3-31) and provides

an alternative access Portal into the Pikes

Peak region. The community may offer

some level of Portal services such as

parking and water but would require

further local decision-making. The Portal

would be located along Chipita Park

Road, with direct forest access provided

by way of Mt. Esther Trail at the end of

Picabo and Mountain Roads.

Located more in the interior of the Pikes

Peak region (see Figure 3-33), the

Catamount Ranch Open Space Portal

offers sport and multi-use recreational

opportunities. The existing Catamount

Ranch Open Space recreational

development, completed by Teller

County for public open space and

recreation, is in need of additional

Portals. Currently, the region can be

accessed from the North Slope

Recreation Area to the southeast of the

property, but additional access from the

north and west is desirable. An existing

county road would provide the best

access from the north and a new Portal

located on public lands just north of the

property is recommended.

Catamount Ranch Open Space Po r t a l

s e r ves as a Recreation Use Center for water

s ports such as canoeing, fishing and

has a fish ha t c h e r y.

Figure 3-31

Chipita Park Portal Context Map

Figure 3-32

Chipita Park Local Connections to

Regional Concepts

Figure 3-33

Catamount Ranch Open Spa c e

Portal Context Map

The existing Barr Camp, located in the

interior of the Pikes Peak region, (see

Figure 3-34), is an icon of the

community’s love for the Pikes Peak

region. Because of the popularity of this

facility, controlled access strategies

should be devised and a reclamation

strategy developed to address the

historic heavy use of Barr Trail and Barr

Camp facility. This Pikes Peak Regional

Vision Plan endorses the

recommendation that currently exists

for improvements to the Barr Camp.

Recommended enhancements include

improved sanitation systems and

caretakers facilities. The Pikes Peak

Regional Vision Plan also recommends

additional enhancements be considered

to expand the capacity of Barr Camp

without changing its unique character.

The Crags Campground is the only

existing access point along the west edge

of the Pikes Peak region (see Figure 3-

35). It provides a basic camping

experience and access to the Crags

Trailhead. The Regional Vision Plan

recommends that modest expansion of

campsites is appropriate, as well as

increased parking at the trailhead. A

reconfiguration of camp sites and

trailhead facilities should be tested to

improve circulation and functionality of

the limited space available.

The Portal at the Crags Campground

provides connections to the Crags Trail

from the east and intersects the

proposed Perimeter Loop Trail on a north-

south alignment. The proposed Crags

Trail to the east would be an alternative

route to the summit.

Mueller State Park is one of the largest

of the Colorado State Parks system. It is

used extensively for winter sports such

as cross country skiing, and camping

and hiking. This park has become a

significant destination along the west

edge of the Pikes Peak region (see Figure

3-36). Connections from Mueller to the

other recreation systems proposed

within this Regional Vision Plan are

important to both users of the State

Park, as well as users of Pikes Peak.

Issues that remain unresolved include

the designation of a safe trail crossing at

Highway 67.

The west side of Pikes Peak has a history

of equestrian activity and Mueller State

Park provides limited equestrian facilities

to support those users.

Figure 3-34

Expanded Barr Camp Portal

Context Map

Figure 3-35

Crags Camp Portal Context Map

Figure 3-36

Mueller State Park Portal

Context Map

The Portal that connects South Slope

Trails with the Perimeter Loop Trail is at

Wye Campground located in the

southeastern portion of the Pikes Peak

region (see Figure 3-37). A full range of

recreational services would be provided

at this Portal and would include:

camping, picnicking, multi-use trail

users, restrooms, loading and unloading

facilities, trash services, and drinking

water. Trails connect Wye Campground

to Barr Trail and provide an

opportunity to reveal historic sites

previously inaccessible to the public.

Historic hotel sites, a lumber mill site

and early century hydroelectric facilities

remain unexplored because of the

restricted access to the South Slope

watershed. A series of interpretive loop

trials that branch from the main trail

could allow users to see and learn about

the miners from the turn of the century.

Unauthorized access off of the main trail

would not be allowed, because the

surrounding area lies within the Limited

Use Area. A permit would allow users

into areas off of the trail corridor and

into the Limited Use Areas (See Figure 3-

38). Backcountry campgrounds could be

established. These camping areas would

accommodate only small groups within

a single camping site and would require

a reservation at the time of permit

application. The South Slope is a viable

Interpretive Center to tell the “Water

Resource Story.“

Wye Campground represents the only

Portal along Gold Camp Road in the

southeast portion of the Pikes Peak

region (see Figure 3-39). The existing

facilities include a campground and a

trailhead. This area has traditionally has

been used for extensive motorized trail

activities and the Regional Vision Plan

proposes that Wye Campground be

used as a staging area for these

motorized activities. The program for

Figure 3-37

South Slope Portal Context Map

Figure 3-38

Limited Use Areas off the Trail Corridor

Figure 3-39

Wye Campground Portal

Context Map

Wye Campground would also include:

• Loading and unloading facilities

• Parking for cars and small trailers

• Camping and restroom facilities

• Signage

• Maps and trail etiquette information

Many of the existing motorized trails are

adjacent to Limited Use Areas and the

Restoration Zone. Limited Use Areas and the

Restoration Zone. do not overlay trail

corridors, they begin and end along

defined corridor limits. In this way, they

do not coexist on the same land, yet

adjacency issues need to be resolved at

the site scale. Trail-use education

materials should clearly state that use

within the Limited Use Areas and the

Restoration Zones are restricted to trails

only and failure to comply will result in

fines and loss of privileges.

A study to determine the compa t i b i l i t y

of motorized uses and ecosystem

m a nagement objectives on the trails

within the Restoration Zo n e and Limited Us e

Area could recommend preservation,

mitigation and educational approaches

to this challenge. While the study is in

progress, and until measures are

delineated, signage restricting access

be yond the trails should be installed on

all existing trails in these zones.

Access to Wye Campground for small

trailers will be addressed with the

reopening of lower Gold Camp Road to

vehicles when Tunnel Number Three is

reconstructed. The grades from

Colorado Springs to Wye Campground

provide more feasible access to

recreation vehicles than the presently

used Old Stage Road.

A Back Country Portal is recommended

in an area east of Wye Campground, at

the intersection of Old Stage and Gold

Camp Roads. The far southeast corner

of the planning area (see Figure 3-40)

represents what is likely to be the most

remote part of the Pikes Peak region.

This southeast corner is an opportunity

to provide a Recreational Use Center and

experience that currently does not exist

elsewhere in the region: backcountry

packing and camping. A sensitive

system of backcountry camps,

connected by trails into the Beaver Creek

wilderness study area to the south

should be established for use by permit

only. A reservation system for these

campsites would be implemented and a

philosophy of “no-trace” camping

encouraged to minimize the operational

costs of maintaining the backcountry

camping program and preserve the

natural environment.

Figure 3-40

Back Country Portal Context Map

North Cheyenne Canyon is one of the

most accessible mountain Po r t a l along the

west edge of Colorado Springs (see Figure

3-41). The Re g i o nal Vision Plan recom-

mends a Po r t a l be located at Cheye n n e

C a n yon to provide access to the Pe ri m e t e r

Loop Tr a i l and the Starsmore Discove r y

Center in North Cheyenne Canyon.

The designation of a Re g i o nal I n t e r p r e t i v e

C e n t e r for North Cheyenne Canyon as

Environmental Education is due in pa r t

to its existing facilities, the Starsmore

D i s c overy Center. How e ve r, it also

reflects the value of the na t u r a l

resources surrounding the area and

p r ovides convenient access for schoo l

children to utilize the Center.

O p portunity exists for environmental

education throughout the Pikes Pe a k

region, and as they are deve l o ped they

will be described and communicated on

maps and literature, made av a i lable at

the Starsmore Discovery Center. Th e

d e s i g nation of this environmentally rich

area as an Interpretive Center f o r

environmental education is intended to

help coo r d i nate and communicate these

resources and activities throughout the

Pikes Peak region. The Cheye n n e

C a n yon will be a mountain biking

Recreation Use Center.

Re c e n t l y, the Gold Camp Road from

Colorado Springs to Cripple Creek (see

Figure 3-42) was placed on the Nationa l

Register of Historic Places, recognition

t hat elevated the value of the road as a

na t i o nal cultural resource. The U.S.

Forest Service is mandated to protect

cultural resources, and will open the

tunnel to restore the historic automobile

use along this corridor. Since 1988 when

the tunnel collapsed, the lower segment

of Gold Camp Road, located on U.S.

Forest Service land has been closed to

vehicles be yond Tunnel Number Th r e e .

The use of Lower Gold Camp road as a

vehicle corridor contributes to the

overall vision for the Pikes Peak region

in other significant ways that include:

• Improved automobile access to the remote

southern parts of the region.

• Improved universal access for those with

disabilities to a unique and scenic portion

of the study area.

• Improved circulation as part of the Scenic

Loop, a vehicular route that travels

through the study area.

• Consistent with existing forest land

management plan.

• Improved emergency vehicle access and

fire-fighting capacity in a critical urban-

rural interface area.

Figure 3-41

Cheyenne Canyon Portal

Context Map

Figure 3-42

Gold Camp Road Context Map

• Reduced dependency on Old Stage Road, a

steep and dangerous alternative access route

maintains the original investment as a

m o t o rized route and enhances the existing

h i s t o rical resource.

For these reasons, the Re g i o nal Vi s i o n

P lan recommends that the road be

r e paired and re-opened to ve h i c l e s

touring the region. Throughout the

public pa r t i c i pation process, costs and

benefits of re-opening the lower Gold

Camp Road were actively discussed, and

the CAG and TAG concluded that the

benefits outweighted the costs.

There is currently a tremendous amount

of recreational use on the first mile of

Lower Gold Camp Road from High

Drive to the closed tunnel. The

remaining seven and a half miles of

Gold Camp Road is used primarily by

motorbikes and mountain bikes. When

the tunnel is repaired and the road is

reopened to vehicles, all existing uses

would continue.

The Pikes Peak Highway located

between Cascade and the Summit as

shown in Figure 3-43, represents a

significant regional attraction and a plan

exists for its continued improvement.

The planning process tested and

endorsed a series of concepts related to

the further development of the Pikes

Peak Highway.

The issue of paving the upper reaches of

the Pikes Peak Highway was discussed

outside of this planning process. The

City of Colorado Springs concluded that

a hard surface finish would be applied

to the surface of the road where the

gravel surface now exists. In addition,

the managers of the Pikes Peak Highway

have recommended a limited number of

designated camping sites be provided

along the highway corridor for some

visitors. Locating a small amount of

camping in the area between Crystal

Reservoir and Glen Cove may be

feasible, however the design and

construction of these facilities will meet

American Disabilities Act Standards and

will require considerable mitigation to

minimize the environmental and visual

resource intrusion associated with this

highway corridor.

The development of additional services

would affect the nature of visitor

services in the area, and needs further

study. These services may include:

• overnight accommodation

• hiking trails

• evening programs

• 24 hour gate keeping

• emergency service.

Figure 3-43

Pikes Peak Highway Context Map

Water resources are a critical

c o m ponent of the environmental

setting in the Pikes Peak region. Surface

and groundwater resources prov i d e

i m portant regional benefits that have

been deve l o ped, enhanced, and

protected as the Pikes Peak area ha s

g r own. The uniqueness of the Pikes

Peak area is due in part to the high

value of the regional water resources.

The following description provides a

brief overview of the key water

resources elements to the Regional

Vision Plan.

Water Supply

The Pikes Peak area provides an

i m portant component of the water

supply for the Colorado Springs area.

O ver the years Colorado Springs

Utilities has spent millions of dolla r s

acquiring water rights and deve l o p i n g

water collection and storage facilities.

The Constructed Water Supply

Infrastructure Map in the Pikes Peak At l a s

s h ows the location of the major water

supply system elements in the pla n n i n g

area include:

• North and South Catamount Reservoirs

• Crystal Reservoir

• Mason and McReynolds Reservoirs

• Penrose Rosemont Reservoir

• Variety of collection and delivery systems

on the North and South Slopes

While surface supplies are plentiful,

groundwater aquifers are limited and

generally confined to na r r ow valley

corridors. Protecting the quantity and

quality of water supply sources is an

i m portant mission of Colorado Springs

U t i l i t i e s .

Environmental Benefits

The streams, lakes, and wetlands in the

Pikes Peak area provide impo r t a n t

r e g i o nal environmental benefits. Th e y

p r ovide habitat for a broad diversity of

wildlife. Runoff originating in the Pikes

Peak headwaters area supports ripa r ia n

corridors dow n s t r e a m .

Recreation and Benefits

The recreational values provided by the

Pikes Peak area are closely tied to water

resources. Hiking, fishing and camping

experiences are all enhanced by high-

quality lakes and streams. Pressure for

increased recreational access and

opportunities in the area is one of the

reasons a Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is

Resource Elements

• Water Resources Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Transportation Resources

• Wildlife Habitat Resources

• Recreational Resources

needed. Preserving the existing quality of

regional water resources is important to

maintain or expand the recreation

values provided by the region.

Evaluation of Final Plan

Each project element of the Re g i o na l

Vision Plan was evaluated with respe c t

to criteria discussed in the Appe n d i x .

Possible po s i t i ve or negative impacts of

project elements on regional water

resources are described be l ow.

The Pikes Peak Regional Visitor Center could

have minor adverse impacts on local

surface and ground water quality due to

increased traffic and other potential

pollution sources. Environmentally

sound measures (i.e., stormwater

retention, buffer strips, minimizing

directly connected impervious areas)

should be incorporated into the site

design. It is also assumed that facility

layout will be selected to avoid impacts

to the Fountain Creek floodplain and

riparian area.

Crystal Reservoir Visitors Center and the

Water Recreation Center around Crystal

Creek Reservoir and North and South

Catamount Reservoirs will greatly

expand recreational use and access to

these water storage facilities. The

increased use and higher intensity of use

have the potential to adversely impact

the quality of water available from this

component of the Colorado Springs

water supply system. In addition, these

storage facilities were not designed with

public access in mind, resulting in

possible safety and vandalism issues.

When planning these recreation projects,

measures should be included for

minimizing facility and user impacts on

reservoir water quality. In addition,

public access to areas critical for

operation and maintenance of the water

development features of the reservoirs

and associated water collection and

delivery systems should be restricted.

Construction impacts could result in

increased sediment loads to creeks. Plans

should include measures to limit the

area and duration of disturbance, and

should include Best Management

Practices to mitigate runoff impacts.

Plans should also include measures to

mitigate possible water quality impacts

of increased tourist use and traffic (trash

management, sanitary services, non-

point pollution prevention).

The Re g i o nal Vision Plan includes

paving Pikes Peak Highway. Th i s

should result in significant benefits in

If you stand at Manitou

& Pikes Peak Railway

platform you can see a

dark swath of trees to the

northeast. This is the

Black Forest, the largest

concentration of

Ponderosa pines in the

country.

reducing erosion from the existing

u n paved road surface and subsequent

d e position of sediment in dow n s t r e a m

w a t e r w ays. Limiting access to buses or

r e g u lating the number of vehicles using

the highway should be considered to

minimize non-point source impacts of

increased vehicle use on water quality.

The Wye Campground Motorized Trail

Center could have adverse impacts on

the watershed by increasing the

potential for erosion (on trails and other

denuded areas), and subsequently

degrading downstream water quality.

Increased vehicle use on trails as well as

visitor services could also have adverse

impacts on water quality. Impacts are

not as serious in this part of the

planning area because it is not a

sensitive zone. However, high use areas

should avoid areas that are tributary to

Rosemont Reservoir, which is part of the

Colorado Springs water supply system.

The various Portals and enhanced trails

and camping areas could all have the

potential for adverse impacts on local

water quality conditions. Standard best

management practices for designing

trails and campgrounds should be

employed to minimize the impacts of

increased hiking and camping use.

Increased vehicle traffic to the Portals and

visitor use of various services at these

locations would increase pollutant

sources in the region. Pollution

prevention measures should be

incorporated into designs to minimize

contact of rain and storm water with

possible pollution sources (e.g., parking

lots, solid waste facilities, septic systems).

A cultural resource prov i d e s

e x perience, materials and an

understanding of the surroundings tha t

helps a community identify with its

h i s t o r y. The Pikes Peak Re g i o na l

Vision Plan suggests various levels of

physical change that impact the

accessibility and natural resources

within the region. It is these cha n g e s

t hat have been important in the

evaluation of the Cultural Resources.

The evaluation of existing cultural

resources begins with a broad regiona l

pe r s pe c t i ve of Pikes Peak. From this

broad pe r s pe c t i ve, a layer of cultural

resources can be identified. The primary

and most obvious resource is the

Summit which holds na t i o nal and state

value as a regional icon. This is follow e d

This memorial plaque found on

the summit of Pikes Peak

commemorates the 100 th

anniversary of the inspiration of

“America the Beautiful” by

Katharine Lee Bates. Source: Design

Workshop, Inc.

by overall wilderness value and

r e c r e a t i o nal opportunities which

contributes to community life and

r e g i o nal identity. The rich historic and

archeological sites and stories of the

region. Fina l l y, there are the surrounding

communities that provide a sense of loc a l

cultural identity for area residents.

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan

considered the impacts that users have

on the physical properties of the

resources with which the surrounding

community identifies, and the

psychological impacts associated with

an increased number of visitors using

an area. For the former, the impact can

be trail deterioration. For the latter, the

impact can be a violation of the sense

of isolation or wilderness found when

encountering a large number of users.

These factors have an impact on the

users perceived value or quality of their

experience and the given cultural

resource. The question raised, is the

landscape discouraging or providing a

positive user’s experience and sense of

identity?

The Re g i o nal Vision Plan provides too l s

to conserve and enhance the user

e x perience and thus protect the valued

resources. The proposed Portals a n d

Recreational Use Centers distribute users ove r

a greater area, reducing the impact on

l ocal or site-specific resources. By

offering expanded visitor oppo r t u n i t i e s ,

the Re g i o nal Vision Plan directs visitors

to lesser-known areas in order to reduce

the concentration of visitors on existing

over-used but be t t e r - k n own resources.

The implementation of regional concepts

and projects also impacts the regiona l

context. While many of the individual

sites will benefit from site improve m e n t s

and reduced daily visitor numbers, the

p r o posed distribution may impact the

e x perience in existing sensitive areas to

l ocal users. Conve r s e l y, non-local users

m ay see the broader distribution of

Recreational Use Centers and Portals as an

i m p r ovement to the regional resource.

The Re g i o nal Vision Plan recommends a

ba lance of new activity areas and greater

access control to existing natural and

cultural resources. The Re g i o nal Vi s i o n

P lan recognizes the opportunities tha t

exist within these resources and seeks to

create a ba lance by building on the

framework of existing roads, trails, pa r k s ,

and Po r t a l s. While these physical loc a l

resources exist, many are under-utilized

t oday. Recognizing the impacts of these

resources and their importance, the Pla n

highlights the under-utilized sites by

Aspens along the Pikes Peak

Highway. Source: The Colorado Springs

Convention and Visitors Bureau

d r awing a new distribution of visitors

across the greater region of the Pikes

Peak region. This includes the efforts to

i m p r ove access and visitor services along

the north and western slopes.

Cripple Creek and Victor are recognized

as important historic resources, with

growing recreational opportunities. The

introduction of Interpretive Centers and

Portals along the western slope, Cripple

Creek and Victor offers a broader range

of wilderness opportunities and local

cultural experiences for visitors. These

expanded services also offer a relief to

the east and south-slope resources.

The Auto-Touring and Perimeter Loop Trail

increase the accessibility for elderly and

disabled community members. Increased

accessibility offers an excellent

opportunity to improve the cultural

resource identity for a growing segment

of the greater regional community. This

is an important benefit when

considering the cultural management

value of strengthening the community

and regional identity.

Suggested improved Pikes Peak Highway

and summit services have been

considered in conjunction with existing

plans for the facilities. These

improvements also include existing day-

use facilities along the highway to

broaden Recreation Use Center

opportunities. As the main gateway, the

highway and summit house present

another opportunity to tell the Pikes

Peak regional story. The Regional Visitor

Center in Cascade, introduces visitors to

the story and provides them with an

opportunity to observe the patterns of

the cultural influences on the landscape.

The planning process has also identified

a variety of local visitor and Interpretive

and Recreation Use Centers . The suggested

centers are intended to provide local

communities with the opportunity to

highlight local cultural resources and

relationships that make up the greater

Pikes Peak region.

While a majority of the local or site-

specific historic and archeological

resources lie outside the planning area

boundaries, they influence the Pikes

Peak experience. The rich mining,

railroad and water resource engineering

history of the area has greatly shaped

the regional landscape. Mining and the

railroads have defined cultural

establishments, while patterns and the

management of watershed lands have

protected and created unique wildlife

Barr Trail is considered

the “granddaddy of trails”

on Pikes Peak, and the

main hiking route to the

top. It was constructed

almost singlehandedly by

Fred Barr, a miner,

between 1914 and 1921.

The trail travels 12.6

miles and gains more

than 7,500 feet of

elevation on its way from

Manitou Springs to the

top, making it one of the

hardest round- trip trails

in Colorado.


habitat and ecosystems. The value in

these cultural resources adds to the

visitor’s experience and establishes

broad relationships with regional

scientific, historical, and recreational

communities.

The Regional Vision Plan considers a

great number of physical changes to the

planning area while reflecting on the

layers of cultural resources that

influence local and regional identity. In

all cases, the Managing Partners need to

continue to evaluate the importance of

the local and regional visitor’s

experience. This includes recognizing the

cultural context of individual cultural

resources and tracking the changes

inherent in the context and physical

conditions of the resources over time.

This may include changing attitudes, as

well as identifying contextual influences

that impact the resources. As part of the

continued evaluation, a planning tool

should be in place to facilitate the

sharing of information required to

adjust to changing conditions across

partnership boundaries.

The transportation plan for the Re g i o na l

Vision Plan consists of an outer

motorized access loop (Scenic Loop) and

an inner non-motorized, multi-use trail

l oop (Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l), both of which

p r ovide continuous routes around the

Pikes Peak region. These two loops are

linked at several portals at which visitors

can transition from the motorized road-

w ay system to various Recreational Use and

Interpretive Centers t hat are also accessible

from the Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l. Utilization of

existing roads and trails should be

e n hanced before constructing any new

routes that don’t currently exist.

Scenic Loop

The motorized access loop consists of

U.S. and Colorado State Highways

located on the west, north, and

northeast sides of the plan area. Paved

and unpaved local roads form the

southern and southeastern portions of

the Scenic Loop. Segments of the Scenic

Loop and their regional continuity are

The Pikes Peak COG Rail Road

Source: The Colorado Springs Convention and

Visitors Bureau

described as follows:

• U.S. 24 forms the northeastern and

northern parts of the loop. U.S. 24 has

historically provided, and is expected to

continue to provide, the primary access to

the planning area from Colorado Springs

and other Front Range Communities via

I-25. U.S. 24 is currently a four-lane

highway from Colorado Springs to

Woodland Park on the north. At

Woodland Park, U.S. 24 turns to the west

as a two lane highway, planned by the

Colorado Department of Transportation to

be improved to four lanes. U.S. 24

continues west to Buena Vista and beyond

to connect with U.S. 285 and I-70.

• State Highway (SH) 67 forms the western

part of the loop. SH 67 is a two-lane

highway, connecting Victor and Cripple

Creek in the southern part of the plan

area, to Divide on the north, then

continuing on the U.S. 24 alignment to

Woodland Park, where it turns north and

extends into Douglas County.

• Gold Camp Road is a historic

mountainous gravel road that forms the

southern and southeastern part of the

motor loop. The southeastern segment of

Gold Camp Road that is currently closed

is planned to be reopened. With its

reopening, Gold Camp Road and Old

Stage Road will provide two alternative

routes to U.S. 24 via the Colorado Springs

street system.

Perimeter Loop Trail

The multi-use loop trail will be

established with a combination of

existing, improved, and new trail

segments. It will accommodate all non-

motorized travel, including hiking,

bicycling, and equestrian activity. At

locations where the outer motor loop

and inner trail loop are significantly

separated, trail facilities will also be

provided parallel to the motor loop.

Portals

Access Portals from the Scenic Loop to the

Perimeter Loop Trail are planned at eight

locations. The separation between the

automobile (Scenic) and pedestrian

loops may vary at different Portals, with

distances ranging from approximately

two miles at the Mueller Portal to being

adjacent at the Pikes Peak Regional

Visitor Center. No Portals are planned

on the northern segment of U.S. 24

between Divide and Woodland Park.

Access to the Pikes Peak Summit will be

available via the Pikes Peak Highway,

the Cog Railroad, the Barr Trail, and

four new trail connections that will be

established from the south and west.

The Pikes Peak Highway will be paved

to the Summit.

The 1986 World Cycling

Championships

featured140 bikers

ascending the Peak 18.7

miles from the tollgate to

the top, with a winning

time of 1 hour 50

minutes.

The planned transportation system will

provide enhanced accessibility to and

among recreational activities within the

planning area. The communities of

Victor, Cripple Creek, Woodland Park,

western Colorado Springs, and Manitou

Springs will all h ave enhanced access to

recreational opportunities via the

motorized and non-motorized trail

loops. Likewise, all recreational

opportunities will be connected via the

continuous motorized and trail loops.

New trail connections to the Pikes Peak

Summit will provide additional hiking

opportunities. With the paving of the

Pikes Peak Highway, Summit House

expansion, and general enhancements to

area recreational amenities, Pikes Peak

Highway travel demand can be expected

to increase over time. Implementation

of additional two-way and one-way (for

one-way hikers) bus and van shuttle

programs should be investigated to

enhance access opportunities and reduce

peak period traffic on the highway.

The most significant motorized traffic

concentration will continue to occur at

the Pikes Peak Regional Visitor Center.

Improvements to U.S. 24 access at the

Regional Visitor Center should be

considered as activity increases,

including the potential for a grade-

separated connection from northbound

U.S. 24 at some point in the future.

Parking

It will be important to ensure that

adequate parking is provided to

accommodate peak season demand at

the visitor centers. This is particularly

important at the Colorado Springs and

Manitou Springs Gateways, where an

excess of parking demand could impact

surrounding neighborhoods.

The only significant access reduction in

the Re g i o nal Vision Plan as compa r e d

to the current situation is the

e l i m i nation of the existing seasona l

access from the north to the

Catamount Ranch Open Space area.

Until the existing access is pe r m a n e n t l y

closed, the challenge will be to direct

visitors to Portals on the east and west.

Conservation Concepts

The objective of the conservation concept

is to limit the numbers and acceptable

u sages within the Pikes Peak region.

While this restricted use limits access, it

also conserves recreational enjoyment.

Making the trip from the

eastern plains of Colorado

to the top of Pikes Peak is

like traveling from

Mexico to Alaska, a

journey through five of

the six life zones in North

America.

The second major objective is to

carefully plan and minimize impacts

associated with facilities and trail

systems. In planning trail systems, it is

important to remain flexible in adjusting

trail alignment during planning and

construction.

Wetland and Riparian Areas

Wetland and riparian areas are closely

related and overlap within the Pikes

Peak region. Both are strongly

associated with intermittent and

perennial streams throughout the area.

These are sensitive areas that provide

valuable functions to the Pikes Peak

ecosystem as a whole. Aside from

providing critical wildlife habitat,

wetlands and riparian areas house

unique plant communities, stabilize soils

and preserve and enhance water quality.

Intrusions into these areas should be

minimized at all times. Trail systems

should be carefully planned to minimize

impacts. Appropriate measures should

be taken to discourage people from

wandering away from the designated

trails. Both wetlands and riparian areas

are, to some degree, regulated by the US

Army Corps of Engineers (COE). COE

regulations require a permit for any

disturbance that takes place within

wetlands or waters of the United States.

The Bighorn Sheep is the

official state animal of

Colorado. It inhabits the

Pikes Peak region that

extends from the Garden

of the Gods to the summit

of the Peak.

Source: Colorado Springs Utilities

Threatened and Endangered

Species and Wildlife Habitat

Threatened and endangered species

must be addressed on a species-by-

species basis under the jurisdiction of

the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS). The USFWS may

require surveys for specific projects or

areas as well as management practices

for certain activities. Wildlife habitat is

strongest when habitat fragmentation is

kept to a minimum. It is also important

to provide suitable travel corridors

between major habitat areas to facilitate

seasonal movement and a healthy

exchange between isolated populations.

Travel corridors must be wide enough

to provide safe passage and should be

relatively free of human activities

and/or restrictive barriers such as high

traffic roads.

Alpine Tundra

Alpine tundra is the most sensitive

ecotype within the Pikes Peak planning

area. Currently, this is one of the most

ecologically disturbed ecotypes within

the master planning area. Only a small

number of specially adapted plants can

survive in this inhospitable climate.

Those that are capable of survival have

very slow growth rates. For example, a

ten-foot tall tree at timberline is well

over 100 years old. Fragile lichen and

plant communities grow extremely

slowly. Decades of growth can be wiped

out by a carelessly laid footstep. For

these reasons, tundra is highly

susceptible to degradation through

human activities.

Gateways and Portals

The concept of Gateways and Portals

should enhance the conservation of

Pikes Peak natural resources. Controlled

access points should be very useful in

managing and controlling the area’s

usages and their associated impacts.

Direct impacts to resources should be

minimized when planning and

constructing new facilities, but overall

impacts should be negligible due to their

perimeter location.

Summit House Road & Trail Sys t e m

I m p r ovements to this area are needed to

c o n s e r ve and enhance the existing tundra

resource. Paving the Pikes Peak Highway

will reduce erosion and disturbance of

habitat. The greatest concern is the trail

system through this area. Effective l y

reducing foot traffic on or over tundra

areas will conserve and protect this

e c o t y pe. New trails should be minimized

Timberline on Pikes Peak

Source: Design Workshop, inc.

and adhering to the trail system must be

strictly enforced. Signage and interpretive

education programs are also effective

measures for persuading recreationa l i s t s

to obey barriers.

Interpretive and

Recreation Use Centers

The Cheyenne Canyon Interpretive

Center should provide excellent

educational opportunities given its

proximity to a multitude of natural

resources. However, this proximity

must also be considered in planning. If

the center is targeted toward attracting

large groups, it may well defeat its

purpose. Groups larger than 25 tend to

disrupt natural communities and should

be discouraged from interpretive walks

unless small groups can be formed.

Gillett Portal

The Gillett Portal must be carefully

considered and planned. The proximity

to sizeable wetlands and riparian areas

enhances the potential for adverse

environmental impacts to water quality.

Also, use of weed-free hay must be

required to prevent the spread of

noxious weeds. Livestock is notorious

for denigrating stream banks and

influencing water quality. Proper

consideration must be given to these

issues when planning this site.

Wye Campground and Trails

Motorized vehicles are always a

detriment to natural areas. They can

spoil the experience of those who have

chosen a non-motorized mode of

transportation or are seeking a

wilderness experience. Limiting

motorized use to segments of the

planning area as indicated by the plan

properly addresses the way to

accommodate multiple uses.

People are drawn to the Pikes Peak

region for its natural landscape beauty

and recreational opportunities. While

the surrounding communities offer a

variety of cultural experiences, they all

share a common resource in the Peak.

Outside of the Garden of the Gods, the

Pikes Peak Summit House and Highway

attracts the greatest number of regional

visitor per year than any other natural

feature in our region. The Peak provides

the basis for the communities

recreational opportunities, such as trail,

fishing, biking, climbing, and camping.

These outdoor wilderness and

recreational opportunities account for a

large percent of the six million plus

annual visitors to the region.

Snow MobilingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

The major attractions and resources

within the region are:

• Mueller State Park (the largest in the area)

• Barr Camp and Trail

• Cog Railroad

• Gold Camp Road

• North Cheyenne Canyon

• Historic Gold Fields

• Pikes Peak Highway and Summit House

• Catamount Reservoir

• Crags Campground

• The Pikes Peak Hill Climb

• Pikes Peak Marathon and Assent

• Gold Belt Auto-Tour

• Old Stage Road

• Seven Falls

The noted major resources are also

s u p ported by local community programs

t hat celebrate the area’s rich natural and

historic la n d s c a pe, such as the Run of the

Garden of the Gods, Pikes Pe a k

Marathon, the Pikes Peak Highla n d

Games, and Donkey De r by Day s .

The goals of the Regional Vision Plan

have recognized the benefits and

impacts of the existing recreational

activities on the areas cultural and

natural resources. Through careful

consideration and analysis the plan

seeks to broaden the range of

recreational opportunities while

managing areas of sensitive ecological

value.

The efforts to introduce new

opportunities are combined with

programs that restore damaged

environmental and historic landscapes.

These areas include the proposed

restoration zones along the east slopes

and limited access to the south slope.

Supporting a broader range of

opportunities, the plan formalizes an

interior Perimeter Loop Trail, Auto-Touring

Loop and a series of Portals and Recreation

Use Centers. The formalization of these

access points provides greater year-

round accessibility to the planning area

for a greater range of users.

By defining an Au t o -To u ring Loop and re-

establishing a connection along Gold

Camp Road the propo sal recognizes a

range of community recreational needs.

Considered as a lost cultural resource, the

historical Gold Camp road auto-by w ay

once again meets the needs of an aging

and less physical po p u lation. The Au t o -

To u ring Loop i m p r ovements also enha n c e

fire and service access that protects the

resources and users expe r i e n c e s .

Through the development of Portals and

Recreation Use Centers the plan begins to

identify suitable land and recreational

opportunity relationships that support

Winter RecreationSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

the regional landscape vision.

Controlling access points for such

activities as motorized vehicle use allows

the Managing Partners the opportunity

to consider and control broad range

landscape restoration programs, while

improving services for given resource

users. Individual levels of attention will

be given to parking, water, landscape

restoration and camping amenities, with

the development of each Recreation Use

Centers. The addition of local Portals and

Recreation Use Centers also becomes

important as a means of identity

directing regional users to appropriate

activity areas and more evenly

distributing users across the study area.

As with the cultural resource analysis,

the recreational resources and user’s

experiences benefit from reduced user

concentrations. An example of the

resource distribution benefits can be

seen with the proposed trail alignment

concepts. The plan first attempts to

consider multiple routes to major

destination points from different

accesses that reduce the user pressure

on individual trails. Second, parallel

routes are eliminated, as a means of

reducing maintenance costs, and

unnecessary accesses that contribute to

environmental degradation and demand

management resources. In both cases

the cost of maintenance can be focused

on a few primary trails, providing high

quality amenities that hold up better for

to a growing number of users.

Other expanding recreational

opportunities can be associated with the

proposed Portals into the South Slope

area, Teller County’s Catamount Ranch

Open Space site and reservoir access,

and the Gillett Portal. The Catamount

Ranch Open Space Portal is intended to

offer new water and winter sport

opportunities. The Portal would include

fishing facilities and trail information for

backcountry skiing. With these

improvements and the relationships

possible with the Crags Campground

and Mueller State Park regional users

are offered an enhanced western slope

recreational destination. The Gillett

Portal would serve multiple users, and

also establish a new remote equestrian

center along the southwest slopes of the

Peak. Again, the Portal would help

broaden the access and recreational

opportunities and provide relative

services within the historic context of

the regional landscape.

The South Slope limited use propo sa l

combines new regional oppo r t u n i t i e s .

First the limited use/and or permitted use

Land within the boundaries of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is owned by six different

entities and falls into multiple jurisdictions and spheres of influence. The recommended

management structure for the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is a composite of the

Cooperative Management Agreement/Independent/Non-Profit models as described in

the Planning Process Section. Each land owner implements the plan for their jurisdiction

and existing long-standing agreements and partnerships are supported by the Vision

Plan. This model is supplemented by Leaders of the Vision, Managing Partners, and the

Non-Profit Foundation. The role of each entity is defined by their policies, land

management tools, and relative strengths.

Source: From the Collection of Paul Gilbert, Sr., Colorado Division of Wildlife, Retired

Managing Partners

• Colorado Springs Utilities -

Water Resources


Ranger District


• El Paso County

• Teller County






• Town of Green Mountain Fa l l s

• Town of Victor

• Pikes Peak - Am e rica’s Mountain


The following roles of the management

entities are recommended:

The U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak

Ranger District and Colorado Springs

Utilities have served as the leaders for

the planning process and the resulting

vision created in the Pikes Peak Multi-

Use Plan. These two entities should

continue to champion the resource and

the vision. The continued cooperation

of these two entities will ensure a

dynamic partnership that can meet all

of the management objectives

established for the project.

All entities that have management

responsibilities within the Pikes Peak

area have met regularly throughout the

planning process for the Pikes Peak

Multi-Use Plan to provide information,

insight, recommendation, and

comments. on key concepts. The

synergy created by these meetings has

significantly benefited the outcome.

It is recommended that a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) be developed

among the agencies to agree to meet on

a regular basis (at a set interval to be

determined). This quarterly worksession

would discuss actions and

Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan

Colorado Springs UtilitiesU.S. Forest Service Pikes

Peak Ranger District

501 c3 Non-ProfitFoundation

Bureau of LandManagement

ColoradoSprings Utilities- Water Re s o u r c e s

Department ofWildlife

U.S. ForestService PikesPeak Ranger

District

El Paso County Teller CountyTowns

and CitiesOthers

Figure 4-1

Recommended Management

Structure

implementation strategies related to the

Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan.

Each land owner has a significant

r e s ponsibility to implement the Multi-

Use Plan within their jurisdiction.

These include:

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

- Pikes Peak Ranger District

The USFS will be responsible for

operational and stewardship functions

on national forest lands and continue to

serve as the primary land manager.

Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU)

- Water Resources

CSU will continue to operate and be

co-stewards of their watersheds in

national forest land under current

management agreements.

Bureau of Land Management (BL M )

BLM will be responsible for operational

and implementation functions of the

plan for the land under their control. In

some instances this has been delegated

to the USFS.

El Paso and Teller Counties

The counties should adopt the

recommendation from the Pikes Peak

Multi-Use Plan into their respective

County Comprehensive Plans.

Cities and Towns of Cripple Creek,

Green Mountain Falls, Manitou

Springs, Victor and Woodland Park

The cities and towns should adopt the

recommendations from the Multi-Use

plan into their respective local master

plans. Manitou Springs will continue to

be co-stewards of national forest lands

under current management agreements.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (DO W )

Colorado DOW will continue to

participate in the greenback cutthroat

trout program in cooperation with CSU

and the USFS. They will continue in

their role as primary steward of wildlife

resources and manage both hunting and

fishing recreation.

Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS )

The CSFS will continue to provide

guidance on forest resource issues and

wildlife response coordination on non-

federal lands.

Colorado State Parks

A Portal at Mueller State Park should be

proposed.

A Non-Profit Foundation serves as the

facilitator, fund-raiser, project manager,

liaison between agencies and

landowners, and involves local

communities in volunteer projects and

special events. The Foundation board

and members serve as the "vision

keeper." The Foundation does not get

involved in regulatory processes.

A comprehensive technical process was

part of the planning process to

c haracterize the capacity of the

la n d s c a pe to support land uses. All

program elements were evaluated, as

well as additional generic uses such as

r e s i d e n t ial and commercial. A full

e x p la nation of this technical proc e s s

has been described in the Pla n n i n g

P r ocess section of this doc u m e n t .

The Carrying Capacity Map (see page

20) was created by the Technical

Advisory Group (TAG). These advisors

consisted of 14 resource planners

knowledgeable of the planning area.

They defined the individual landscape

features that characterize carrying

capacity and then developed the

weighting factor by which they were

combined. Once the Carrying Capacity

Map was created and segmented into

seven capacity zones, this same group of

resource planners established the kinds

of uses appropriate within each capacity

zone. This carrying capacity evaluation

will serve as a long-term management

tool that can be used to identify

potential conflicts with future proposed

uses. Since virtually every potential

land use has been evaluated, Figure 4-2

and the Capacity Map can be used to

evaluate the potential impact of any

future land use proposal, such as trail

alignments, camping sites, etc.

This Program/Capacity Fit Matrix lists

all uses appropriate within each capacity

zone. Since Zone One has the highest

capacity and Zone Seven the lowest

capacity, the list of uses diminishes as

the landscape's capacity to support it

diminishes.

Use Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7

Agriculture √ √ √Auto Touring √ √ √ √Backpacking √ √ √ √ √Bird Watching √ √ √ √ √ √Boy/Girl Scout Camp √ √ √Braille Trail √ √ √Camping Area - developed √ √ √Camping Area - dispersed √ √ √Cog Railway √ √ √Commercial Outfitters √ √ √ √Environmental Education Facility √ √ √ √Exploring √ √ √ √ √ √Hunting √ √ √ √ √ √Interpretive Site √ √ √ √Living History Site √ √ √Lodging - cabins √ √ √Lodging - motel √ √Lodging - single family √ √ √Logging √ √ √Mineral Collecting (rockhounds) √ √ √ √Mining √ √ √Narrow Gauge Railroad √ √ √ √Observatory √ √ √ √Open Space √ √ √ √ √ √ √Overnight Hut System √ √ √ √ √Picnic Area √ √ √ √Public Transportation Shuttle √ √ √ √Races - automotive √ √ √Races - bicycle √ √ √ √Races - foot √ √ √ √Research Facility √ √ √ √Resort √ √ √Roadless Area √ √ √ √ √ √Roads - Pikes Peak Highway √ √ √ √Roads - other √ √ √ √Rock Climbing √ √ √ √Shooting Range √ √ √Shore Fishing √ √ √ √Snowmobiling √ √ √Snowshoeing √ √ √ √ √Summit House √ √ √ √Toilet Facilities √ √ √Trailhead Parking √ √ √Trails - cross country skiing √ √ √ √ √Trails - equestrian √ √ √ √Trails - hike √ √ √ √ √ √Trails - motorized use (ATV, 4WD, motorcycle) √ √ √Trails - mountain bike √ √ √Utility Corridor √ √ √Visitor Center √ √ √Water Access Site - boat launch √ √ √Water Resource Preserve √ √ √ √ √ √ √Water Storage √ √ √ √ √Wildlife Preserve √ √ √ √ √ √

Figure 4-2

Potential Land Use

in Carrying Capacity

Zones

M a nagement Guidelines have be e n

defined for areas within the study area

t hat may require spe c ial mana g e m e n t

t ools to mitigate challenges faced by the

M a naging Partners in achieving the

p u r pose of preserving natural resources

while providing recreationa l

o p portunities. Management guidelines

have been described be l ow for six

system-wide zones: wetlands, ripa r ia n

areas, wildlife and recreation areas,

unique species and conservation zones,

f l ood p lains, erosion prone areas, and

fire hazard areas. Many of the

guidelines described be l ow follow the

Pikes Peak Watershed Forest Management Plan.

These Landscape Mana g e m e n t

Guidelines are recommended for

relevant zones within the Pikes Pe a k

M u l t i - Use Plan study areas.

Wetlands are defined as those areas that

are inundated or saturated by surface or

groundwater enough to support

vegetation typically adapted to wet soil

conditions. A wetland has certain

characteristics that distinguish it from

other natural ecosystems. Wetland soils

contain little or no oxygen and are

saturated for varying periods of time

during the growing season. Certain

plants are adapted to living in wet, low-

oxygen conditions and thrive in wetland

areas. When compared to other natural

habitats in the region, wetlands support

a greater number of bird, mammal, and

amphibian species.

Wetlands are well known for the role

they play in protecting water quality,

but they also provide a broad range of

other functions of value to the

community. Wetlands are known to be

critical in the functions of:

• Groundwater recharge/discharge

• Flood water retention/detention/storage

• Shore-line anchoring

• Sediment trapping

• Nutrient retention

• Food chain support

• Fish and wildlife habitat

• Recreation

Figure 4-3 shows wetland types and

l ocations within a typical uppe r

mountain valley. Not all wetla n d s

p r ovide all of these functions, and most

p r ovide only a few to a very high degree.

Wetland mitigation measures include

restricting vehicle access into the

surrounding area, creating open water

habitat, modifying wetland plan

communities, and instituting

maintenance and monitoring programs.

The primary method of modifying

wetland plant communities should be

the removal of less desirable plant

species and revegetation with native

wetland species. Baseline and long-term

data on soil, water, and habitat

conditions should be gathered.

Management efforts will respond to

monitoring information to insure long-

term mitigation project success.

Vegetation management options include

water drawdowns, burning, cutting,

flooding, herbicide, and planting.

In addition to management guidelines,

general guidelines are recommended as

follows:

Figure 4-3

Wetland Types and Their Locations

Source: Illustration adapted from S.Q.

Foster in U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1888)

• Design roads and trails so as not to

impede the natural hydrology including

the inflow and outflow of flood waters.

• Provide cross-drainage during both

flooded and low-water periods. Locate

roads on well drained soils.

• Construct all fill of granular, free-draining

material. Do not take road-building

materials from wetland sites.

• Consider the use of geotextile fabric in

construction to increase the bearing

strength of the road; minimize fill

requirements, disturbance, and

maintenance costs.

• To ensure adequate drainage, minimize

surface-water velocities, discourage rutting

and erosion, use surface drainage

techniques such as:

- crowning,

-• insloping and outsloping,

-• 2 percent minimum grade,

-• surface gravel and maintenance.

• Where the organic layer is greater than 48

inches thick:

-• place a layer of geotextile fabric;

-• place a layer of “corduroy” logs,

parallel to each other across the

roadbed;

-• place 12 inch thick layer of porous fill

(e.g., large stone, chunkwood which is

lighter in weight), anticipate that the

roadbed will sink into the organic

material.

-• the fill will allow passage of

subsurface and surface waters.

• Where temporary roads are necessary:

-• consider the use of wooden mats,

geotextiles, and metal platform devices;

-• consider loosening compacted surfaces

after use is completed; and

-• use temporary stream crossings; design

them to be removable/portable in case

of flooding.

• Build only what is currently necessary.

• Construct roads and trails when ground is

frozen to preserve the integrity of the root

mat as much as possible.

• Do not undertake construction during

spring thaw and other wet periods.

• Use signage to indicate sensitive areas.

• Divert outflow from drainage ditches

before they enter wetlands.

Construct ditches on both sides of the

r o a d bed to collect surface and

subsurface water, channel waters

through culverts, and disperse waters

again on the dow n s l o pe side; orient

ditches parallel to the roadbed; pla c e

them at a distance from the roadbe d

equal to three times the depth of the

organic soil; dig them as deep as the

c u l verts. Figure 4-4 demonstrates

mitigation for stream crossings.

To collect surface and subsurface water,

construct ditches on both sides of the

roadbed. Channel waters through

culverts, and disperse waters again on

the downslope side.

Figure 4-4

Management Objectives for Stream

Crossings Source: Design Workshop, Inc.

The BLM defines riparian ecosystems as

“land transitional between aquatic and

upland habitats that is characterized by

hydric soil and distinctive vegetation

requiring free or unbound water.”

Riparian corridors serve a variety of

functions that can be categorized into

four general areas: water quality,

wildlife/aquatic life, water quantity, and

aesthetics1.

Riparian areas play a disproportionately

large role in maintaining biodiversity,

especially in Colorado and other

western states. The hydrology and

vegetation of riparian areas - usually

starkly contrasting with surrounding

habitats - create very high biological

diversity. For example, of the 627

vertebrate species listed by the Colorado

Division of Wildlife, 458 species (73

percent) use riparian, stream, lake, or

marsh habitat types for at least some

part of the year. More than 80 percent

of Colorado breeding birds are

dependent on riparian areas. Figure 4-5

shows stream-side plant communities

and changes with elevation.

The management guidelines according to

riparian functions are described below:

• WATER QUALITY. The efficacy of vegetated

buffers in maintaining water quality,

including sediment removal, fecal coliform

reduction, nutrient reduction, and

stormwater runoff management generally

increases with buffer width. The

recommended buffer width is 100 to 400

feet, however, buffer widths may change

pending the implementation and

guidelines of the Colorado State Water

Assessment and Protection Program.

• SEDIMENT CONTROL. Recommendations for

this vary from 10 feet for filtering sand

up to 289 feet for filtering clay.

• TE MPER ATURE CONTROL. The relative

degree of shading provided by a buffer

s t rip depends on a range of factors such

as species composition, age of stand, and

density of vegetation. Buffer strips with

widths of 98 feet or more generally

provided the same level of shading as

that of an old-growth stand.

• WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION.

Recommended buffer widths for protecting

Figure 4-5

Stream-side Plant Communities

wildlife habitat ranged from 98 feet for

salmonid, 220-328 feet for small

mammals, 246-656 feet for some birds,

during the breeding season, and 328 for

large mammals.

Because they are attractive to people,

riparian areas endure a multitude of

human uses and are degraded. Trail

projects can be catalysts for restoring

such areas, because they help

concentrate human use and thereby

reduce trampling, and the impact of

people in riparian areas. By

understanding the relative quality of

riparian areas, it may be possible to find

places within the riparian zone for trails

that will have less impact on wildlife.

Plants in riparian soils are especially

vulnerable to trampling because

compacting soils damages and limits

roots, reduces aeration, decreases soil

water, and destroys soil structure.

Where horses, pedestrians, and others

cross streams, erosion can result which

may affect fish habitat. Also, if rest

rooms are not available the impacts of

human waste may be considerable.

Fishing is a type of managed recreation

that has direct impacts on habitat, as

well as fish. Of special concern are the

extensive social trails often created along

banks by anglers, sometimes in sensitive

riparian areas.

Recommendations

• REGIONAL BALANCE. Looking across the

landscape or region, find a balance

between the riparian areas that have trails

and those devoted to wildlife conservation.

• HABITAT RESTORATION. Use the process of

building trails as a catalyst to restore

degraded stream corridors.

• REMOVING GRAZING. Whenever possible,

use a trail as a catalyst to restrict cattle

and other stock from good quality

riparian areas.

• STRATEGIC ENTRIES INTO RIPARIAN ZONE.

For both habitat and maintenance

reasons, it is better to run a trail just

outside the riparian area (perhaps on a

topographic bench) and bring it in at

strategic places, than to keep it

continuously close to a riparian area.

• NOT ENCIRCL ING PONDS. In routing a trail

near a pond or lake, don't run it completely

around the body of water. Instead, leave

some shoreline without a trail to allow

water birds the option of moving away

from people to the far side of the pond.

• BEAVER PONDS AS ATTRACTIONS.

Occasionally taking a trail to beaver

ponds may provide an opportunity for

trail users to see wildlife habitat close at

hand. Beaver are not as likely to be

disturbed by recreationalists as other

wildlife, but be careful of sensitive species

that also use beaver ponds.

• STREAM CROSSINGS. Minimize the number

of times a trail crosses a stream. However,

stream crossings may be needed to avoid

critical habitat areas.

• STREAM CONFLUENCES. Avoid crossings

where two or more streams come together.

These are particularly important nodes for

wildlife.

• STRE A M BUFFERS. To maintain natural

processes along a stream corri d o r,

maintain an interior or upland buffer on

both sides of a stream, which is wide

enough to control over-land flows from the

s u rrounding landscape, provide a conduit

for upland species, and offer suitable

habitat for floodplain species displaced by

beaver flooding or channel migration.

• POOR RIPARIAN HABITAT. In riparian areas

of variable habitat quality, route a trail

closer to a stream where habitat quality is

poorer.

• APPROACHING STREAMS. Give trail users the

opportunity to be near water or they will

find ways themselves, likely with greater

overall impact than if a trail is provided.

• WIDER CONSERVATION. Use public support

of trails to protect riparian corridors.

• RESTORING WETLANDS. Restore wetlands

near a trail to expand cover, food, and

nesting opportunities.

Management of wildlife and recreation

zones requires a three step process

described in Figure 4-6:

• Get the whole picture

• Consider alternative alignments

• Build and manage the trail

The following “Checklist” outlines a

series of actions to take and questions to

ask when planning, designing,

implementing and managing wildlife

habitat interaction with recreationalists2.

Get the Whole Picture

Include Wildlife in the Trail Vision

1. Examine the broader landscape.

What opportunities or constraints are

there for trails and wildlife in the

broader landscape? What plans are

there for other trails or wildlife

across the landscape? In general,

what kinds of landscapes would the

trail pass through? Would any be

areas that currently have no trails

and little human modification?

Would there be any cumulative trail

impacts by adding a new trail?

2. Develop preliminary goals for the

project. What activities would occur

on the trail? What are the wildlife

goals for the project?

3. Develop initial trail concepts. What

destinations, users, and activities

would occur on the trail?

4. Keep wildlife concerns within the

focus of the project vision. Are there

biologists or other professionals

available to advise on wildlife and

trails concerns?

5 . L ook for opportunities to coo r d i na t e

the trail project with conservation and

other complementary projects.

Organize & Communicate

1. Create a profile of the kinds of users

who are likely to use the trail. What

are likely levels and seasons of use?

Are there organizations that would

be interested in the trail project?

Get the Whole Picture

1Include wildlife in

the Trail Vision

2Organize andcommunicate

3Research and

inventory

ConsiderAlternativeAlignments

1Prepare and evaluate

alternatives

2Design the trail

Build andManage the Trail

1Acquire and construct

the trail

2Monitor and manage

the trail

Figure 4-6

Wildlife and Trails Checklist

2. Identify the groups interested in

wildlife in the trail area. What wildlife

and conservation organizations

would be interested to know about

the trail project?

3 . S hare ideas and findings with other

community members, including bo t h

trails and wildlife enthusiasts, prope r t y

owners, and land managers. Who are

people and organizations that would

feel strongly for or against the project?

4. Meet with agency planners. Are there

city or county land-use planners and

federal or state resource planners

who understand the broader context

of the area for the proposed trail? Is

there an area-wide land-use, open

space, or trails plan? If the trail might

cross federal land, is there an existing

management plan? Is the trail

concept consistent with these plans?

5. Start a public discussion of the trail

and its implications for wildlife. What

are the best ways to reach the

various groups interested in the trail?

What are the wildlife issues that must

be addressed in planning the trail?

Research and Inventory

1. Determine the physical extent of the

project.

2. Conduct a preliminary biological

inventory. What are the area's

sensitive plants, animals, and wildlife

habitats? How impacted already are

wildlife in the area?

3. Determine the habitat/ecosystem

types present in the area of the

proposed trail and the potential

species or communities of special

concern. What do the Colorado

Natural Diversity Information Source

(www.ndis.nrel.colostate.edu) and

other sources indicate are likely

species or communities of special

interest in the area?

4. Draw inferences from scientific

studies done in similar habitats or

with similar wildlife species. Does the

Colorado State Parks wildlife/trails

bibliographic data base include any

such relevant references?

5. Learn from others who have

completed projects with similar

wildlife issues.

6. Review data found to date and

conduct a site visit with a wildlife

biologist or other scientists to identify

po t e n t ial wildlife opportunities and

constraints. Which areas would

p r ovide the most interesting route

and have the least impact on wildlife?

7. Identify seasons of special concern

for the important wildlife species or

communities. Are there alternatives

for the trail away from such areas?

Would seasonal closures of a trail

near such areas be workable?

8. Identify important plants in the area.

Are there any sensitive plant species

or communities in the area? Are

there ways to present these

communities to trail users without

disturbing sensitive species?

9. Evaluate the extent of existing

impacts to wildlife and the

landscape. How much have humans

already modified the area? Is the area

primarily natural, managed,

cultivated, suburban, or urban? Will

the trail provide access to back-

country or areas that have never had

trails before?

11. Take a step back. What has been

learned at this point? How well will

this project fit into its larger

ecological context?

12. Formalize the project goals. Revise the

p r e l i m i nary project goals based on

w hat has been learned. What do

m e m bers of the public and others

think of the project goals?

Consider Alternative Alignments

Prepare and Evaluate Alternatives

1. Create distinctive alternative plans.

Develop alternative plans that

maximize the opportunities and

minimize the constraints for wildlife.

Especially look for opportunities to

coordinate the restoration of

degraded habitats. Get professional

help preparing and evaluating

alternatives, if possible. Where an

existing trail is to be improved,

alternatives might include different

management strategies.

2. Consider alternatives for trailheads

and other support facilities. Sites for

trailheads and parking areas are

sometime overlooked in evaluating

wildlife impacts of trails. They need

careful design and review.

3. Evaluate the alternatives. Conduct an

internal evaluation of the alternatives

using the goals set earlier.

4. Ask others to help evaluate the

alternatives. Conduct an external

evaluation of the alternatives with

wildlife biologists or other agency

personnel, public, environmental

groups, landowners, land managers,

and others, as appropriate.

Summarize the pros and cons of

each alternative.

5. Select a preferred plan. Review the

comments made during the

evaluation process and select one of

the alternatives or create a hybrid

plan incorporating the best qualities

of two or more plans.

Design the trail

1. Refine the selected plan. Develop site

designs, budgets, and timetables.

2 . De velop management strategies.

Consider how the trail will be

m a naged, maintained, and monitored.

3. Develop an environmental education

plan. The plan should explain how

to communicate to trail users the

specific wildlife issues of this trail.

4 . De velop a volunteer plan. Outline

s u p port tasks for involving vo l u n t e e r s

in monitoring or managing wildlife.

5. Conduct a final review of the plan

and its components. Review the

final plan with a wildlife biologist

and other specialists to make certain

all the parts went together in ways

that support wildlife.

Build and Manage the Trail

Acquire and Construct the Trail

1 . L ook for opportunities for

complementary conservation. In

acquiring the land needed for the trail,

l ook for additional areas that can be

set aside for wildlife conservation at

the same time and for the partners to

implement such efforts.

2. Implement the plan. Be careful to

impact wildlife as little as possible

during construction.

3. Communicate to all interested parties.

Share the progress about the trail

and what is being learned about co-

existing with wildlife.

Monitor and Manage the Trail

1. Manage the trail. Implement the plan

to manage the trail corridor and

activities within it.

2 . Using staff or volunteers, monitor the

i m portant plants and wildlife of the

alignment, looking for impacts. Ad j u s t

m a nagement plans as appropria t e .

The Pikes Peak area supports a unique

set of biodiversity. Fifty significant

plants, animals and natural communities

are found in the study area. Out of this

50, an astounding 31 are plants.

Included in this number are one plant

species known nowhere else in the

world, the best known population in the

world for another species, and a third

subspecies which is endemic to the area.

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program

(CNHP) has identifies eight Potential

Conservation Areas (PCA) which are

important to the long-term survival of

the rare species found here. These PCAs

are listed in Figure 4-7 and include a

recommended Protection Strategy.

Sitename Significance Recommended Protection Strategy

Green Mountain Falls Moderate Significance Protection Urgency Level 2 Threat/Opportunity within 5 yearsCascade Creek Outstanding Significance Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special OpportunityHalfway Picnic Ground High Significance Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special OpportunityPikes Peak Outstanding Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special OpportunityMinnehana General Biodiversity Interest Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special OpportunityCheyenne Canyon Very High Significance Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special OpportunityCathedral Park Very High Significance Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special OpportunityRock Creek General Biodiversity Interest Protection Urgency Level 4 No Threat or Special Opportunity

Figure 4-7

Potential Conservation Areas

Site Name

The 100-year flood is used by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

as well as local entities to identify

floodplain areas. This is the flood event

that would statistically occur once on

an average in 100 years; it has a one

percent chance of annual occurrence.

All habitable structures, buildings and

facilities, parking lots and critical access

roads must be "flood proof;" therefore,

the lowest finished floor elevation of the

structure should be a minimum of 18

inches above the 100-year water surface

elevation in accordance with state

criteria. Temporary structures such as

picnic shelters, rest shelters and viewing

platforms may be permitted within the

100-year flood plain, provided they are

designed to be repaired or replaced as

necessary following a flood event. Figure

4-8 demonstrates bridge construction in

floodplains.

Figure 4-8

Bridge Construction in FloodplainsSource: Design Workshop, Inc.

C u r r e n t l y, erosion along the Pikes Pe a k

Toll Road is causing a great deal of

sedimentation into the North Slope

r e s e r voirs, primarily South Catamount

Re s e r vo i r. Better drainage facilities,

seeding and water bars could control

this erosion problem.3

Research has shown improperly

designed logging roads and skid trails

are a major source of sedimentation.

With proper planning, construction, and

maintenance, sedimentation from

logging roads can be reduced

significantly. New road construction

should be avoided where possible. The

current road system is more than

adequate for hauling roads in most

areas. When designing new roads and

skid trails, the following guidelines

should be used to minimize

sedimentation problems.

• Correlate road and harvest plans to

minimize sedimentation potential.

• Keep roads out of high erosion hazard area.

• Locate and layout timber harvest areas in

such a way as to minimize the intensity

of activities adjacent to stream channels.

• Schedule activities to control the amount

of disturbance to any given watershed at

any given time.

• Locate roads far enough from streams to

provide sufficient buffering area as shown

in the following table. The percentage

shows the slope of land between the road

and the stream and the corresponding

width of buffering strip.

• Road grades should be kept below ten

percent, except for short distances where

this limit may be exceeded up to 15 or

20 percent. Grades of three to five percent

are desirable.

Long, steady grades may permit the

build-up of drainage water and increase

erosion potential unless adequate drainage

structures are installed. To facilitate

natural drainage, occasional breaks in

grade or water bars should be used.

Slope (%) Buffer Strip (ft)

0 50

10 90

20 130

30 170

40 210

50 250

60 290

Trail construction on steep

slopes and erosion prone

soils should be constructed

to drain against the

uphill side (see Figure 4-

10). Trails should also

drain to low points where

drainage is passed under

the trail via culvert into

grassy swale to absorb

drainage and

sedimentation.

• The table at left suggests the standards for

single lane packed gravel/dirt road who’s use

is less than 100 vehicles per day. Use the

lowest standard road possible as given.

• All new roads and skid trails built during

timber harvesting should be closed

immediately following the removal of

timber. This may require additional water

bars and grass seeding. Certain roads,

though closed, should be left accessible for

fire access roads.

Design Speed MPH 10 15 20

Speed 5-15 10-20 15-25

Horizontal Curves/Sight obstr. (radius ft.)

none 55 110 200

9’ from travel way 100 300 600

Vertical curves length (ft) 200 200 200

Stopping distance1 h o rizontal/vertical control 100 170 250

Travel way (T.W.) (ft) 10 12 12

Grade (Heavy Truck)

max. sustained percent 7 4 3

min. sustained percent 2 2 2

Pitch Maximum %2 18 18 181Two and one-half times single vehicle stopping distance.2 Pitch length not more than 500 feet.

Figure 4-10

Trail Construction

Figure 4-9

standards for single lane packed

gravel/dirt road

When designing and installing a "smart"

fire landscape, consider the following:4

• Local area fire history.

• Site location and overall terrain.

• Prevailing winds and seasonal weather.

• Property contours and boundaries.

• Native vegetation.

• Plant characteristics and placement

(duffage, water and salt retention ability,

aromatic oils, fuel load per area, and size).

• Irrigation requirements.

To create a "smart" fire landscape,

remember that the primary goal is fuel

reduction. To this end, initiate the zone

concept. Zone 1 is closest to a structure;

Zones 2-4 move progressively further

away.

• Zone 1. This well-irrigated area encircles

the structure for at least 30' on all sides,

providing space for fire suppression

equipment in the event of an emergency.

Plantings should be limited to carefully

spaced fire resistant species.

• Zone 2. Fire resistant plant materials

should be used here. Plants should be low-

growing, and the irrigation system should

extend into this section.

• Zone 3. Place low-growing plants and

well-spaced trees in this area,

remembering to keep the volume of

vegetation (fuel) low.

• Zone 4. This furthest zone from the

structure is a natural area. Th i n

selectively here, and remove highly

flammable vegetation.

Also remember to:

• Be sure to leave a minimum of 30'

around the house to accommodate fire

equipment, if necessary.

• Carefully space the trees you plant.

• Take out the "ladder fuels" — vegetation

that serves as a link between grass and

tree tops. It can carry fire to a structure or

from a structure to vegetation.

• Give yourself added protection with "fuel

breaks" like driveways, gravel walkways,

and lawns.

When maintaining a “smart” fire la n d s c a pe :

• Keep trees and shrubs pruned. Prune all

trees up to 6' to 10' from the ground.

• Remove leaf clutter and dead and

overhanging branches.

• Mow the lawn regularly.

• Dispose of cuttings and debris promptly,

according to local regulations.

• Store firewood away from the house.

• Be sure the irrigation system is well

maintained.

• Use care when refueling garden

equipment and maintain it regularly.

• Store and use flammable liquids properly.

• Dispose of smoking materials carefully.

• Become familiar with local regulations

regarding vegetative clearances, disposal of

d e b ris, and fire safety requirements for

e q u i p m e n t .

• Follow manufacturers’ instructions when

using fertilizers and pesticides.

When constructing, renovating, or

adding to a "smart" fire facilities,

consider the following:

• Choose a "smart" fire location.

• Design and build a "smart" fire structure.

• Employ "smart" fire landscaping and

maintenance.

To select a "smart" fire location, observe

the following:

• Slope of terrain; be sure to build on the

most level portion of the land, since fire

spreads rapidly, even on minor slopes.

• Set your single-story structure at least 30

feet back from any ridge or cliff; increase

distance if your home will be higher than

one story.

• Identify and post two means of evacua-

tion plans in the event of a wildfire.

In designing and building your "smart"

fire structure, remember that the

primary goals are fuel and exposure

reduction. To this end:

• Use construction materials that are fire-

resistant or non-combustible when possible.

• For roof construction, consider using

materials such as slate or tile, metal,

cement and concrete products, or terra-

cotta tiles.

• Constructing a fire-resistant sub-roof can

add protection, as well.

• On exterior wall cladding, fire resistive

materials such as stucco or masonry are

much better than vinyl that can soften

and melt.

• Consider both size and materials for

window; smaller panes hold up better in

their frames than larger ones; double pane

glass and tempered glass are more effective

than single pane glass; plastic skylights

can melt.

• Cover windows and skylights with non-

flammable screening shutters.

• To prevent sparks from entering your

home through vents, cover exterior attic

and underfloor vents with wire mesh no

larger than 1/8 of an inch; make sure

undereave and soffit vents are closer to the

roof line than the wall; and box in eaves,

but provide adequate ventilation to

prevent condensation.

• Include a driveway that is wide enough –

12 feet wide with a vertical clearance of 15

feet and a slope that is less than 12

percent – to provide easy access for fire

engines. The driveway and access roads

should be well maintained, clearly

marked, and include ample turnaround

space near the house. Also consider access

to water supply, if possible.

• Provide at least two ground level doors for

safety exits and at least two means of

escape (either a door or window) in each

room, so that everyone has a way out.

• Keep gutters, eaves, and roof clear of leaves

and other debris.

• Make an occasional inspection of the

structure, looking for deterioration such

as breaks and spaces between roof tiles,

warping wood, or cracks and crevices in

the structure.

• Also, inspect the property, clearing dead

wood and dense vegetation from at least

30 feet from the structure, and moving

firewood away from the house or

attachments, like fences or decks.

Any attached structures, such as decks,

porches, fences, and outbuildings should

be considered part of the house. Th e s e

structures can act as fuses or fuel bridges,

pa r t i c u larly if constructed from

f lammable materials. Therefore, consider

the follow i n g :

• Use masonry or metal as a protective

barrier between the fence and structure if

there is an attached all-wood fence to the

structure.

• Use non-flammable metal when

constructing a trellis and cover with high-

moisture, non-flammable vegetation.

• Prevent combustible materials and debris

from accumulating beneath patio deck or

elevated porches; screen under or b ox in

areas below ground line with wire mesh

no larger than 1/8 of an inch.

• Make sure an elevated wooden deck is not

located at the top of a hill where it will be

in direct line of a fire moving up slope;

consider a terrace instead.

• Check if the building department has

jurisdictions regarding local restrictions

on your building project.

A cultural resource can be defined as a

prehistoric or historic landscape, district,

site, building, structure or geological

formation that holds local or regional

significant that provides identity and

understanding of a place.

The Regional Vision Plan recognizes that

there is a growing demand for access

and use of the Pikes Peak natural and

cultural resources. With this growth

comes the need for development and

the long-range management of valuable

and sensitive resources. An underlying

reason for developing a management

plan is to identify and protect the

region's historic resources, that provide

special character and cultural depth. A

survey of regional resources can provide

unique insight into the area’s history

that answers broad questions about the

past. “To make effective use of historic

(cultural) resources, to respect their

value and extend their life, it is

necessary to integrate historic

preservation into community planning.”

The primary reason for undertaking a

resource survey is to gather information

needed to plan for the wise use of a

community’s management resources.

The following cultural management steps

are provided as a guideline for assisting

the Managing Partners in developing a

p lan for management and preservation of

the Pikes Peak regional cultural resources.

The steps are not suggested as a

r e p lacement for existing Bureau of Land

M a nagement and Forest Service cultural

resource management programs, but are

p r ovided as a means of developing a

common ground for discussion and

decision making. The following steps

outline information that should be

collected and recorded for each cultural

resource feature that contributes to the

a nalysis of the resources significance and

m a nagement needs.

Suggested Steps

1. Develop an understanding of the

physical condition/integrity of the

resource and describe its current cultural

context. The physical description should

include a photographic inventory of

existing conditions and a collection of

historic photos. A description of the

site's location, make-up and size is also

important. The completed step two

survey should provide a clear picture of

existing deterioration, level and types of

use, and significant features.

2. Identify how historically the resource

was shaped/introduced and how the

landscape has been impacted or shaped

by the resource. The survey should

include a description of the resource’s

origin, point of historic importance, and

a time line of the resource's influence on

the community and landscape.

3. Develop an understanding of the

resource within the context of related

systems. It is important to provide a

broad perspective of the areas cultural

resource systems, such as the water

harvesting history of the Colorado

Springs Utilities and the associated

dams and reservoirs. The survey should

include interviews with local and

regional experts and maps illustrating

the system relationships.

4. The fourth step, consists of developing a

formal management plan for individual

resources. This is viewed as a

collaboration of relevant managing

partners to develop an appropriate

strategy through a complete review of

survey information and available

management resources.

Given a review of contextual

information, current use, and integrity, a

level of management must be defined

that preserves the resource and historic

story for future generations. Four

distinct, but interrelated management

approaches should be considered. The

four approaches include, and are

defined by the U.S. Secretary of Interior,

in the Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties, Preservation,

Rehabilitation, Restoration and

Reconstruction.

• PRESERVATION - Act of applying measures

n e c e s sary to sustain the existing form ,

i n t e g rity and materials of a histori c a l

p r o p e r t y. Work shall include preliminary

measures to protect and stabilize the

p r o p e r t y, and generally focused upon the

ongoing maintenance and repairs rather

than extensive replacements and new

c o n s t r u c t i o n .

• REHABILITATION - Is defined as the act or

process of making possible a compatible

use for the property through repairs,

alterations, and additions while

preserving those portions of the features

which covey its historical cultural value.

• RESTORATION - An act or process of

accurately depicting the form, features,

and character of a resource as it appeared

at a particular period of time by means of

the removal of features of other periods in

its history and reconstructing missing

features from the restoration period.

• RECONSTRUCTION - Is defined as the act or

process of depicting, by means of new

construction, the form, features, and

detailing of non-surviving sites,

landscapes, buildings, or structures for the

purpose of replicating its appearance at a

specific period of time and in its historic

location.

S pe c ial consideration should be given to

cultural resources if they exist as an

individual site or as a part of historic

district, on the State/Federal Historic

Re g i s t e r. The Managing Partners or

p lanning team would need to contact

the appropriate Historic Officer for

m a nagement guidelines. The Pikes Pe a k

Summit is an example were the

M a naging Partners would be required to

contact the State and the National Park

Service Historic Officer regarding

m a nagement and development decisions.

Further survey and mana g e m e n t

considerations are also required if the

M a naging Partners wish to submit a

resource/site for historic recognition.

In view of the Regional Vision Plan and

cultural resource analysis, a

management plan must recognize the

broad perspective of the Pikes Peak

region as a national cultural resource.

The preservation of a national cultural

resource requires comprehensive

environmental, historical, cultural survey

and management strategies that develop

guidelines for future decision making.

Footnotes

1 Jones, Clary, Brown, Kelly: Riparian

Corridor Protection and Rocky

Mountain Resorts. Proceedings from: A

National Symposium: Assessing the

Cumulative Impacts of Watershed

Development on Aquatic Ecosystems

and Water Quality. Chicago, March 19-

21, 1996.

2 Colorado State Parks and Hellmund

Associates. Trails and Wildlife Taskforce,.

Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind,

September 1998.

3 Farmer, D. A. Pikes Peak Watershed

Forest Management Plan.

4 Colorado State Forest Service Fire

Hazard Survey. 1986.

Implementation for this Pikes Peak Regional Multi-Use Plan involves

participation at the federal, state and local level and many potential par-

ticipants. Since the Regional Vision Plan will not be realized without

participation from private landowners, both county governments, and

the many towns and communities that surround the Peak, this chapter

p r ovides “tools for implementation” that may be useful to all

participants at both planning and design scales. This section defines

implementation priorities, adoption, approval by government agencies,

m e c hanisms and programs, resource protection by gove r n m e n t

agencies, local methods for implementation, and funding.

The many agencies and local jurisdictions that participated in this

Multi-Use Plan are identified in Figure 5-1.


An important element of implementation is

the proposed management structure.

Augmenting the traditional mana g e m e n t

m e c hanisms with a non-profit organization

to help coo r d i nate, promote and raise

money for the realization of the Re g i o na l

Vision Plan is invaluable. This motivated

organization can maintain the pla n n i n g

limits as their primary focus and use the

advantages of 501-C3 non-profit status to

contribute significantly toward achieving

short and long term objectives much

s ooner than would otherwise be po s s i b l e .

Functions of the proposed non-profit

organizations may include:

• Coordinate a quarterly Managing Partners

meeting

• Help define a region-wide action plan

• Coordinate implementation

• Fund-raise/grant writing

• Coordinate volunteers

• Hold, buy and sell land

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan includes a

clear expression of future land uses, plus

a s s oc iated documents such as the Pikes Pe a k

At l a s. How e ve r, subsequent phases of

p lanning and design should recognize tha t

more detailed information is required to

successfully develop desired uses without

a d verse impacts on critical natural resources

and sensitive lands. A more detailed level of

site information should include:

• Topography

• Site Features

• Vegetation

• Surface Hydrology

• Ownership

• Hazard Areas

Floodways

Avalanche

Subsidence Areas

Steep Slopes

• Resource Lands

Habitat

Cultural & Historic

Wetlands

Rare Communities

Visual

.

The scope of the Re g i o nal Vision Pla n

addresses an area of more than 128,000

acres and many of the Pla n

r e c o m m e n dations are based on projects

t hat pa r t ially exist today such as trails

and motorized roadways. Public

recognition of the full range of

r e c r e a t i o nal opportunities has not be e n

realized and new significant concepts and

major po t e n t ial projects have be e n

recommended to address the deficiencies.

The Re g i o nal Visitor Center, the Scenic

L oop, and the Perimeter Loop Trail all

combine to create a framework of

recreation connections and oppo r t u n i t i e s .

Figure 5-1Local Jurisdictions and AgencyContext Map (See larger map onpage 5)

Implementation

• Implementation Priorities

• Plan Adoption and Approval

• Cooperative Working Ag r e e m e n t s

The list of priorities in Figure 5-2 is not a

complete list of elements required to

a c h i e ve the vision, but rather concepts

and projects that are most realistic and

have the highest level of support. Th e

prioritization of concepts and projects is a

strategy to pursue a very la r g e

implementation agenda. Major bo t a n i c a l

projects may require a NEPA proc e s s

( d ocumentation that will influence fina l

decision along with site design). Th e

recommended priorities were established

through three method s :

1. The CAG Confidence Survey

2. Public meetings and participation from

affected agencies and jurisdictions

3. Logical sequence of projects

The following discussion examines each

priority project in detail.

Figure 5-2

Responsibility Matrix

First Phase Priorities Partners

• Define and develop trail networks:

- Perimeter Loop Trail U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - El Paso County - Teller County - Colorado Springs Utilities- Alternative Routes to the Summit U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - Teller County - Colorado Springs Utilities

• Develop the Scenic Loop (auto) CDOT - All Managing Partners

• Additional planning needs

- Regional Visitors Center U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - El Paso County - Teller County -Colorado Springs Utilities- Interpretive and Signage Plan All Managing Partners- Cultural Resource Study U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - State Arch - Teller County - El Paso County- Transportation Study CDOT - El Paso - Teller County - U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District

• Restoration Areas and Native Plants U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - Colorado Springs Utilities - Pikes Peak Highway - Barr

• Catamount Ranch Open Space Portal Teller County - Colorado Springs Utilities - U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District

Next Phase Priorities

• Portal Development All Managing Partners

• Expanding Crags Campground U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - CDOT

• Combine Access for Barr and Cog U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - Cog Railroad

• Equestrian Connections at Gold Hill C ripple Creek - Victor - U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - Teller County

• Cultural Resource Study U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - State Arch - Teller County - El Paso County

• Limited Use Ar e a /Biological Connectedness U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - Colorado Springs Utilities - BL M

• Back Country Portal U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - BLM

• Local Access Portal at Colorado Springs City of Colorado Springs - U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District - Bear Creek Canyon Park

The Perimeter Loop Trail was repe a t e d l y

recommended at public meetings and CAG

workshops throughout the planning effort.

The final "Confidence Survey" that was

distributed to all members of the CAG

suggested that 94 percent of the

pa r t i c i pants support the concept. Th e

Perimeter Loop Trail becomes the primary

pe d e s t r ian system providing recreationa l

access to most regional opportunities. Th i s

single concept, though large in scale,

organizes the region's recreational elements

more than any other concept expressed.

Much of the proposed Perimeter Loop Tr a i l

presently exists, yet community aw a r e n e s s

of the system is not well known. Eve n

though existing roads and trails now

oc c u py the proposed alignment, a

significant amount of effort will be

required to make this Perimeter Loop Tr a i l

a reality. Access points, signage, usa g e

considerations, implementation costs,

m a i n t e nance and ope r a t i o nal concerns,

and trail improvements to a uniform tria l

s t a n dard will need to be applied to the

entire 48 miles prior to trail establishment.

The existing trails and roads that comprise

the proposed Perimeter Loop Trail include

Forest Service Trail 102.

To achieve a project of this scale, the

Perimeter Loop Trail should be delineated

in shorter segments. These segments could

begin and end on ownership lines, or by

landform or natural features. The intent is

to break the big problem down into a unit

size that can be incrementally planned and

constructed.

A Regional Visitor Center is an important

element to orient visitors to the range of

recreational and educational programs

available within the Pikes Peak region. The

location of this facility is crucial to make

the visitor center a natural stop of the

Pikes Peak regional experience. A visitor

center would provide orientation to the

entire region. The ideal location would be

north of Green Mountain Falls where the

Pikes Peak Highway intersects with State

Highway 24. The Pikes Peak Highway to

the Summit is one of the largest visitor

attractions and could be used to inform

the visitor of the region and its

opportunities. Adequate interpretive kiosks

would be needed to provide an overview

of the Pikes Peak region depicting the

many trails, destinations and facilities

system-wide.

From the Regional Visitor Center, visitors

will be directed to Interpretive and

Recreation Use Centers located throughout

the Pikes Peak region.

The concept of a Regional Visitor Center

was presented to participants during the

design phase of the planning process. The

members of the CAG, agency

representatives and the general public all

recognized the importance of the Regional

Visitor Center and the final Confidence

Survey suggested that 95 percent of the

participants responding to the survey

supported the concept.

The development of the Regional Visitor

Center will involve significant coordination

and funding. A special committee needs

to focus on implementing this project.

The potential funding sources are broad,

including federal sources, state sources,

local government, and individual and

corporate donations. National and state

organizations that support natural

resource education, cultural and historic

preservation and mass transit provide a

broad range of potential funding sources

to help realize the Regional Visitor Center.

Implementation Partners

All pa r t i c i pating agencies and the Non-

Profit Fo u n dation would be responsible for

implementing the Re g i o nal Visitors Center.

Another important component of the

Regional Vision Plan is the Scenic Loop to

help distribute users throughout the

region. The loop includes parts of State

Highway 24, State Highway 67 and Gold

Camp Road.

The lower segment of Gold Camp Road is

presently closed to ve h i c u lar traffic due to

a structural problem assoc iated with

Tunnel Number Three. This closed

segment of road was once a na r r ow

gauge railroad line from Colorado Springs

to Cripple Creek and Vi c t o r. When the

railroad was discontinued, it became a

scenic drive all along the southern edge of

the planning area and provided needed

access to one of the most remote po r t i o n s

of the Pikes Peak region. The USFS ha s

had this segment classified as a road and

continues under that designation while

awaiting funding to repair Tu n n e l

N u m ber Three.

Recently, the entire length of Gold Camp

Road was listed on the National Register

of Historic Places, thereby mandating its

preservation as a historic auto-touring

route. The alternative use of Old Stage

Road to complete the Scenic Loop is

possible, but would require extensive road

improvement to create a safe surface given

the steep gradients involved. The lower

segment of Gold Camp Road provides

direct access to North Cheyenne Canyon, a

destination within the Pikes Peak Regional

Vision Plan and the gentle grades

associated with an old railroad line pro-

vide a safer descent from the upland areas.


P a r t i c i pants in design and construction of

each segment of this Scenic Loop would

i n vo l ve those agencies/jurisdictions tha t

directly or indirectly benefit from access.

The U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger

District would be a pa r t i c i pant in most

route segments, as would the non-profit

organization of the management bod y.

A regional signage plan should be

developed to create graphic standards and

a hierarchy of signs that would include

gateways, portals and all interpretive trail

placards (see Figure 5-3). The Colorado

Department of Transportation needs to be

involved in decisions related to finalizing

the Scenic Loop, given the need for

turnouts and wayfinding signage. Signage

is very important to the success of the

visitor distribution strategy. Educational

kiosks and directional indicators should be

placed strategically along the Scenic Loop.

A large "Pikes Peak Region" welcome sign

should be located at the five entrances to

the region and would direct visitors to the

gateways and Regional Visitor Center.

The five recommended entry points to the

region are:

• Along State Highway 24 traveling

northwest out of Colorado Springs, before

the Pikes Peak Highway

• Town of Divide

• Southeast along either Old Stage or Lower

Gold Camp Road

• Victor (minor entry - a lesser sign may be

appropriate)

• Woodland Park (minor entry - a lesser sign

may be appropriate)

Each community would have a

community welcome sign defined by the

regional signage plan. A system of

orientation signage would direct the visitor

to a local central information center or

kiosk that describes local opportunities

and connections to the regional system.

Recreational facilities, trail markers,

trailhead information, and interpretive

programs would all utilize the Pikes Peak

Regional signage standards to create

region-wide continuity.

A traffic study to understand the

implications of a Regional Visitor Center

and the visitor distribution strategy would

be helpful to define the range of

improvements required for state and local

road systems. This study should not be

undertaken until after a regional signage

strategy has been developed.

Figure 5-3

Examples of a Signage Program


All Managing Partners should support the

development and implementation of a

signage program.

The Catamount Ranch Open Space

recently acquired by Teller County is

situated northwest of the North Slope

Recreation Area. Access to this open space

is presently limited to hiking trails from

the north or southeast. The development

of a Portal north of the Open Space is

important for citizens to be able to access

this valuable open space parcel. The new

access can be accommodated off of State

Highway 24 east of Woodland Park onto

County Road 28. The access along County

Road 28 is directly south to a point near

Catamount Ranch Open Space. A parking

area and trailhead would be located at the

Portal to provide access to both the

Perimeter Loop Trail, and the network of

trails in the Open Space lands that lead to

Catamount Ranch Open Space.


The final location of the trailhead parking

area will dictate who may be involved in

the design and construction of this facility,

in addition to Teller County. The non-

profit organization may be used for both

partial funding and coordination.

Many citizens expressed a desire to find

alternative trail routes to the top of Pikes

Peak. Barr Trail, the only existing trail to

the top of Pikes Peak, is considered to be

used excessively. The addition of trails to

the summit may reduce the human

impacts on Barr Trail. Routes from both

the southwest and northwest areas of the

region have been identified as potential

new access routes. The Crags Trail and

Trailhead, near Crags Campground, offer a

great opportunity for a new trail route on

the west side, since an existing route

almost extends to Pikes Peak Highway.

The trail would cross Pikes Peak Highway

near Devil’s Playground and the

development of a new trail segment north

of the Pikes Peak Highway crossing would

allow a reasonable assent to the summit.

The Gillett Portal provides an opportunity

in the southwest area of the region. An

existing road/trail presently exists along

Beaver Creek that would allow hiker

access to the treeline. A new segment of

trail should be constructed to the Crags

Trail extension and intersection with the

Pikes Peak Highway. Water quality

concerns associated with the dual use of

this Beaver Creek watershed as a water

supply for Cripple Creek and Victor needs

to be addressed during the design process.


The Crags Trail route to the Summit would

involve U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak

Ranger District, and the non-profit

organization. The City of Colorado

Springs should support the effort where

the new alignment enters into the Pikes

Peak Highway area.

The restoration areas defined in the Pikes

Peak Re g i o nal Vision Plan include the

areas beneath the Pike Peak Highway, Ba r r

Trail, and the Motorized Trail area in the

southeast region of the planning area near

Wye Campground. The nature of each of

these restoration areas will depend upo n

the specifics of each site. A comprehensive

restoration plan to meet the needs of each

area must be proceeded by an existing

d e g r a dation and desired restored

condition analysis. All restoration efforts

should include na t i ve plant po p u la t i o n s .


The City of Colorado Springs, U.S. Fo r e s t

Service Pikes Peak Ranger District, trail

users, and the non-profit organization

should have active roles in these

restoration efforts.

The existing facilities at the Crags

Campground are often filled to capacity

on weekends and during the summer

tourist season. An opportunity exists to

reconfigure parts of the existing

campground and extend the boundaries

for a limited number of additional

campsites. The integration of an improved

Crags Trailhead should be considered

during the redesign.


The U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger

District and the non-profit organization

should be actively invo l ved in the

p lanning and construction of these

i m p r ove m e n t s .

The origin of both these major entry

points into the Pikes Peak region are

located very close to each other. This

provides an opportunity to share facilities

from a common staging area. Potentially,

parking, information signage, directional

signage, public restrooms and services

could be designed to minimize duplicate

facilities, while still controlling the total

number of users. It should be noted that

while the Barr Trail has been characterized

as over-used, the Cog Railroad is not, and

parking should allow access to the railway,

yet provide some control for hikers.


The Cog Rail, City of Manitou Springs, U . S .

Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District,

and the non-profit organization should

participate in these improvements.

The planning process identified the need

for additional equestrian facilities located

on the western slope of Pikes Peak. A

minor equestrian facility already exists on

state-owned lands at Mueller State Park.

The expansion of these facilities and

suitable connections across State Highway

67 into the trail system in the U.S. Fo r e s t

Service Pikes Peak Ranger District will be

difficult. Interest has been expressed by

trail planning efforts in the Cripple Creek

and Victor area which would meet the

needs of equestrians.


Cripple Creek, Victor, equestrian user

groups, Teller County, U.S. Forest Service

Pikes Peak Ranger District and the non-

profit organization should all have roles in

the design and implementation of these

improvements.

The backcountry has been defined in the

Regional Vision Plan as an access point to

connect with some of the most remote

portions of the Pikes Peak region. This

portal is located in the southeast corner of

the region, approximately where Old Stage

Road meets the initial open segment of

Gold Camp Road. Potential destinations

along this primitive trail system include

the vast Wilderness Study Area managed

by the Bureau of Land Management just

south of Pikes Peak region. A series of

backcountry campsites should be

constructed and managed. Since most of

the trail and campsites reside within the

Limited Use Area, a permit system to

manage a single reservation service will be

required in order to coordinate

backcountry access.


U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger

D i s t r i c t, Bureau of Land Management,

identified trail users, and the non-profit

organization should have a role in

developing and managing this system.

The motivation for identifying additional

access to the Pikes Peak region was the

current over-use at the existing access

points, in part due to the neighboring

Colorado Springs metropolitan area

population. It may be determined that

more than one alternative access point is

appropriate. The Bear Creak Canyon Park

is very large with multiple access points at

its boundary with Colorado Springs, and

should be used to access the Perimeter

Loop Trail at various locations.


The USFS Pikes Peak Ranger District and

Colorado Springs Parks should support

and implement this endeavor.

The Limited Use Area is a result of citizens’

desires to protect the most critical resource

lands within the Pikes Peak region. Va l u e d

habitats, water resources and unique spe c i e s

are all included in a zone identified on the

Re g i o nal Vision Plan as Limited Use Areas.

The primary owners managing lands in this

area are USFS Pikes Peak Ranger District

and Colorado Springs Utilities. The practical

implementation of Limited Use Area may be

difficult since there are many remote

l ocations. The designation reflects a need to

maintain control over sensitive areas if

desired use increases significantly.

A system of permits should be established

to allow a limited number of users access

to these areas. Seasonal closures of parts of

the Limited Use Areas should be established

and overnight camping limited to a numbe r

of specific backcountry campsites. Signa g e

and user education should be required to

delineate Limited Use Area bo u n da r i e s .


The non-profit management organization

should play a major role in the

administration of this permit program for

a limited number of users, and reservation

system for backcountry campsites. The

City of Colorado Springs, USFS Pikes Peak

Ranger District, Teller and El Paso Counties

should all have a role in establishing and

managing this Limited Use Area.

Increased recreational use will be inhibited

until access is improved and recreationa l

o p portunities can be expanded. A system-

wide transportation framework based on

the implications of the recreationa l

o p portunities, a visitor distribution strategy,

a signage plan and accommoda t i o n

l ocations should be deve l o ped.


Colorado Department of Transportation,

Teller and El Paso Counties, Colorado

Springs and USFS Pikes Peak Ranger

D i s t r i c t should participate in the study.

Design of specific projects and almost all

i m p r ovements would require spe c ia l

attention to historic and archeological

resources that may be present; how e ve r,

the regional significance of cultural and

historic resources is equally important. A

study should focus on general cultural

and historic resources to develop a

r e g i o nal framework for resource

protection and define areas that require

more specific surveys.


State Historic Preservation Office, El Paso

County, Teller County, USFS Pikes Peak

Ranger District and the non-profit

management organization should all have

an active role in facilitating the cultural

survey.

Themes for historic resource and

recreational interpretation have been

introduced in the Regional Vision Plan.

Additionally, specific objectives and actions

should be developed to identify places

within the region where these stories could

be told. Objectives and actions for each

center may include how the story is told,

and materials and structures used to

communicate the story.


All Managing Partners should support the

development and implementation of

Interpretive and Recreation Use Centers.

The Spoke Diagram (see page 4) was used at

public meetings and workshops throughout

the planning process. The diagram depicts

the land managers for the entire region.

These agencies and jurisdictions pa r t i c i pa t e d

in forming the Re g i o nal Vision Plan over a

t w o - year process. The intention of the Pla n

is for each agency and jurisdiction to take

portions of the Re g i o nal Vision Plan tha t

coincides with their local mana g e m e n t

o b l i g a t i o n s .

The government agencies that are

influenced by this Regional Vision Plan

include: Bureau of Land Management,

USFS Pikes Peak Ranger District, Colorado

Springs Utilities, Colorado State Parks,

Division of Wildlife, and Department of

Transportation. These agencies typically

have a general management plan

approach for administration and

management. A planning cycle is

established where approximately every five

years the management plan is revised. It is

very important that the Multi-Use Plan

becomes part of that update process, given

the integrated planning process and high

level of consensus developed with this

planning process.

Both El Paso and Teller Counties have

indicated that they intend to amend their

County Comprehensive Plans to include a

map representing the Pikes Peak Regional

Vision Plan of the Multi-Use Plan and will

reference this planning document where

appropriate. The Pikes Peak Multi-Use

Plan has clear implications for both the

Comprehensive Plan and any Trails,

Recreation and Open Space Plan under

consideration at the County scale.

Local communities have the same

opportunity to integrate this Multi-Use

Plan into the Community Comprehensive

Plans as well as Parks, Trails, Recreation

and Open Space Plans that are developed

or updated.

The implementation of the Pikes Peak

Multi-Use Plan requires cooperation from

many agencies, municipalities and private

landowners. The goals and objectives of

the Multi-Use Plan have been identified in

this document to aid Managing Partners

and individuals who want to realize these

goals across jurisdictional and ownership

boundaries. To help achieve an agreement,

defining roles and responsibilities will be

appropriate. The following section

discusses Colorado statutes that may be

utilized for creating agreements between

various partners. A possible role for the

non-profit organization of the

Management Model, would be to help

identify and develop appropriate

agreements between managing partners.

Colorado Revised Statutes authorize loc a l

g overnments and organizations to

c oo perate with one another. To achieve the

desires articulated in the Pikes Peak Multi-

Use Plan, agreements will need to be forged

between the various government agencies,

agencies and municipalities and agencies

and organizations. A review of Colorado’s

Revised Statutes reveal the follow i n g :

Statutes 29-20-105 through 107 authorizes

and encourages local governments to

cooperate or contract with other units of

government for the purpose of planning

or regulating the development of land.

Local governments may provide through

intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) for

the joint adoption by the governing

bodies, after notice and hearing, of

mutually binding and enforceable

comprehensive development plans for

areas within their jurisdictions. The IGA

may contain a provision that the plan

may be amended only by the mutual

agreement of the governing bodies of the

local governments who are parties of the

plan. Each governing body has standing

in district court to enforce the terms of the

agreement and the plan. Local

governments may, pursuant to an IGA,

provide for revenue sharing.

Statute 29-1-203 allows local governments

to cooperate or contract with one another

to provide any function, service or facility

lawfully authorized to each of the

cooperating or contracting units. The

contract may establish a separate legal

entity to do so.

Statute 20-28-105 enables municipalities

and counties to form multi-county and

joint city/county planning commissions,

known as regional planning commissions,

to conduct studies and make and adopt

regional plans for physical development of

the region. 20-28-117(5) enables regional

zoning boards of adjustment as well.

Statute 32-7-101 authorizes at least two

counties (upon approval of the electors) to

form a regional service authority to

perform any of the nearly twenty service

functions (e.g. urban drainage and flood

control, land and soil preservation, public

surface transportation, etc.)

Agreements between local governments,

agencies and organizations can be called

many different things, depending upon the

full nature of the agreements being

prepared. The agreements themselves are

often called:

• Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs)

• Joint Management Agreements (JMAs)

• Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs).

The Appendix includes further information

on local government statutes and

intergovernmental agreements provided by

the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.

A variety of tools exist for agencies at the

federal, state and local level as well as for

agencies to implement the priorities and

goals identified in the Pikes Peak Regional

Vision Plan.

Some policy and programs already exist

that can be used by agencies and

municipalities to achieve desired objectives.

These programs and policies are in place

and available to be utilized when common

objectives are identified.

In spite of the increasing importance of

local and state governments, the federal

government continues to play a critical

role in resource protection. Since 1992,

efforts to remove the federal government

from wildlife and environmental issues

have met with mixed success, and several

key pieces of federal legislation have been

re-authorized. Key areas of federal

involvement may include:

• Regulations, incentives, and land acquisition

and management programs for the protection

of endangered and threatened species

• Preservation of wetland areas that serve as

valuable habitat for numerous

• Conservation of land in general.

While federal regulation in sensitive

resource areas is not expected to expand

in the future, existing programs and

regulations will continue to be important.

The continued influence of the federal

government will be particularly important

in states like Colorado with vast tracts of

federal land with prime habitat areas.

The future of habitat protection will

therefore resemble an increasingly

balanced partnership, with local, state, and

federal governments each exercising

unique protection powers. It is important

that Colorado’s local elected officials and

residents understand the range of federal

tools and programs available to

supplement local habitat protection efforts.

The following tools are available at the

federal level and summaries of their most

significant provisions are described in the

Appendix.

• The Endangered Species Act

• The National Biological Survey

• The National Environmental Policy Act

• Section 404: Wetlands Protection

• Federal Land Preservation Incentives

• USDA Environmental Quality Incentive

Program

• Federal Land Ownership and Management

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Forest Service


State government plays a role in resource

protection that differs fundamentally from

the role of local governments. The Loc a l

G overnment Land Use Control Ena b l i n g

Act (House Bill 1034) provides broad

authority to counties and municipalities to

r e g u late the use of land within their

jurisdictions. This bill specifically recognized

the importance of protecting habitat from

land uses that would threaten a wildlife

s pecies. In addition, the Colorado Land Us e

Act encourages local governments to

identify and regulate land uses in “Areas of

State Interest” including significant wildlife

habitat. Thus, the state has spe c i f i c a l l y

delegated responsibility and authority for

protecting wildlife habitat on private la n d

to local governments.

However, the state does support local

government in their efforts to protect

habitat by providing information and

financial assistance. Eight state programs

are listed below that offer these types of

support and summaries of their most

significant provisions are described in the

Appendix.

• Wildlife Resource Information System

• System for Conservation Planning

• Great Outdoors Colorado

• Natural Areas Program

• Protection of Instream Flows and Natural

Lake Levels

• State Wildlife Areas and Conservation

Easements

• Habitat Improvements Programs

• State Trust Lands Fish and Wildlife

Enhancement Projects

Local communities and county

governments may find it advantageous to

acquire connections that provide direct

access to the Pikes Peak region recreational

opportunities. Additional open space and

recreation adjacent to the Pikes Peak

region are consistent with the Regional

Vision Plan presented in this document.

The following land acquisition description

outlines the objectives, criteria and alter-

nate techniques.

The primary objectives for the acquisition

program are the purchase of key parcels of

land that are important to connect to the

public open space, trail system or areas

with important natural resource values. It

is not the objective of the public entities to

acquire all the private lands adjacent to the

Pikes Peak region for public use, but to

encourage a healthy mix of public and

private ownership. The highest priority is

to establish a coo pe r a t i ve mana g e m e n t

system between public and private

la n d owners to meet mutual objective s .

Only those rela t i vely few parcels of la n d

t hat are essential for public purposes, or

are made av a i lable for purchase will be

considered for acquisition.

Criteria for Acquisition

The following criteria may be used by the

local governments with regard to

acquisition of lands within and

surrounding the Pikes Peak region.

• C ritical Public Values and Importance to

Resource Management in the Pikes Pe a k

Region. The objective is to acquire lands

which are essential to creation of the trail

system and protection of the quality of the

natural resource systems. The factors which

determine include the following: location,

size, connection or adjacency to public land,

critical habitat, biology, cultural resources,

buffer to important resources, scenic values,

private inholding surrounded by public

land, and water rights.

• Willing Seller/Willing Buyer

Acquisition transactions between sellers and

buyers will proceed on the basis of willing

and motivated parties. Local governments

have adopted the principle that

condemnation will not be utilized to acquire

properties in the Pikes Peak region.

• Flexible Ap p r o a ch

In the purchase of properties, local

governments will take a flexible approach to

acquisition, considering the landowners

family situation and objectives, tax and

estate issues, and economic objectives. To

the extent that it is possible to meet local

governments and landowner objectives the

structure of the transaction should be

tailored to these issues.

• Availability of Funding

The local governments ability to acquire

lands is predicated on the availability of

funds for acquisition. In the past, funding

availability has fluctuated greatly and it is

expected that these fluctuations will

continue in the future.

• Leverage and Flexibility of Terms

Since local governments have limited

resources, they should select those properties

for acquisition which not only meet its

criteria in terms of importance to natural

connections, but in terms of the level of

cooperation of the landowner. For example,

a landowner that is willing to donate a

portion of his or her land or structure

flexible terms for an installment purchase

will be more likely to be a higher priority

than a seller that wants a cash purchase

with no flexibility in terms.

Land or interests in land can be acquired

using a wide variety of techniques which

can be tailored to the needs and wishes of

buyers and sellers. Land can be thought

of as a bundle of rights, such as the right

to develop houses or use the water or

extract minerals, all of which can be used,

sold or restricted as the owner wishes. For

example, a landowner might sell water

rights or the right to develop houses to a

local government which severs that

particular right from the full bundle of

ownership rights and reduces the value of

the remaining rights. The ability to sell,

restrict or donate particular rights in

property to achieve landowner or public

objectives means that there are many ways

to preserve or protect land and meet both

landowner and public objectives.

In general, the greater the number of rights

that are acquired or the higher the

percentage of fair market value that is paid

for a property, the greater the control that

the purchaser will exercise. A buyer that

pays full price for a piece of land acquires

the full bundle of rights which means tha t

they have full control over the prope r t y

and full management respo n s i b i l i t y. A

b u yer that acquires only the water rights to

a property has only the use of those rights

and no use of any other property rights.

Each Colorado community has its own

topography, ecology, political climate, and

goals for wildlife. It is therefore unlikely

that one community’s wildlife protection

program can simply be transplanted to a

new location. In addition, the process of

debating which alternative goals and tools

may be appropriate for a municipality or

a county makes it much more likely that

the resulting program will be successful.

Finally, it is important to remember that

wildlife does not respect jurisdictional

boundaries. The inter-jurisdictional nature

of wildlife and natural resource projects

emphasize the importance of coordination

of activities between local governments

based on biological or geographical

boundaries.

Within each community, a committee or

task force should be established to create

workable systems from the policy

directives created in ordinances and

i n t e r g ove r n m e n t a l agreements. Local

committees implementing habitat

protection programs should have

representation from the top levels of

relevant boards where many decisions are

made. Simultaneously every effort should

be made to design public outreach

programs and citizen participation efforts

to ensure that community values are

reflected in the program. This is

particularly true in considering new

regulations and acquisition programs.

Although a variety of different tools are

available to protect resource lands, all of

them must conform to basic principles of

constitutional law and to requirements of

Colorado statutes. Regulatory approaches,

incentive and acquisition programs, and

development agreements are described in

the Appendix.

Figure 5-4

Funding Sources Legend for Acronyms

GOCO Great Outdoors Colorado

CDPOR Colorado Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife

CHS Colorado Historical Society

CDLA Colorado Department of Local Affairs

CCAH Colorado Council of Arts and Humanities

VOC Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado

USFS U.S. Forest Service

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

NPS National Park Service, Rivers & Trails Conservation Alliance

EDA Economic Development Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

NEA National Endowment for the Arts

RMYC Rocky Mountain Youth Corps

Funding Source Matrix

Activities: State Park Camping Lake Fishing Wildlife Interpretive Trial Link Greenway Public Parking Picnic Toilet Access. Loop Access. Loop Interp. Signage/ Historic City Park/ Boating Stream Rehab/ Abandoned Interpretation State Picnicking Restroom WatchableViewing Kiosk to BLM land Trail(parallel Art Tables Facilities Trail-W. Wild. Trail-Fishing Nat.-Cult.- Structures Visitor C./Cty. Access Wetland & Mine Wildlife Wildlife

equestrian) Interp. Kiosk Access Recr. Resources Rehabilitation Open Sp./ Nat. Area Riparian Prot. Reclamation RefugeSource of funds:CDPOR/Lottery X X X X X XCDPOR/Trails X X X X X XGOCO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLand & Water Cons. Fund X X X X X XBOR X X X X X XDOW Watchable W. X X X X X X X X X X XCity Bond Issue X X X X XSales Tax X X X X XLocal Vounteers X X X X XVOC X X X X XCDOT X X X X XLocal Water & Sanitation X X X X XCCAH X X X X XRMYC X X X X XAudubon Society X XUSFS/Cost Share X XDucks Unlimited X X X X X XLocal Hunting Clubs XStudent Groups XDOW/Fishing is fun XLocal Irrigation Canal Co. XAmericans w/Disabilities XTrout Unlimited X XLocal Service Clubs XNPS/Rivers and Trails XEDA/Public Tourism XNEA/Design Arts XCHS/Gaming Funds X X XBLM/Recreation Division XLocal Library XMuseum X X XCity X XCDOT/Enhance Funds X XLocal Corporations X XBusiness Groups X XBoettcher or Gates Found. X XPrivate Landowners XLocal Land Trust XTrust for Public Lands XCounty X XLocal Mine XUtility Company XStockgrowers Assoc. XBoating Groups XIrriation Company XWater Board XNature Conservancy XDept. Health Stream Rehab. XCoors Foundation XLocal Groups XEPS XEPA X XState Mined Land Reclam. X XDiv. M & G Aband. Mines Fund X XColorado Historic Society X XNat. Fish & Wildlife Found. X X X XRocky Mntn. Elk Foundation X X X X

Glossary

Bibliography

Project Schedule

Key Informants Interviews

Public Meeting Comments

Newsletters

Pikes Peak User Survey Instrument

Pikes Peak User Survey Results

Modified Delphi Survey (MDS)

- Instrument for Opportunity Maps

- Instrument for Capacity Map

- Results for Capacity Map

Confidence Survey


Resource Impact Evaluation

Wildlife Resource Information System - Big Horn Sheep

Wildlife Resource Information System - Elk

M a nagement Structure Models & Case Studies

Federal Tools for Resource Protection

State Tools for Resource Protection

Acquisition Tools for Local Government

Local Government Tools for Resource Projection

Funding Sources by Recreation Type

Land Use Planning in Colorado

Best Practices Intergovernmental Agreements for Land

Use and Growth Management

- A -

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II) regulation ensures that "individuals with

disabilities are not excluded from services, programs, and activities because the building

or facility is inaccessible."

Access Points

Locations usually representing a mode change (i.e. from car to hiking), where visitor

gain access to trails and recreational activities.

Actionable Fire

Any fire requiring suppression, especially a fire started or allowed to spread in violation

of law, ordinance, or regulation.

Allowable Burned Area

The maximum average area burned over a specified period of years that is considered

an acceptable loss for a specified area under organized fire suppression.

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)

A gasoline-powered, off-road vehicle used for accessing remote areas for recreational

and work-related activities. Note: All-terrain vehicles generally have high clearance,

high traction, high maneuverability, and low speed.

Alternative Routes to the Peak

Represents suggested trail alignments that connect the Perimeter Trail to the summit.

Since only one trail presently makes this connections (Barr Trail), these alignments were

defined as “alternative” routes throughout the planning process.

- B -

Backcountry Byway

A road segment designated as part of the National Scenic Byway System.

Backcountry Campsite

A campsite in a relatively unmodified backcountry area, usually accessible only by foot,

horse, or watercraft, providing accommodation for those engaged in backcountry

experiences; may be within a designated backcountry campground.

Base Flow

Recharge water that makes its way through the subsurface into the river.

Base Map

A map showing planimetric, topographic, geologic, political, or cadastral information

that may appear in many different types of maps. Note 1. The base map information

is drawn with other types of changing thematic information. Note 2. Base map

information may be as simple as major political boundaries, major hydrographic data,

and major roads. Note 3. The changing thematic information may be bus routes,

population distribution, caribou migration routes, etc.

Best Management Practices (BMP)

A practice or usually a combination of practices that are determined by a state or a

designated planning agency to be the most effective and practicable means (including

technological, economic, and institutional considerations) of controlling point and

nonpoint source pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality goals.

Note: BMP’s were conceptualized in the 1972 US Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Buffer

A vegetation strip or management zone of varying size, shape, and character maintained

along a stream, lake, road, recreation site, or different vegetative zone to mitigate the

impacts of actions on adjacent lands, to enhance aesthetic values.

Buffer Zone

As used on the Regional Vision Plan, a buffer zone is an area in private ownership that

is presently operating under a management practice that is very complementary to

desired management objectives with the planning area. Local and County government

should consider incentives to encourage the perpetuation of historic uses in these areas.

- C -

Campfire

A fire started for cooking, warmth, or light that has spread sufficiently to require

firefighting activity.

Campground

An aggregation of campsites providing such facilities as tent spaces (or pads), fireplaces,

picnic tables, water, and sanitation for overnight use.

Campsite

A unit of a campground providing overnight accommodation and generally developed

to include tent or trailer space, parking spur, fireplace, table, garbage receptacle, and

toilet facility.

Carrying Capacity

As determined by the Technical Advisory Group, the Carrying Capacity is represented

by a range of capacity zones from one to seven. The capacity zones were created by

weighting identified criteria derived from the GIS database and combining the criteria

into a composite map that reflects the capacity of the land to support future land uses.

A companion process defined the range of capacity zones within which each land use

was appropriate, and which capacity zones were inappropriate.

Comprehensive Planning

A traditional planning approach relying on science and quantitative analysis to guide

planning activities. Synonym: Synoptic planning, rational comprehensive planning.

Note: Comprehensive planning assumes impartiality and objectivity in the methods

chosen for analysis and one correct answer and final solutions are often gross

oversimplifications.

Concession

The private management of a recreation area facility developed in part by private

capital. Note: A concession may include transportation, lodging, or food service.

Corral

An enclosure for handling livestock, wild horses and burros, or wildlife.

Corridor

1. Management. A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of

transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries.

2 . Wildlife. A defined tract of land connecting two or more areas of similar management or

habitat type that is reserved from substantial disturbance and through which a spe c i e s

can travel to reach habitat suitable for reproduction and other life-sustaining needs.

Cultural Resources

Historic and prehistoric remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor reflected in

districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, and

natural features.

- D -

Database

A collection of data stored in a systematic manner such that the data can be readily

retrieved, modified, and manipulated to create information. Note 1. Most databases are

computerized and consist of fields and records that are organized by data sets and

governed by a scheme of organization, and can be linked to allow complex search-and-

compare routines. Note 2. Hierarchical and relational define two popular structural

schemes in use in a GIS, e.g., a GIS database includes data about the spatial location and

shape of geographic entities as well as descriptions about those entities.

Debris

Material that can pose a flood hazard by clogging culverts and other constructed areas.

Most natural debris such as fallen trees and detritus is beneficial to wildlife and should be

left if at all possible.

Delphi Method

An iterative technique designed to obtain a consensus among experts concerning the best

course of action or what is likely to happen under a specified scenario. Note: A

structured questionnaire or survey is administered to all experts at the same time, the

results are compiled and circulated, and another questionnaire or survey is administered

that allows experts to revise their initial estimates in light of the information shared by the

others in the group.

Delphi Process, Modified

A survey is distributed to all participants that is filled out and returned to the survey

administrator. Results of the survey are quantified. The participants review the group

averages and respond again to the questions. The new responses are summarized. This

process is repeated until the standard deviation of the responses is less than 1, indicating

consensus amongst the participants. Usually only two or three iterations are required to

reach consensus as participants are influenced by the group.

Digital Elevation Model (DEM).

1. A continuous raster image in which data file values represent elevation.

2. The format of the US Geological Survey (USGS) elevation data sets.

3. A topographic surface arranged in a data file as a set of regularly spaced x,y,z locations

where z represents elevation.

Disturbance

Ecology. Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or

population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical

environment.

Drainage.

1. The removal of excess surface water or groundwater from land by surface or

subsurface drains.

2. The soil characteristics that affect natural drainage.

3. Landscape. An area (basin) mostly bounded by ridges or other topographic features,

encompassing part, most, or all of a watershed and enclosing over 5,000 acres.

- E -

Easement

The public acquisition, by purchase or donation, of certain rights on private lands or, in

some cases, restricting the private owner’s use of that land.

Ecosystem

A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the earth that includes all interacting

organisms and components of the abiotic environment within its boundaries. Note: An

ecosystem can be of any size, e.g., a log, pond, field, forest, or the earth’s biospheres.

Endangered Species

Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act of 1976 as

being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and

published in the Federal Register.

Environment

Ecology. The sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development, and survival of

an organism.

Environmental and Amenity Value

A component of natural and cultural heritage that has worth or utility. Note: In an

economic framework, environmental, and amenity values may include user values, as well

as non-use values such as existence values, bequest values, and option values.

Environmental Impact

The positive or negative effect of any action upon a given area or resource.

Erosion

1 . The wearing aw ay of the land surface by rain, running water, wind, ice, grav i t y, or other

natural or anthropogenic agents, including such processes as grav i t a t i o nal creep and tillage.

2. The detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity.

- F -

Feasibility

The relative advantage of managing or improving a unit considering its capability and

suitability for a specific use under the existing or projected socioeconomic climate.

Fee Title Acquisition

Land bought for a fixed charge and directly owned by the buyer.

FEMA Maps

Maps of flood zone boundaries prepared and distributed by Federal Emergency

Management Association.

Fish Habitat

The aquatic environment and the immediately surrounding terrestrial environment that

afford the necessary biological, chemical, and physical support systems required by fish

species during various life history stages.

Floodplain

The level or nearly level land with alluvial soils on either or both sides of a stream or river

that is subject to overflow flooding during periods of high water level. Note: An active

floodplain commonly has newly deposited fluvial sediments, recently rafted debris

suspended on trees or vegetation, or recent scarring of trees by material moved by

floodwaters.

Forest Plan

Federal Land Management. A document that guides all natural resource management and

establishes management standards and guidelines for a national forest, and that embodies

the provisions of the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

Fragile Area

Recreation. An identifiable area where the ecosystem is sensitive and vulnerable and could

be destroyed, severely altered, or irreversibly changed by human acts.

- G -

Gateways

Community Based Visitor Services that provide retail, accommodations, regional

orientation and access to the Pikes Peak planning area. These are major communities that

have developed at the foot of the Peak and should act as primary entry points for both

local and regional visitors.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic and descriptive data,

personnel, knowledge, and procedures designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manip-

ulate, analyze, report, and display the forms of geographically referenced information and

descriptive information. Note 1. A central component of information storage is the

necessity for topology to be maintained and coordinated by the software; otherwise,

certain complex spatial operations are not possible or would be very difficult, time-

consuming, or impractical. Note 2. The major components of a GIS are the user interface,

database management, data entry, product generation and spatial data manipulation and

analysis, which may be centralized or distributed across a network.

Groundwater

The subsurface water in both phreatic (saturated) and vadose (unsaturated) zone water at

a pressure equal to or greater than atmospheric that is free to move under the influence of

gravity. Note: Groundwater is recharged by infiltration and enters streams through

seepage and springs.

- H -

Habitat

1. A unit area of environment.

2. The place, natural or otherwise (including climate, food, cover and water) where an

animal, plant, or population naturally or normally lives and develops.

Habitat Conservation Plan

A management plan for a specific habitat area, i.e. Bighorn Sheep on South Slope.

- I -

Impact

The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.

Inholding

An area of land belonging to one landowner that occurs within a block of land belonging

to another. Note: Inholdings, such as small private parcels, often occur in federal or

industrial forest land ownerships.

Intermittent Stream

A stream, or portion of a stream, that does not flow year-round but only when it (a) receive s

base flow solely during wet pe r i ods, or (b) receives groundwater discharge or protracted

contributions from melting snow or other erratic surface and sha l l ow subsurface sources.

Interpretation

Recreation. An educational activity aimed at revealing meanings and relationships through

the use of objects, first-hand experience, and illustrative media rather than through

recitation of factual information to a passive audience.

Interpretive Centers

These centers are sub-centers within the Pikes Peak Region that provide theme specific

details about the resource or history of the area. Interpretive Centers include Native

Americans, Mining History, Pikes Peak Highway, Railroads, Environmental Education,

Agriculture, Water Resources, and Wildlife.

- L -

Landscape Buffer

A natural or planted perennial system in a position in the landscape to mitigate any of a

number of undesirable environmental impacts, e.g., runoff, wind, noise, dust, snow.

Lease

Contract transferring real estate for a term and usually for rent easement: an interest in

land owned by another that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or enjoyment.

Limited Use Area

Areas defined on the Regional Vision Plan that reflect landscape that is most valuable as

well as most sensitive to impacts from visitors. As a strategy to control access into these

sensitive area, they have been described as Limited Use Area. Once management for this

region agrees upon a method of administering a program of “permitting,” a permit will be

required for a visitor to have access into these areas. Signage will play an important role

in defining the limits of these areas also.

- M -

Management Area

An area with similar management objectives and a common management prescription.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

A formal, written agreement between two or more organizations or agencies that presents

the relationship between the entities for purposes of planning and management.

Motorized

Equipped with or driven by a motor.

Multiple Use

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The management of the public lands

and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will

best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious

use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large

enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to

changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a

combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources including, but not

limed to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,

scientific, and historic values; harmonious and coordinated management of the various

resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality

of the environment; this combination is not necessarily the one that will give the greatest

economic return or the greatest unit output.

Multiple-Use Trail

Trail that accommodates several uses within a single tread and shoulder cross-section such

as bicycling, hiking, equestrian, etc.

Multi-Use

A convergence of multiple recreational, environmental and economic uses within an area of

land. A use must share land resources without degrading qualities required for other uses.

- N -

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Public Law 91-190. Establishes environmental policy for the nation. Among other items,

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental values in the decision-making

processes.

National Forest

A federal reservation, generally forest, range, or other wildland, that is designated by

Executive Order or statue as a national forest or purchase unit, and other lands under the

administration of the USDA Forest Service, including experimental areas and Bankhead-

Jones Title III lands. Note: The Forest Service administers national forests under a

program of multiple use and sustained yield for timber, range, watershed, wildlife and fish

and outdoor recreation.

National Historical Trail

A trail having historical qualities that give it recreational potential of national significance.

Note. A national historical trail must be established by historic use and can be designated

only by Congress under the National Trail System Act of 1968.

Native Species

1. An indigenous species that is normally found as part of a particular ecosystem.

2. A species that was present in a defined area prior to European settlement.

Natural Area

A physical and biological area in nearly natural condition that exemplifies an ecological

community and its associated vegetation and other biotic, soil, geologic, and aquatic

features. Note: A natural area is maintained in a natural condition by allowing physical

and biological processes to operate, usually without direct human intervention, but

treatments such as fire suppression or prescribed burning may be permitted.

Non-motorized

Driven by means other than a motor.

No-Trace Camping

A philosophy related to backcountry camping that challenges users to leave camp sites in

a condition that shows "no trace" of human use. This philosophy is usually instilled via

education materials provided to backcountry users when they apply for a backcountry

camping permit.

- O -

Outfall

The point at which water flows from a conduit, stream, or drain.

- P -

Partnership

A relationship between different components of the public and private sectors to achieve

mutually beneficial objectives.

Perennial Stream

A steam that has running water on a year-round basis under normal climatic conditions.

Permit-Only System

A management system that requires all users of an area to obtain a use permit from the man-

agement agency of the area. Both quantities of user and their distribution can be mana g e d .

Planning Area

A geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are developed

and maintained.

Portal

The Regional Vision Plan depicts a series of Portal locations. These Portals indicate access

points to the regional recreation facilities and usually involve a mode shift from cars to

trail uses. They are points where facilities such as parking areas, orientation signage and

services are provided as users park and begin a hiking experience.

Primitive Trail

A non-paved trail for hiking, mountain biking and equestrian use that is narrower than a

multi-use trail and may not meet AASHTO standards for bike trails.

Program Elements

Recreational uses appropriate and recommended for projects in the Pikes Peak Region.

- R -

Recreation

An activity pursued during leisure time and by free choice that provides its own sa t i s f a c t i o n .

Recreation Facility

The improvements within a developed recreation site offered for visitors’ enjoyment.

Recreation Site

A land or water area having characteristics that make it suitable for development for

public enjoyment, such as camping, picnicking, and water sports.

Recreation Use Center

Sub-centers within the Pikes Peak Re g i o nal that cater to a specific recreational user group.

Recreation Use Centers include Mountain Biking, Back Country Activities, Motorized Ve h i c l e s ,

E q u e s t r ian Center, Winter Sports, Water Sports Center, Climbing, and Auto To u r i n g

Regional Concepts

Land use ideas suggested for the study area, whose influence affected the entire study area,

thus a regional influence.

Resources

1. The natural resources of an area, e.g., timber, grass, watershed values, recreation values,

wildlife habitat.

2. Fire. All personnel and major items of equipment available or potentially available for

assignment to fire-fighting tasks on which status is maintained.

Restoration Zone

Areas identified as degraded and in need of an active program to improve the

environmental health. Restoration plans should be developed for similar landscape units,

and an implementation program developed to carry out the remediation.

Revegetation

The re-establishment and development of vegetation.

Riparian

Related to, living, or located in conjunction with a wetland, on the bank of a river or

stream but also at the edge of a lake or tidewater. Note: The riparian community

significantly influences, and is significantly influenced by, the neighboring body of water.

Roads

Vehicle routes which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure

relatively regular and continuous use. (A route maintained strictly by the passage of

vehicles does not constitute a road.)

- S -

Scenic Loop

A ve h i c u lar system to be identified with a similar signage ve r na c u lar so it will read as a sys-

tem from an automobile. The loop begins in the Ute Pass area on State Highway 24 and

continues to Divide where it intersects with State Highway 66. The loop follows 66 to Vi c t o r

where it intersects with Gold Camp Road. The gravel Gold Camp Road then returns the

touring visitor to Colorado Springs across the southern part of the planning area.

Scenic Quality

The visual significance given to a landscape determined by cultural values and the

landscape’s intrinsic physical properties.

Scoping Process

An early and open public participation process for determining particular issues to be

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.

Site Scale Design

The design, planning, organization and disposition of objects and activities at a given loc a t i o n .

Social Trail

A trail that occurs within Forest Service land but has not been planned, programmed, or

designed by the Forest Service. Soc ial trails often evo l ve informally from local communities.

Stand

An aggregation of forested vegetation occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in

species composition, age arrangement, and condition, as to be distinguishable from

adjoining stands.

Structured Facilities

Recreation support elements, such as parking areas, buildings, trail heads, bridges and trails.

System Trail

A trail recognized as part of the Forest Service trail system.

- T -

Trail

A marked or established path or route. In this plan, the term "trail" refers to a recreational

transportation route including paved and unpaved trails, boardwalks, road shoulders, four

wheel drive routes, separated paved bicycle trails, and primitive hiking trails. (See also

Multi-Use Trail and Primitive Trail).

Trailhead

Developed recreation sites with parking, signage, and other facilities designated to provide

a take-off point for trail users at a major access point and terminus of a trail.

- V -

Viewshed

The la n d s c a pe that can be directly seen from a viewpoint or along a transportation corridor.

Visitor-Day

Recreation. The presence of one or more persons (other than staff) on lands and waters

generally recognized as providing outdoor recreation for continuous, intermittent, or

simultaneous periods totaling 12 hours.

Visual Resource

The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, vegetation patterns, and land use effects

that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal of the unit.

- W -

Water Quality Standard

The minimum requirement of purity of water for the intended use with respect to the

physical, chemical, and biological characteristics.

Watershed

A region or land area drained by a single stream, river, or drainage network.

Water Table

1. The upper surface of groundwater.

2. That level or elevation, measured from a datum, where the water is a atmospheric

pressure and below which the soil is saturated with water.

Wetland.

1. A transitional area between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that is inundated or

saturated for periods long enough to produce hydric soils and support hydrophytic

vegetation. Note: State or federal regulations may require the use of specific agency

definitions of wetlands.

2. A seasonally flooded basin or flat. Note: The period of inundation is such that the

land can usually be used for agricultural purposes.

Wilderness

1. Wilderness Act of 1964 “a wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his

works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its

community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does

not remain.”

2. Roadless land legally classified as a component area of the National Wilderness

Preservation System and managed to protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude, and

opportunity for primitive types of recreation. Note: Wilderness is usually of sufficient

size to make its maintenance in such a state feasible and to provide opportunities for

solitude and self-reliant recreation.

Wildfire

Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, occurring on wildland.

Wildlife

1. All non-domesticated animal life.

2. Non-domesticated vertebrates, especially mammals, birds, and fish and some of the

higher invertebrates, e.g. many Arthropods.

Wildlife Management

The practical application of scientific and technical principles to wildlife populations and

habitats so as to maintain or manipulate such populations (particularly mammals, birds

and fish), essentially for recreational or scientific purposes. Note: Wildlife management

includes the narrower concept of game management, in which an additional purpose may

be commercial, i.e., the controlled harvesting of wild game.

- Z -

Zoning

1. Management. The demarcation of a planning area by designation, ordinance, or law

into zones and the establishment of regulations to govern the use of the land and

structures within each zone.

2. Recreation. The establishment of specific sites in which selected activities may occur,

but from which other uses are excluded or restricted to reduce conflict between com-

peting uses or to reduce deterioration of fragile resources.

E’VE GOT A LOT TO

TALK ABOUT...

The pressure for increased use and development on

and near Pikes Peak is increasing daily. The Colorado

Springs Water Resources Department and the U.S.

Forest Service, as co-stewards of Pikes Peak, are faced

with balancing demand for increased recreational activ-

ity with their responsibility to prevent further loss and

degradation of the mountain's natural resources. The

Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan will shape preservation,

development, and management decisions into the next

century.

August, 1998: Volume 1GE TIN V O LV E DSource: Colorado Springs Utilities

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan will be developed through a public process designed

to gather your ideas about Pikes Peak and its future. You are invited to participate

with the Peak’s managing partners to create a sound and caring vision for the

mountain in our backyard.

The next public forums will be held in early September to provide an overview of the

work that has been completed to date and to gather public thinking on the

opportunities, issues, and concerns identified by the planning process.

You are invited to attend the upcoming Pikes Peak Community Forums:

September 3, 6:30 p.m., Manitou Springs

Meeting location will be advertised

September 12, 9:00 a.m., Victor

Meeting location will be advertised

The next issue of Peak Views will be mailed following the September public forums.


The Pikes Peak Citizen's Advisory

Group is made up of citizens like you

who cared about the mountain and

volunteered their time to work on the

plan. Approximately 75 people have

been meeting every two weeks since

mid-June to learn more about the

mountain, review the results of the

information gathering process, and

work with the professional stewards in

creating the Pikes Peak Multi-Use

Plan.

For information on meetings of the

Citizens Advisory Group, call Vic

Eklund at 719-448-8700.

The photographs at right show Citizens

Advisory Group members being

VO IC E SO FCO L O R A D O

Panoramic drawing of the Pikes Peak area taken from historic Hayden Atlas

Everyone's voice is valued in this process.


WH A TY O UT O L DU S. . .What Should the Pike's Peak Multi-Use Plan Accomplish? The input and direction

provided during the public meetings, in May and June 1998, gave clear direction to the

planning team for objectives for the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan. In July, the Citizens

Advisory Group helped organize these ideas into the following five goals that will be used

to guide the planning process:

1 Determine how the growth of the surrounding communities will impact Pikes Peak.

2 Develop an environmentally-based plan that establishes the preservation of water

quality as its highest priority.

3 Develop strategies for balancing the preservation of the Peak with public access and

commercial use.

4 Identify and protect critical wildlife habitat.

5 Describe stewardship programs that encourage the public to behave in ways that will

help preserve existing resources.

What do People Want to Do on the Peak? In the Spring of

1998, we distributed a questionnaire to help the team

understand the profiles and use patterns of people who visit

the area surrounding Pikes Peak for recreational purposes.

The responses told us that:

1 In 1997, the average survey respondent made 22 visits to the Pikes Peak area.

2 People who visit the area participate in many activities. Some of the most popular are

hiking, mountain biking, picnicking, cross-country skiing, and scenic driving.

3 Most visitors share their experience with family and friends. Over 62 percent of the

people responding to the questionnaire indicated that they visit the Peak with others.

4 Current users said that the highest priority for the Peak's stewards should be the

preservation of the mountain environment for the enjoyment of future generations.

5 When asked to identify the most appropriate uses and activities for the Pikes Peak

area, the most common responses were hiking, bird watching, backpacking, cross-

country skiing, and fishing.

T h e M a n a g i n g P a r t n e r s

City of Colorado Springs Parks Colorado State Parks

Colorado Division of Wildlife The Town of Victor

Bureau of Land Management Green Mountain Falls

The Town of Manitou Springs Teller County

The Town of Woodland Park El Paso County

The Town of Cripple Creek Pikes Peak Highway

American Indian Nations

Source: Colorado Springs Utilities

Source: Black and Veatch

FO RP U R P L EM O U N T A INM A J E S T IE S. . .

T h is n e w s le t te r is a n u p d a te o n th e

p la n n in g p ro c e s s fo r th e P ik e s P e a k

M u lt i -U s e P la n , a n d a n in v ita t io n fo r

y o u to jo in th e d is c u s s io n a b o u t th e fu tu re o f P ik e s P e a k .

S in c e la s t S p r in g , th e C o lo ra d o S p r in g s W a te r R e s o u r c e

D e p a r tm e n t, th e U .S . F o re s t S e r v ic e , a n d th e P ik e s P e a k

C it iz e n A d v is o r y G ro u p h a v e b e e n w o rk in g to g e th e r to c r e-

a te a p la n th a t w ill d ire c t th e p re s e r v a t i o n , d e v e l o p m e n t, a n d

m a n a g e m e n to f P ik e s P e a k in to th e n e x t c e n tu ry .

J u n e 1 9 9 9 : V o lu m e 2

WH A T’S NE X T?T h e P ik e s P e a k M u lt i -U s e P la n w il l b e d e v e lo p e d th ro u g h a p u b lic p ro c e s s

d e s ig n e d to g a th e r y o u r id e a s a b o u t P ik e s P e a k a n d its fu t u r e . Y o u a r e

in v ite d t o p a r t i c i p a t e w i t h t h e P e a k ' s m a n a g in g p a r tn e r s t o c r e a t e a s o u n d

a n d c a r in g v is io n fo r t h e m o u n ta in in o u r b a c k y a r d .

T h e n e x t r o u n d o f p u b lic m e e tin g s w il l p r o v i d e a n o v e r v ie w o f t h e w o r k t h a t

h a s b e e n c o m p le t e d t o d a t e a n d g a t h e r t h e p u b lic ’s t h o u g h t s o n t h e o p p o r t u-

n it ie s , i s s u e s , a n d c o n c e r n s id e n tif ie d b y t h e p la n n in g p r o c e s s .

T h e n e x t p u b l ic m e e tin g w ill b e h e ld in C r ip p le

C r e e k o n T u e s d a y , J u n e 1 5t h a t t he H e n r y ( J u n e )

H a c k C o m m u n ity C e n te r ( 1 2 8 E a s t B e n n e t t

A v e n u e ) . M a n ito u S p r in g s w ill h o s t a n o t h e r p u b lic

m e e tin g o n W e d n e s d a y , J u n e 1 6t h a t M e m o r ia l

H a ll (6 0 6 M a n ito u A v e n u e ) . P le a s e c h e c k y o u r lo c a l n e w s p a p e r o r o u r w e b s ite

fo r u p d a t e d in f o r m a tio n r e g a r d in g t h e t i m e , d a te s a n d lo c a t i o n s o f t h e s e m e e t-

in g s .

O n J u ly 4t h, 1 9 9 3 , S e n a t o r H a n k

B ro w n d e d ic a t e d t h is m e m o r ia l

p la q u e to c o m m e m o r a t e t h e 1 0 0t h

a n n i v e r s a r y o f t h e i n s p i r a t i o n o f

“A m e r i c a t h e B e a u t ifu l” b y K a t h a r i n e

L e e B a t e s .

B a te s , a v i s i t i n g p r o f e s s o r f r o m

W e lle s le y C o lle g e in M a s s a c h u s e t ts ,

w a s te a c h in g a t C o lo r a d o C o lle g e

w h e n s h e h a d t h e o p p o r tu n ity to

v is it P ik e s P e a k .

S h e p e n n e d th e w o r d s to th i s

fa m o u s s o n g a f te r a n in s p i ra t io n a l

r id e to th e s u m m it o f P ik e s P e a k

o n J u ly 2 2n d, 1 8 9 3 .

E R E’S W H A TW E’V E B E E NU P T O . . .

T h e m a n a g i n g p a r t n e r s o f t h e p r o j e c t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p l a n m u s t b e c r e a t e d w ith a h ig h

le v e l o f p u b l i c o w n e r s h i p . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p l a n n i n g t e a m , m a n a g i n g p a r t n e r s , a n d t h e

T e c h n i c a l A d v is o r y C o m m itte e , th e p u b l i c v o i c e h a s b e e n h e a r d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e s s .

A C it iz e n A d v is o r y G r o u p , w e b s i te , p u b l i c m e e t in g s a n d n e w s le t t e r s s u c h a s t h i s o n e ,

s e r v e a s a c o n d u it fo r t h e v o ic e s o f P i k e s P e a k . F o r a d d it io n a l in fo r m a tio n , y o u c a n v is it

o u r w e b s ite a t w w w . c s u . o r g / w a t e r / p p p l a n / p p p l a n . h t m l.

T h e E le v a t i o n M a p s h o w n a t l e ft w a s c r e a t e d a s a p a r t o f t h e T e c h n i c a l A d v is o r y

C o m m itte e ’s p r o c e s s t o d e t e r m i n e a r e a s s e n s i t i v e t o c h a n g e a n d a r e a s t h a t a r e m o s t

c a p a b le o f a c c o m m o d a tin g f u t u r e u s e .

T h is s p e c ta c u la r p a n o r a m ic v ie w ( b e lo w ) o f th e f o o t h i l l s a n d p l a i n s o f C o l o r a d o S p r i n g s

s h o w s t h e o r i g in a l a n d s t i l l u n c h a n g e d r o a d to th e s u m m it o f P ik e s P e a k . I n 1 9 0 1 t h e

f i r s t a u t o m o b ile s c a le d t h e P e a k u n d e r s te a m p o w e r. T h e f i rs t P i k e s P e a k H il l C l im b a u to

r a c e w a s h e l d in 1 9 1 6 .

VO IC E SO FCO L O R A D O

EL E V A T IO N

S o u r c e : F r o m t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f P a u l G i l b e r t , S r . , C o l o r a d o D i v i s i o n o f W i l d l i f e , R e t i r e d

WH A TC O U L DT H EF U T U R EB E?T h e f u t u r e o f P i k e s P e a k w i ll b e a b a la n c e o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n o f

n a t u r a l a n d c u ltu r a l re s o u r c e s o f t h e m o u n ta i n . T h i s v i s i o n a n d t h e p l a n h a v e b e e n d e v e l-

o p e d th r o u g h a p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s t h a t b e g a n in t h e S p r i n g o f 1 9 9 8 . A t h o r o u g h c u ltu r a l a n d

e n v i ro n m e n ta l in v e n to r y o f t h e s i t e w a s a s s e m b le d in o r d e r t o c le a r ly d e s c r ib e th e e x i s t i n g

c o n d it io n s o n t h e P e a k . T h is e ffo r t i n c l u d e d o v e r 6 0 d a y s o f o n - s ite f i e l d w o r k b y t h e

C o lo r a d o N a t u r a l H e ri ta g e P r o g r a m ( C N H P ) , a n o n - p r o f i t re s e a r c h a r m o f th e U n iv e r s ity o f

C o lo r a d o . T h e C N H P id e n t if ie d r a r e p la n t s a n d w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a .

C o n c u r r e n t w i t h t h e i n v e n t o r y e ffo r t , t h e p l a n n i n g t e a m w o r k e d c lo s e ly w ith th e m a n a g in g

p a r t n e r s a n d C i t i z e n A d v i s o r y G r o u p t o u n d e r s ta n d h o w p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d r e c r e a t i o n

d e v e lo p m e n t m ig h t b e a c c o m m o d a t e d o n t h e P e a k . A T e c h n ic a l A d v is o r y C o m m itte e w a s

fo r m e d to d e v e lo p a n a n a ly s is p r o c e s s t h a t w o u ld a d d r e s s t h e s i t e ’s c a p a c ity t o

a c c o m m o d a te p o te n t ia l u s e s . M e m b e r s o f th e c o m m itte e p r o v id e d e x p e r tis e in th e a r e a s

o f w a t e r r e s o u r c e s , f o r e s t r y , s o i l s , w ild l i fe , a n d la n d m a n a g e m e n t. T h e a n a l y s i s m a p s p r o-

d u c e d t h r o u g h t h e c o m m itte e 's e ffo r t s i d e n t i f y a r e a s o f t h e s i t e m o s t s e n s i t i v e t o c h a n g e a s

w e ll a s t h o s e m o s t c a p a b l e o f a c c o m m o d a tin g fu t u r e u s e .

I n J a n u a r y o f t h i s y e a r, a 3 - d a y w o r k s e s s io n w a s h e ld to d e v e lo p a l t e r n a t i v e f u t u r e s f o r t h e

s t u d y a r e a . T h e e f f o r t i n c l u d e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e m a n a g in g p a r t n e r s , C i t i z e n A d v i s o r y

G r o u p , a n d t h e p la n n in g t e a m . T e a m s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d t o d e v e lo p p o s s ib le

s c e n a r io s f o r t h e P e a k b y i m a g in in g th e " b e s t " w a y t o m a n a g e e n v iro n m e n ta l , re c r e a t i o n ,

a n d e c o n o m ic is s u e s . A t t h e e n d o f t h e w o r k s e s s i o n , e a c h t e a m p r e s e n t e d t h e ir

r e c o m m e n d a tio n s t o t h e C i t i z e n A d v i s o r y G r o u p w h o w a s a s k e d t o c r i t iq u e t h e e f f o r t . T h e

c o m b i n e d r e c o m m e n d a tio n s a n d f i n d i n g s w e r e o r g a n iz e d i n t o a p r e l i m i n a r y f r a m e w o r k

p l a n t h a t w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e n e x t s e r i e s o f p u b l i c m e e t in g s .

C i t i z e n A d v i s o r y G r o u p M e e t i n gT e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e C h a r r e t t e

D e s i g n W o r k s h o p , I n c . 1 3 9 0 L a w r e n c e S t r e e t , S u i t e 2 0 0 ,D e n v e r , C o l o r a d o 8 0 2 0 4 ( 3 0 3 ) 6 2 3 - 5 1 8 6C o n s u l t a n t s :T h o m a s & T h o m a s ; F e l s b u r g H o l t & U l l e v i g ; M o n t g o m e r yW a t s o n ; E r i c O l g e i r s o n , P h D . , C o n s u l t i n g E c o l o g i s t ; a n dC o l o r a d o N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e P r o g r a m

P IK E S P E A K M U L T I -U S E P L A NC O L O R A D O S P R I N G S T O C R I P P L E C R E E K

The attached matrix addresses the

f o l l owing natural resource categories:

R i pa r ian Areas, We t lands, Habitat Areas,

Alpine Tundra and Threatened and

E n dangered Species. Two matrices were

applied to 23 sites in the Pikes Pe a k

r e c r e a t i o nal area, as shown on the attached

matrix. The first matrix (AB Scena r i o )

addressed Steward/Recreation issues. Th e

second matrix (BC Scenario) addressed

Re c r e a t i o n /Economic issues. Details of the

results are provided in the follow i n g

na r r a t i ve and in the attached matrices.

A summary of the information includes

comparisons of the two scenarios,

categories of low impacts and categories

of high impacts.

The AB Scenario scored a one, or low

environmental impact, while the BC

Scenario scored a 2.4, or moderate

environmental impact.

The differences between the scenarios are:

• Limited uses

• Restoration areas

• Protected recreation biological connections

and pavement of the road (low impact) vs.

developed recreation.

• Retaining the existing road surface,

additional access to the Peak

• Development of motorized trails

• Development of lodging (high impacts)

The proposed economic development

scenario (BC) allows for virtually

unlimited access to the park. The

proposed developments will have

relatively minor impacts on the natural

resources of the park. It is the increase in

vehicular traffic and recreational users

associated with this scenario that will

have the greatest impact on the natural

resources in this area. The proposed road

improvements and the addition of

motorized campsites and lodging in the

southern region of the park are of special

concern. While this scenario may not

alter current uses significantly, it does

little to preserve and protect valuable

natural areas.

While the impacts of infrastructure

associated with the stewardship scenario

may not appear significantly different on

the surface, the restricted access to the

park has a major influence on the level of

environmental impact and the ability to

conserve the resources of the park over

the long term.

• Regional Visitor Center

B a rr Trail and Cog Rail access:

Wetland and ri p a rian impacts should be

limited depending on expansion. This is a

class four wildlife habitat, with no natural

h e ritage value. The Town of Manitou

S p rings has no serious impacts with either

s c e n a ri o .

• Local Access Portal

BC Scenario only. This portal would be

near wetlands and riparian areas. Impacts

may occur due to access. This site has

access to 16 core loop trails (currently forest

service roads). This area is a class four

wildlife habitat, with natural heritage

value – very high significance (VHS).

• Catamount Ranch Open Space Portal

The portal is located near the main road in

the AB scenario and will not create wet-

land riparian impacts. In the BC scenario

the portal is on the loop road. There are

potential future wetland or riparian

impacts. This is a class three wildlife habi-

tat, with no natural heritage value.

• South Slope Portal

Both scenarios have potential to create

impacts. The development of motorized

trails will create significant impacts. This

is a class four wildlife habitat, with no

natural heritage value.

• Back Country Portal

Minimal potential impacts to wetlands,

riparian and threatened and endangered

species may occur in both scenarios. This

is a class four wildlife habitat, with no

natural heritage value.

• Equestrian Center

Potential for wetland and riparian impacts

may occur in both scenarios. Wildlife

habitat is low except for riparian areas in

scenario BC. This area has no natural

heritage value.

• Crags Camp

The AB scenario will not create impacts.

Potential for riparian impacts may occur in

the BC scenario. Scenario BC may cause

impacts if further development occurs.

There is no natural heritage value.

• Crystal Lake Lodge

This area is lake front with wetland or

ri p a rian systems and has no recent impacts

in the AB scenario. Scenario BC has

potential to impact wetlands, ri p a rian areas,

habitat and t&e species. This is a class four

wildlife habitat, with no natural heri t a g e

v a l u e .

• Barr Trail and Cog Rail

Existing facilities will not create impacts.

• Summit House

Scenario AB may create ongoing

degradation due to automobile and foot

traffic, aggravated by hard surfacing of the

road to the summit. New facilities in sce-

nario BC may create temporary impacts

that are planned for restoration.

• South Slope Recreation Program

Scenario AB is a protected area. Scenario

BC will potentially impact riparian area,

wetlands and habitat due to construction

and high use.

• Cheyenne Canyon Visitor Education Center

Major highway may create impacts to wet-

land and riparian areas in both scenarios

due to development of the Center. This is a

Class Four wildlife habitat – close to class

five, with a natural heritage value – very

high significance (VHS).

• Highway

Scenario BC will cause siltation-erosion

problems for wetlands, tundra and general

habitat. Scenario AB will protect adjacent

general habitat. Current sedimentation

will be controlled by road improvement.

• Limited Use Areas AB only

The limited use is not sufficient to control

recreational use.

• Restoration Zones AB only

The partial restoration is not sufficient to

control recreational use.

• Perimeter Loop Trail

The trail was built on existing forest service

roads. The trail should cause little impact

to wetlands or riparian zones and crosses

all habitat areas in both AB and BC.

Significant portions are in class four

wildlife habitat. Significant portions also

occur in natural heritage areas – values are

outstanding and very high significance.

• Alternate Route to Summit

Potential tundra and t&e species impacts

may occur in the BC scenario due to new

trail construction. Potential wetland and

riparian impacts.

• Auto Touring Loop

No new impacts in either scenario AB or

BC. Both scenarios have potential to

impact natural areas due to road

modifications.

• Lower Gold Camp Road

In scenario AB existing forest service

roads, gravel treatment should not cause

major impacts. The BC scenario has a

potential to impact natural areas due to

road modifications.

• Biological Connectedness

Scenario AB will benefit biological connec-

tions. Scenario BC does not apply.

• Motorized Vehicle Area

Scenario AB does not apply. Scenario BC

has potential for significant impacts to

wetland riparian areas. This is a class four

wildlife habitat, near an area with natural

heritage value – very high significance

(VHS). In scenario BC impacts will occur

due to motorized road development.

• Lodging on Public Lands

Scenario AB does not apply. Development

of lodging in scenario BC may impact

significant areas of wetlands and riparian

areas.

• Agriculture Buffer Areas

Scenario AB does not apply. In scenario

BC there is a strong potential for wetland

and riparian impacts. These areas are

moderate wildlife habitat, with no natural

heritage value.

The Origins of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was

originally designed to curb poaching and

smuggling of rare animals. It has evolved

considerably since its first enactment in

1966 and was thoroughly rewritten in

19731. Section 7 of the act requires the

mapping of critical habitat areas that a

species needs to survive and the

establishment of recovery plans for each

listed species. Although priority is to be

given to species that may be in conflict

with economic development, federal agen-

cies have been largely unable to fulfill

these directives in pace with the demands

of the development community. While the

absence of designated critical habitat or a

recovery plan does not defeat the protec-

tion of a species, the enforcement of the

Act has resulted in severe penalties being

placed on developers who had no way of

knowing in advance that development

activity would be determined to be a "tak-

ing" of a species. Section 9 of the Act

prohibits the “taking” of an endangered

species. This term is defined broadly to

include hunting, killing, and other actions

that indirectly affect a species, such as

harming or harassing the animals. The Act

has a broad scope and prohibits "takings"

by private citizens or by state and local

governments. It also authorizes citizen

suits to enforce the Act.

Natural Communities Conservation

Planning Program

A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)

addresses the habitat needs of the subject

threatened or endangered species, but is

not required to analyze the larger biologi-

cal patterns or effects on an entire ecosys-

tem. This may result in incomplete studies

and inadequate conservation measures,

even after considerable sums have been

spent on the development of the plan.

A multi-species approach to habitat

conservation would magnify all the

problems associated with environmental

regulation and would essentially be

beyond the scope of the Act.

California has addressed this situation by

initiating its own Natural Communities

Conservation Planning Program (NCCP)

that identifies and resolves issues before

the Endangered Species Act is applicable.

In essence, the NCCP uses local planning

resources to protect substantial assem-

blages of habitat land before the area

becomes so fragmented or compromised

by development that the listing of individ-

ual species is likely under ESA.

Federal Tools for Resource Protection

• The Endangered Species Act

• The National Biological Survey

• The National Environmental

Policy Act

• Section 404: Wetlands

Protection

• Federal Land Preservation

Incentives

• USDA Environmental

Quality Incentive Program

• Federal Land Ownership and

Management

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Forest Service


Because of its species-specific approach,

the ESA often attempts to protect small,

disconnected parcels of land where

significant numbers of the threatened

species exist, but not the larger tracts that

would allow the continued health of the

entire ecosystem of which the threatened

species is a part. NCCP takes the broader

view. Partners in the program, that include

several agencies of state government and

developers, enroll in the program and

agree to set aside critical habitat areas and

to monitor the ecosystems within them.

Case Study: Colorado’s

Memorandum of Understanding

Colorado has recently become the first

state in the United States. to execute an

agreement with the U.S. Department of the

Interior designed to give the state a greater

role in the application of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). This agreement may

have implications for the design of local

habitat protection. In particular, as the

Colorado Division of Wildlife acts proac-

tively to prevent some species populations

from declining, it may need the assistance

and cooperation of Colorado’s local

governments. In some cases, the Division

of Wildlife may need to request that local

programs be initiated or expanded to

focus on habitat that is necessary to avoid

application of the Endangered Species Act.

On the positive side, if the state is success-

ful in working with local governments to

craft unique solutions within Colorado,

local governments may reap the benefit of

being able to plan for habitat protection

without having to work around the rigid

federal requirements and remedies of the

ESA in some cases.

For almost a century, there have been calls

for the federal government to create a

comprehensive biological inventory for the

country. Concerns over the loss of species,

wildlife habitat, and other natural

resources has created a myriad of envi-

ronmental regulations at the local, state,

and federal government levels. Across the

country, these regulations have led to seri -

ous conflicts between environmental pro-

tection and economic growth. The

Secretary of the Interior has termed these

situations “economic and environmental

train wrecks,” because they sometimes lead

to the derailing of major construction

projects at the last minute due to an

endangered species, wetlands, or late-

emerging environmental issue. The

increasing complexity of environmental

regulations and the desire to minimize the

number of future “train wrecks” has led to

renewed calls for a comprehensive biologi-

cal survey.

Although recent federal legislation has

redefined National Biologic Survey as the

Biologic Division of the U.S. Geological

Survey instead of a free-standing agency

(effective September 1, 1996), its charge

and role as a center for research science

has not been altered.

The National Environmental Policy Ac t

( NEPA )2 applies to actions undertaken,

s ponsored, and in some cases permitted by

the federal government. The act is primarily

a procedural mandate that requires all

federal agencies to conduct an evaluation

of any action that may be defined as a

“major federal action” that may invo l ve a

“significant impact on the na t u r a l

e n v i r o n m e n t .” While judicial interpretations

of this threshold definition vary with the

circumstances, NEPA generally imposes a

requirement that the agency at least

consider all environmental impacts of a

g i ven action, as well as the alterna t i ve

actions and measures that may mitigate

such impacts. Although NEPA does not

effect an outright prohibition even on

those federal projects that do invo l ve

a d verse environmental impacts, it doe s

o perate to provide more information abo u t

the po t e n t ial adverse impacts of such proj-

ects and opens them to public scrutiny.

Among those factors that must be consid-

ered is the effect of the proposed project

on wildlife po p u lations.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act3 is

relevant to wildlife habitat protection

whenever desired habitat involves wetland

areas. This federal act is administered

jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and the Environmental

Protection Agency, and provides significant

opportunities for comment and

involvement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Section 404 creates a permit sys-

tem that regulates disturbances of wet-

lands when that disturbance will affect

more than one acre of the wetlands.

Permits can be denied if a proposed activi-

ty, including any dredging, channelization,

or development in a wetland will result in

a “significant degradation” of wetlands.

Significant degradation can include dimin-

ished recreational or aesthetic values as

well as damage to aquatic systems. In

addition, permits can be issued with con-

ditions requiring mitigation of wetlands

loss by restoring existing wetlands or cre-

ating new wetland areas.

Colorado’s local governments should be

aware that the need for a Section 404

permit may discourage development in

wetlands and make it easier to steer

development away from wetland habitats.

If the existence of wetlands is documented

as part of a local wildlife habitat inventory,

that information should be passed on to

both the Division of Wildlife and to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so that it can

be considered in future 404 permitting

activities. In addition, when a developer

proposes to build in a wetlands and then

mitigate the impacts off-site, the developer

may be looking for an existing wetlands to

restore as part of the mitigation process.

Colorado’s local governments should

therefore be prepared to suggest wildlife

habitat areas where restoration or

expansion of an existing wetland would

promote the quality of the habitat itself.

In order to accommodate the need to

mitigate wetlands off-site, some states have

recently begun creating wetlands mitiga-

tion banks. The mitigation bank idea arose

from criticism that builders were some-

times mitigating their impacts on large

wetlands by expanding small ones that

were not sustainable or not large enough

to achieve the goals of aquifer recharge,

water quality improvements, or wildlife

habitat protection. The intent of the bank

system is to designate large and healthy

wetland areas — often those that support a

wide variety of wildlife species — and

encourage developers to expand and

improve those areas. In some cases, private

investors have actually purchased signifi -

cant healthy wetland areas and then sold

the rights to improve and restore the buy-

ers on an acre-by-acre basis. To date,

more than 46 wetlands mitigation banks

are operating in the U.S., with most of

those located in California and Florida.

Oregon, Minnesota, New Jersey, Colorado,

and other states have specifically endorsed

the creation and operation of wetlands

mitigation banks4.

Some federal laws offer financial incentives

for land protection or impose disincentives

by withholding government subsidies for

adverse land uses. In many instances, the

types of land protected may have impor-

tant wildlife habitat value. While the scope

and funding of these programs is under

increasing pressure in Washington,

programs such as the Wetlands Reserve

Program and the Conservation Reserve

Program still exist. In general, federal

incentive programs are based on a simple

and compelling argument that the

government should not subsidize land

uses that are harmful and contradict other

established laws or policies. Such

programs have been very effective in the

context of agricultural and wetlands pro-

tection.

Wetlands Reserve Program

The federal Food Security Act of 1985 and

the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990, known as the “farm

bills,” established a number of programs

designed to provide incentives for retain-

ing wetlands. Perhaps the most significant

such program was provided in the

“Swampbuster” provisions of the Food

Security Act. These established a Wetlands

Reserve Program5, which offers incentives

for preservation of up to 1 million acres of

wetlands as well as disincentives for con-

version.

Under this program, participating farmers

prepare and implement wetlands

conservation plans and the federal

government pays the farmer for the value

of the use of the conserved lands as well

as a portion of the costs of restoration and

conservation. In addition, if the farmer

chooses to convert wetlands to agricultur-

al use, the farmer becomes ineligible for

federal agricultural price supports, crop

insurance, or any other federal agricultural

subsidy programs. By maintaining a

preservation incentive while eliminating

competing incentives to convert wetlands,

the federal government has provided a

program that promotes the retention of

wetlands and related habitat without

causing financial harm to farmers. The

1996 reauthorization of the Farms Bills

continued the Wetlands Reserve Program,

but its scope is still modest. The program

now authorizes the inclusion of 12,000 to

18,000 acres of land within Colorado.

Conservation Reserve Program

Also included in the 1985 and 1990 Farm

Bills are programs establishing a

Conservation Reserve Program6. Under

this program, the federal government

offers payments and executes voluntary

10-year agreements with farmers who elect

to remove highly erosive cropland from

production, thereby reducing environmen-

tal damage from runoff and preserving

wildlife habitat. About 36.4 million acres

have been removed from production for

at least 10 years under the program so far

and have been planted with tame or

native grasses. One important additional

benefit to wildlife has been to reduce pres-

sure on 32 million acres of grass inter-

spersed with lands remaining in

production7. Almost two million acres of

agricultural land within Colorado is

included in the program — or approxi-

mately one-sixth of all the tilled land in

the state. The Conservation Reserve

Program has been continued because it

has been shown to be a very cost-effective

way of reducing pollution that would oth-

erwise have to be abated after the fact.

Forest Stewardship

Incentives Program

The 1990 Farm Bill recognized the

i m portance of stewardship of private forest

land and land suitable for growing trees as

a vital element in the conservation of the

nation’s natural resources. The bill created

the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) and

the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP ) ,

which are administered na t i o nally and

r e g i o nally by the United States Fo r e s t

Service and at the state level by the

Colorado State Forest Service. The FSP

p r ovides education and technical assistance

to private la n d owners. The SIP assists pri-

vate la n d owners to implement the la n d

stewardship activities recommended in their

long-range forest plans and to manage their

p r o perty for a variety of environmental

benefits, including wildlife habitat. Th e

program applies to la n d owners ow n i n g

between two and 1,000 acres of la n d

suitable for growing trees, provided they

meet eligibility requirements and implement

their plans according to applicable

r e g u lations for a minimum of 10 ye a r s .

Under the SIP, cost sharing can be used to

promote the development of forest

stewardship programs, reforestation,

a g r o f o r e s t r y, forest improvement, ripa r ia n

and wetland protection, and the

e n hancement of fisheries and wildlife

habitat. From 1990 to 1995, $1 million was

distributed in Colorado to support the

implementation costs of nearly 1,000

stewardship programs.

USDA Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP) is a new cost-share

program under the federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act8 that

combines the functions of several existing

USDA cost-sharing programs, including

the Great Plains Conservation Program

and the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program. The overall benefit of the

combined program is the collaborative

efforts between the various agencies to

ensure that the program runs successfully.

The Natural Resources Conservation

Service is responsible for policies, priori-

ties, and guidelines. The Farm Services

Agency is responsible for administering

the program at the state and local levels.

Under EQIP, five- to ten-year contracts

will be available to landowners to provide

cost-share and incentive payments for up

to 75 percent of the cost of installing con-

servation practices. EQIP is intended to

make the administration of programs and

funds more efficient. Payments to any per-

son are limited to $10,000 annually and

$50,000 for the life of the contract.

A bout 50 percent of all threatened and

e n dangered species listed under the

E n dangered Species Act occur at least once

on federal land. In addition, about 36

percent of the more than 24,000

occurrences of federally listed species are

found on federal lands. In some cases,

more than 50 percent of the po p u lation of

a threatened or endangered species lives on

federal lands. As a result, the federal

g overnment can have a dramatic impact on

the preservation of certain species simply

through its actions as a la n d owner — and

a part from its role in land regulation. Th i s

is pa r t i c u larly true in a state like Colorado,

where the federal government owns more

t han one-third of all the land in the state.

The federal agency with the la r g e s t

o p portunity to protect endangered spe c i e s

is the U.S. Forest Service, because 16 pe r-

cent of all occurrences of listed spe c i e s

occur on lands that it manages. Lands

m a naged by the Bureau of Land

M a nagement house eight percent of the

occurrences. Lands controlled by the

De partment of Defense account for four

percent of occurrences, and lands mana g e d

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Park Service each account for

three percent of oc c u r r e n c e s9.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) plays a key role in many wildlife

habitat protection issues, but it is not

responsible for all federal wildlife

concerns10. USFWS activities are primarily

concerned with public lands and land set

aside specifically to protect critical wildlife

habitat. In addition to its primary charge,

the USFWS also provides the public with

opportunities for non-consumptive

wildlife activities. Most USFWS programs

also attempt to set an example to encour-

age responsible stewardship for the envi-

ronment and promote citizen involvement

in wildlife issues.

It is important to recognize that state

governments have a much different role in

protecting wildlife habitat based on their

various responsibilities to fulfill broad

public interests, and local governments

have a different role because of urban

characteristics and interests. Because

relatively little federal land is located in

urban areas, the scope of USFWS activities

in urban areas is limited. One notable

exception is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal,

whose 27 square miles represent a huge

urban wildlife reserve of great importance

to the state and the region.

The Forest Service, which is a division of the

U.S. De partment of Agriculture, promotes

wildlife habitat protection through its la n d

m a nagement practices on the land that it

controls. All Forest Service lands are

m a naged under the multiple-use philosophy,

which attempts to ba lance wildlife ha b i t a t

protection goals with public recreation goals.

Many aspects of habitat mana g e m e n t

practices of the U.S. Forest Service prov i d e

excellent models for developing loc a l

programs and philosophies.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is

a division of the Department of the

Interior that operates under a multiple-use

mandate contained in the Federal Land

Policy Management Act. A recent strategic

plan for the BLM listed fish and wildlife

protection as a top priority for the

agency11. The plan represents a new ideol-

ogy for the BLM and a very progressive

attitude towards wildlife habitat protection.

The new policies bring fish and wildlife

issues, riparian restoration, and recreation-

al priorities more in line with traditional

BLM functions of mineral resource and

rangeland management.

The implementation policies of BLM’s Fish

and Wildlife 2000 plan contain some key

innovations. For example, the plan targets

working cooperatively with state, local,

and private interests to achieve common

goals and promotes a cost-sharing pro-

gram to help fund multi-jurisdictional

projects. The plan represents a positive

change from the BLM’s historical tendency

to be driven by issues and events and

hopes to establish a pro-active attitude to

influence and shape the proper manage-

ment of valuable natural resources. As

urbanizing areas continue to encroach on

more and more natural resources, this

new philosophy could become a valuable

asset for future habitat planning efforts.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife initiated

the Wildlife Resource Information System

(WRIS) to support implementation of the

Colorado State House Bill 1041. The objec-

tive of WRIS is the systematic collection

and communication of data to support

natural resource planning, particularly

planning by local governments. WRIS uses

a species mapping process to identify and

delineate habitat for species that are eco-

nomically important (e.g., deer, elk), as well

as for species that are threatened, endan-

gered, or are valuable as indicators of

habitat health. Once these species have

been identified, their known patterns of

habitat use are digitized into geographic

information systems and are used to com-

pile composite maps of sensitivity to

impact. Composite maps show areas with-

in a county that have high, moderate, and

low sensitivity to impact from develop-

ment. These maps are used by planners to

decide which development proposals

should be reviewed by field personnel

from the Division of Wildlife. Local gov-

ernments can contact the local Division of

Wildlife office to find out about how to

obtain help from the WRIS program.

The System for Conservation Planning

(SCoP) is a Division of Wildlife project

designed to help local communities set

goals for conservation of wildlife diversity

and to inform those communities of the

economic and regulatory mechanisms

available to achieve those goals. The SCoPs

project objectives are as follows:

• Develop a collaborative process to help

decision-makers, planners, and citizens

work together to set conservation priorities.

• Produce accessible information systems that

will help citizens and large-scale decision-

makers realize that cumulative effects of

changes in land use on wildlife diversity.

In 1992, the Colorado State constitution

was amended to create the Great Outdoors

Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) and phase

out the capital construction fund by

199812. The constitutional amendment

creating GOCO directs the board of the

trust fund to make investments that are

substantially equal over the long term for:

• Wildlife programs through the Colorado

Division of Wildlife,

• Outdoor recreation through the Colorado

division of parks and outdoor recreation,

State Tools for

Resource Protection

• Wildlife Resource Information

System

• System for Conservation

Planning

• Great Outdoors Colorado

• Natural Areas Program

• Protection of Instream Flows

and Natural Lake Levels

• State Wildlife Areas and

Conservation Easements

• Habitat Improvements

Programs

• State Trust Lands Fish and

Wildlife Enhancement Projects

• Competitive grants to the state parks

division, counties, municipalities, other

political subdivisions, and non-profit and

conservation organizations for the purpose

of acquiring and managing open space and

natural areas of statewide significance, and

• Competitive matching grants to local

governments to acquire, develop, or manage

open lands and parks.

The mission of the GOCO program is to

help the people of Colorado preserve ,

e n hance, appreciate, and enjoy the state’s

parks, wildlife, trails, rivers, open spa c e ,

and views. These goals are to be accom-

plished by making strategic inve s t m e n t s ,

fostering partnerships among dive r s e

interests, and supporting education abo u t

the outdoor environment. One of the spe-

cific programs currently being deve l o pe d

is non-game habitat protection grants.

These grants could become an invaluable

t ool in Colorado for protection of wildlife

habitat in urban areas. GOCO receive s

funding from state lottery proceeds and

uses them to accomplish a variety of

o b j e c t i ves for preserving, protecting and

e n hancing the state’s wildlife, parks, rive r s ,

trails and open space. Grants from GOCO

s u p port habitat protection through:

• Acquisition, leases, or easements of critical

wildlife habitat;

• Development of state parks and recreation

areas;

• Acquisition and maintenance of trails and

river greenways; and

• Identification, acquisition, and manage-

ment of unique open space and natural

areas.

The establishment of GOCO has created a

n u m ber of opportunities for loc a l

g overnments and state agencies. The GOCO

board of directors has deve l o ped a funding

p r ocess with the Division of Wildlife and

the Division of Parks and Outdoo r

Recreation to annually review funding

requests from these agencies. The funding

requests provide a base level of monies to

projects that meet the objectives of GOCO

and the Divisions. In addition, funding of

grants in the areas of Open Space, Loc a l

G overnment, Trails, and Capa c i t y

B u i l d i n g /P lanning are awarded annually or

more frequently. Fina l l y, GOCO has deve l-

o ped the Legacy Projects program to pro-

vide grants of between $2 to $10 million for

a few projects that integrate two or more of

the funding areas to projects of statewide or

r e g i o nal significance.

The goal of the Colorado Natural Areas

Program (CNAP) is to help private

landowners and public land agencies

identify and conserve areas of land that

contain special values habitat for animals

and plants, or paleontological, geological,

or other natural features. Natural areas are

protected by voluntary cooperative

agreements; landowners keep all rights and

management responsibilities. Since 1977,

when the program began, it has developed

voluntary cooperative agreements for

protecting natural areas at 81 sites around

the state. The CNAP staff is available to

help identify natural areas and to advise

on managing them to persevere their spe-

cial value. The program offers some small

grants to encourage research on natural

areas.

One of the most important characteristics

determining the quality of aquatic habitats

is the amount of water in streams (the

instream flow) and lakes (the natural lake

level). In 1973, Senate Bill 97 created a

mechanism for protecting these

characteristics. Unlike all other private and

government entities, the Colorado Water

Conservation Board (CWCB) was

empowered to hold rights to water that

remained in streams or lakes. All other

parties must divert and use water to

maintain their beneficial use rights. The

CWCB can obtain rights to water by

purchase, donation, lease or contract. from

private parties or local governments. This

offers an important opportunity to coun-

ties and municipalities seeking to protect

aquatic habitats. Unused water rights can

be donated to the CWCB to assure ade-

quate water levels in streams and lakes.

For example, the city of Boulder gave its

rights to water in Boulder Creek and

North Boulder Creek to protect instream

flows there.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife holds

p r o perties for habitat protection and

wildlife recreation. There are 307,000 acres

held in fee title across the state; abo u t

30,000 acres are held through leases; and

70,000 additional acres are held under

easements. These lands contain impo r t a n t

habitat for a broad range of terrestrial and

aquatic species.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife spon-

sors or collaborates in four programs to

improve habitat for wildlife in Colorado13.

These programs include:

Cooperative Habitat

Improvement Program

The Cooperative Habitat Improvement

Program (CHIP) offers funds to share costs

of habitat improvement for wildlife on

private land. The program is flexible and

intended to improve wildlife habitat with-

out affecting agricultural production.

Landowners determine the types of proj-

ects and where they will be implemented

and are not obligated to allow public

access to their land. Since 1993, the

Cooperative Habitat Improvement

Program has contributed over $80,000 to

help share the cost of establishing 1,325

acres of wildlife habitat.

Habitat Partnership Program

The Habitat Partnership Program (HPP)

develops partnerships between landown-

ers, land managers, sportsmen, the public,

and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to

reduce forage and fence conflicts between

big game animals (primarily deer, elk, and

antelope) and livestock on both public

and private lands. The program includes

improving big game habitat to attract ani-

mals away from conflict areas, improving

forage conditions to reduce competition

between big game and livestock, redistrib-

ution of concentrations of big game, fence

improvement or repair, leasing private

land for winter range, monitoring vegeta-

tion and animals, and occasional direct

payment if conflicts cannot be managed in

other ways and the party is eligible for

damage payments. There are 14 local HPP

committees throughout the state that

develop management plans within their

regions, including landowner surveys,

community meetings, and coordination

with other resource agencies.

Colorado Waterfowl Stamp

Program and Partners for Wildlife

The Colorado Waterfowl Stamp Program

was initiated in 1990 by establishing a

$5.00 stamp requirement for waterfowl

hunters and by initiating the sale of art

prints with the stamp image. Funds from

stamp sales have cooperatively funded the

creation and enhancement of over 27,000

wetland and upland acres on 300 projects,

including high-altitude ponds, eastern

plains reservoirs, and western slope river

bottoms. To date, funds from print sales

have been spent outside the state in a des-

ignated North American Waterfowl

Management Plan. A multi-agency project

review committee serves as the technical

advisory group for the selection of habitat

projects on both public and private lands.

Funding partnerships involving other gov-

ernment agencies, nonprofit organizations,

private individuals, and industry are used

to leverage the stamp funds for maximum

effectiveness. When projects are

implemented on private land, landowners

retain complete control of their property,

and there is no obligation to allow public

access.

The Colorado State Land Board mana g e s

a bout 3 million acres of land in Colorado.

Recently the State Land Board and the

Colorado Division of Wildlife entered into

a memorandum of agreement to allow

w i l d l i f e - r e lated activities on some of the

state trust lands. Lands are identified tha t

have the highest values for wildlife watch-

ing, hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-

r e lated recreational uses. The program

includes 74 properties totaling over 150,000

acres. Another 350,000 acres are currently

targeted for enrollment in the program. Th e

State Land Board has adopted a multiple-

use policy for the use of the opened areas.

The Division of Wildlife contributes funds

for the program. A portion of the funds

are used for property restoration and na t-

ural resource enhancement projects. Th e s e

projects consist of water-rela t e d

d e velopments, fencing ripa r ian corridors

and other sensitive wildlife areas,

r e p lacement of fenced gates with cattle

guards, wildlife habitat plantings, control of

n oxious weeds, repair of property da m a g e

caused by recreationalists, and removal of

trash and other clean-up activities.

State Program Contacts

• Colorado Division of Wildlife - Wildlife Resource Information System - Denver

303-291-7277

303-297-1192

• Colorado Springs 719-473-2945

• System for Conservation Planning (SCoP) - Fort Collins 970-484-2836

• Great Outdoors Colorado - Denver 303-863-7522

• Colorado Natural Areas Program - Denver 303-866-3203

• Forest Stewardship Program - Fort Collins 970-491-6303

• Wetlands Reserve Program - Denver 303-236-2886

303-491-1968

• Conservation Reserve Program - Denver 303-291-7265

• Great Plains Conservation Program - Denver 303-236-2886

• Colorado River Salinity Program - Denver 303-236-2668

• Partners for Wildlife - Denver 303-291-7464

• Cooperative Habitat Improvement Program - Denver 303-291-7335

• Pheasant Habitat Improvement Program - Denver 303-291-7464

• Habitat Partnership Program - Denver 303-291-1192

• Colorado Habitat Improvement Program - Denver 303-291-7265

• Colorado Waterfowl Stamp Program - Fort Collins 970-484-2836

Zoning Texts and Maps

The Colorado General Assembly has

provided broad enabling authority allow-

ing counties and cities to zone their

communities, but zoning is not mandato-

ry. According to the Department of Local

Government survey noted above, 26

percent of municipalities in Colorado and

14 percent of counties had no zoning in

1992. Enacting new zoning regulations or

revising existing regulations is often one of

the most effective ways of using local

powers to protect important habitat. Those

communities that have not yet enacted

zoning controls are forfeiting a highly

effective and versatile method of protecting

wildlife habitat14. Because each ordinance is

tailored to the circumstances of the local

government, zoning can address extremely

localized issues that may be important for

wildlife habitat protection.

In general, zoning ordinances are

implemented through the use of bo t h

r e g u latory text and maps. Zo n i n g

r e g u lations can therefore often be upda t e d

or amended by addressing the spe c i f i c

requirements in the ordinance text, or by

adopting new maps that apply regula t i o n s

to new areas, or a combination of both. Fo r

e xample, if a Colorado community wanted

to protect existing trees because of their

wildlife value, four options are possible:

• Enact a new subsection of text addressing

tree protection making the requirements

applicable to all zone districts.

• Draft similar protection language, but add

the new requirements only to specific zone

districts through amendments to chapters of

the code.

• Create a new chapter or subsection that

establishes a “habitat protection zone” and

amend the zoning map to apply the zone

where appropriate.

• Draft the protections into the text of an

“overlay zone” and then amend the zoning

maps to add the overlay district on top of

the existing zoning districts.

Map amendments and broad text

amendments are landscape level tools,

while text amendments relating to only a

few districts or small areas are considered

to be site level tools. As the fourth option

suggests, many of the protections

described in this section as “specialized

zoning controls” could also be imposed

through the use of the “special overlay

districts” described in subsection 3, and

vice versa. In each case, the key question

is whether the regulation is intended to

Local Government

Regulatory Tools for

Resource Protection

• Regulatory Approaches

• Incentives

• Acquisition Programs

• Development Agreements

apply across an area that does not con-

form to existing zone district boundaries.

If it does, then an overlay map district

should probably be used.

Regardless of whether a text, map, or

overlay district approach is used, it is

usually wise to consider whether variances

or exceptions should be available where

strict application of the regulations would

create an unusual hardship or where

unique circumstances make it unlikely that

the regulation will in fact produce habitat

protection benefits.

Use Restrictions

Often, the most dramatic way to protect

wildlife habitat is to control the permitted

uses on habitat lands and surrounding

areas. Through its listing of uses-by-right,

conditional uses, and the criteria for

approval of conditional uses, a zoning

ordinance can prevent traffic-intensive or

people-intensive activities from occurring

close to prime habitat areas, migration

corridors, calving areas, and similar lands.

In some cases, it may be wise to amend

existing zoning ordinances to convert

current uses-by-right into conditional uses

subject to criteria designed to measure the

impact of the activity on wildlife. This

approach would allow applicants for those

uses to move forward with their projects if

they could design the site and manage

their operations in wildlife-sensitive ways.

Density Restrictions

Another effective way to reduce impacts

on wildlife is to control the density of

development in and around habitat areas.

At the landscape level, minimum lot size

requirements or maximum residential

densities can be amended to reduce the

number of people on sensitive land and

the frequency of human-animal interac-

tion. At the site level, projects can be

designed with a gradient of density away

from the habitat sites. Areas near the habi-

tat could have very low densities, and

development further back could have cor-

respondingly higher densities. Through the

use of gradients and clustering of develop-

ment away from prime habitat, wildlife

impacts can be dramatically reduced while

maintaining the overall number of resi-

dential units on the land.

Tree Protection and

Vegetation Management

Protection of wildlife habitat may be

achieved by regulating the tree or

vegetation cutting that the target species

use for cover or food. The use of this tool

has been increasing dramatically. In 1984,

a national study published by the

University of Pennsylvania identified less

than 100 tree protection ordinances in use

in the U.S., most of the ordinances in

Florida or California15. By 1989, however, a

survey of all incorporated cities in

California showed 159 city tree ordinances,

and more than 50 percent of those con-

tained protections against removal of trees.

More importantly, tree protection laws are

no longer confined to densely populated

and rapidly growing states like Florida and

California, they are being adopted every-

where. Some communities, such as Austin,

Texas, and Thousand Oaks, California,

prohibit the removal of any trees larger

than a specified size.

Another important form of special

regulation is vegetation management.

Controlling the types of vegetation planted

in, or removed from, an area is an effective

way to attract desired species or discour-

age unwanted ones. Many approaches are

available, but the more comprehensive

and integrated ones will be more effective.

For example, local regulations can specify

the types of vegetation that must be main-

tained in designated greenways and

wildlife corridors. Often, the vegetation

requirements will differ from those in

standard landscaping ordinances.

Vegetation management can also be used

to create a transition from undeveloped

land to developed areas. In general, wood-

land and riparian areas are critically

important for wildlife habitat, and such

vegetation should be protected. Wetlands

should also be preserved to add biological

diversity, filter runoff, and recharge

groundwater systems16. Some communi-

ties like Lake County, Illinois, and Fairfax

County, Virginia, require that a certain

percentage of tree or vegetation cover

remain on a site.

Wh e n e ver tree preservation or ve g e t a t i o n

protection management ordinances are

adopted, regulations should also cla r i f y

t hat trees and vegetation adequately pro-

tected by the deve l o per will count tow a r d s

the satisfaction of applicable minimum

landscaping requirements in the zoning

c ode. The effectiveness of ve g e t a t i o n

protection programs often depends on the

identification of what specific species of

trees or vegetation will actually benefit a

g i ven species of wildlife in a given location.

River Corridor Protection

Standards

Zoning can also promote healthy wildlife

populations by protecting river corridors.

Several good examples of river corridor

protection are available. Park City, Utah,

and several other communities have

adopted standards requiring that

development be set back at least 100 feet

from rivers and streams and be buffered

from view. Fulton County, Georgia has

passed the Chattahoochee River Corridor

Tributary Act that creates a 35-foot buffer

zone along all banks of tributaries of the

Chattahoochee, a National Wild and

Scenic River. Similar regulations were

upheld by the Montana Supreme Court in

a recent case. In the Denver Gateway area,

development must be set back from First

Creek a minimum of 200 feet, and other

buffering controls apply.

Vegetative Barriers or Buffer Areas

Vegetative barriers can be used to increase

the perceived separation between devel-

oped and natural areas. They can also be

used to either attract or repel different

species of wildlife. For example, in areas

where big game is not wanted, zoning and

landscaping standards can require the

planting of vegetation that large game

animals dislike. On the other hand, the

same code might require the planting of

species that attract songbirds. Similarly,

buffer zones can be used to decrease “line

of site” distances for wildlife and humans,

reduce noise disturbances of wildlife, pro-

tect critical habitat, and protect bodies of

water. In many cases, careful research will

be required to determine exactly how

much buffer will be required in order to

adequately protect the target species17.

Barrier and buffer requirements are usual-

ly site level tools.

Fencing Controls

Where local wildlife goals call for keeping

humans and large animals apart, zoning

regulations might require perimeter fencing

that is impassable to certain species. On

the other hand, if a new development

threatens to cut off a historic migration

route or to separate related feeding areas,

the code might put a limit on the heights

of fencing to ensure that the fences are

passable to wildlife. In still other cases, the

goal may be to make sure that wildlife see

the fences as they approach them, so that

they can avoid entanglement. In general,

fences lower than 40 inches tall will not be

a barrier or a source of entanglement to

large game animals. Fencing controls are

usually site level tools, because their effec-

tiveness often depends on the specific

location and layout of the land.

Controls on Public or

Vehicular Access

Another important category of zoning

control is access. In Colorado’s cities,

towns, and counties, the issue of access is

often an area of shared responsibility

between the planning department and the

public works or transportation depart-

ment, and effective controls will require

the joint efforts of both groups. In order

to protect wildlife, it is often necessary to

restrict human or vehicular access to areas

that wildlife use or routes along which

animals migrate. Access restrictions could

include permanent road closures, locked

or manned gates, or signs. In some cases,

merely requiring that the point of access

be hidden from the public may be ade-

quate, and may still leave a road or trail

open for use by emergency vehicles and

others. Where vehicular access is the prob-

lem and pedestrian access is acceptable,

the zoning code or public works standards

might require that minor roads be

converted into trails18. Again, because the

appropriate level of access depends on the

location and layout of development, it is

usually a site level tool.

Other Development Standards

In addition, specialized zoning regulations

can be drafted to address numerous other

development factors that affect wildlife. For

example, window well covers might be

required at ground level in order to pre-

vent small animals from falling into areas

from which they cannot escape.

De velopment in rural areas may be required

to implement garbage mana g e m e n t

s t a n dards so that the introduction of pe o p l e

into an area does not result in added

o p portunities for wildlife to scavenge for the

f ood that humans throw aw ay. Examples of

g a r bage management techniques include

requirements that no garbage be placed in

an outside primary or accessory structure,

or that all garbage be disposed of in a

single, well secured and od o r - p r oof building

serving an entire development and loc a t e d

far from habitat areas.

Finally, it may be necessary to adopt spe-

cial standards restrictive in sensitive habi-

tat areas. Sage grouse, which are periodi-

cally considered for listing as a threatened

species, are particularly sensitive to noise.

Noise standards can be adopted as a

performance standard, by limiting noise to

a specific decibel, or by explicitly prohibit-

ing the activities that create unacceptable

levels of noise, such as all-terrain vehicle

use, hunting, or wood cutting.

Phasing of Development

In some cases significant wildlife benefits

can be gained by requiring new

development to be constructed in specific

phases. If the species to be protected can

adjust to the presence of humans nearby, a

phasing strategy might require that the

first stages of development occur far from

the prime habitat area, so that the animals

are not presented with a dramatic disrup-

tion of their habitat. Instead, construction

can begin far away and proceed towards

the habitat area, with development densi-

ties declining as construction gets nearer to

the buffer area or habitat. If the species to

be protected is unable to adjust to nearby

development, it may still make sense to

require construction to begin far away

from the prime habitat and corridor areas

to allow the animals time to find alterna-

tive habitat areas on their own.

Controls on Construction Activity

Any zoning regulation that invo l ves the

need to treat sensitive areas carefully

should address not only the desired out-

come, but also the rules that must be fol-

l owed during construction activity. Eve n

when carefully crafted standards are be i n g

implemented by a coo pe r a t i ve la n d ow n e r

or deve l o pe r, a few careless activities during

the construction phase can destroy all the

habitat that was intended to be protected.

Construction controls may need to address:

• Prevention of accidental cutting of trees or

vegetation,

• Restrictions on excavation near roots or root

masses,

• Limitations on severe grade changes near

the vegetation or in mating or calving

areas,

• Restrictions on dumping of construction

materials or toxic materials near important

vegetation or other cover,

• Limitations on the use of fires to clear

vegetation prior to construction,

• Limitations on the duration or hours of

construction,

• Limitations on timing of construction to

avoid critical times for the wildlife, such as

calving periods,

• Limitations on the number of project

personnel or construction vehicles on site at

any one time, through the use of

transportation pools or staggered shifts,

• Restrictions on construction personnel access

to wildlife areas, and/or speed restrictions

on access roads19.

Integrated Approaches

When considering a zoning approach to

resource issues an integrated approach is

useful to ensure that other regula t i o n s

reinforce the new zoning provisions. Fo r

e xample, design standards for deve l o p m e n t

need to be modified to include wildlife

considerations. Stormwater mana g e m e n t

o r d i nances may need to reflect water

quality controls in natural areas tha t

s u p port wildlife. Other sensitive la n d

r e g u lations may be needed to implement or

reinforce a wildlife protection plan, such as

scenic highway controls, river corridor

protection, and steep slope protection.

In addition, when drafting new zoning

regulations, it is always important to keep

in mind the community's ability to enforce

the regulation. A sophisticated ordinance

carefully targeted to achieve subtle goals is

meaningless if the city or county does not

have personnel who can and will enforce

it or the budget to pay for the extra effort

involved. Often, a simple zoning

requirement can be as effective as a

complicated clause with much less effort.

Overlay zones are specialized zone dis-

tricts that supplement but do not replace

the basic zoning regulations applicable to

a property. They are a useful tool when an

area containing hazards, sensitive lands, or

unique opportunities crosses several

different standard zoning districts. Overlay

zones are becoming a popular and effec-

tive method of protecting wildlife habitat

and natural resource features for larger

areas that include several underlying zon-

ing districts. An overlay zone effectively

eliminates the need to revise the regula-

tions for each zoning district. Instead, it

superimposes additional regulations

specifically targeted to protect important

physical characteristics of the land.

As a resource protection tool, overlay

districts have several advantages. They

allow local governments to tailor regula-

tions to specific issues that are relevant to

a discrete, mapable area. Since they do not

affect the underlying zoning governing

permissible densities and uses, they avoid

the need to reopen old debates in those

areas. They can also be drafted to reflect a

balance of different goals, such as envi-

ronmentally compatible development and

open space protection. At the same time,

overlay zoning has some draw backs. If the

terms of the zone are complicated, then it

m ay require skilled staff to implement and

enforce them. Some residents will see them

as adding a layer of complexity to deve l-

opment approval processes. In general,

ove r lay zones are used to address la n d

c haracteristics that extend across a wide

area or a variety of properties, and they

are therefore often considered a la n d s c a pe

l e vel tool.

Sensitive Lands

An increasing number of cities and coun-

ties in the Rocky Mountain West are

adopting special overlay regulations to

protect sensitive environmental areas. For

example, Park City, Utah, recently adopted

overlay regulations to protect a broad

range of environmentally sensitive features

including wetlands, stream corridors, steep

slopes, ridge lines, and view corridors. In

1994, Summit County, Colorado, adopted a

special overlay district and regulations

stating that the county “seeks to fully

protect wildlife habitats within the wildlife

overlay zone from the significant adverse

effects of development”. The ordinance

includes detailed definitions of what

constitutes “significant adverse effects” of

development and contains detailed

provisions allowing the county to require

a wildlife impact report from the develop-

er either at the start of the application

process or later if available information is

not adequate to make a decision. The

Summit County ordinance is comprehen-

sive, flexible, and relatively short, all of

which increase its usability and under-

standability.

Wildlife Corridors

A second popular use of overlay districts

is to designate and protect corridors that

serve as migration routes and provide

continuous strips of habitat. They can also

provide important aesthetic and recre-

ational benefits to the community20.

Because of this important overlap of

wildlife and human benefits, the commu-

nity may be able to support wildlife corri-

dors without understanding the full eco-

logical importance of open space preserva-

tion. Care should be taken not to plan for

recreational access or trails, however, in

areas where that will compromise wildlife

goals. Not every corridor needs to be a

hiking or biking trail. Because wildlife cor-

ridors need to be relatively continuous

between patches of habitat in order to be

effective, they are a good landscape scale

protection tool.

Voters often think of greenways and

corridors as parks and trails, but for

wildlife a corridor can also be an undevel-

oped parcel, a drainageway, or a utility

right-of-way. A carefully designed overlay

can protect existing and natural features

that promote species richness and diversi-

ty. They can also facilitate cooperative

planning with other local government

functions such as designing drainage and

flood control systems. The important

underlying objective is to minimize habitat

fragmentation by creating or enhancing

ecological connections between larger

wildlife habitat areas. The protection of

wildlife corridors and greenways can pro-

duce measurable results in a short time

with a minimum of inventory and other

staff-intensive procedures. Those initial

positive results may also encourage local

officials to pursue additional protection

measures.

Often, the overlay zone requires minimum

setbacks from known wildlife movement

areas or riparian areas. Wildlife corridors

can also be accomplished in conjunction

with other projects. For example, a utility

corridor through a forest area could be cut

to provide a transition ecosystem and be

more aesthetically pleasing than the

traditional clear-cut swath.

Flood and drainage control projects can

utilize existing vegetation instead of

replacing it with concrete. Stormwater

management can be planned to support

wetlands and riparian vegetation. Many

other overlapping objectives exist within

any local government system, and can be

developed through interagency

communication. In addition, certain uses

can be prohibited or converted into

conditional uses in an overlay area.

Agricultural and Open Space

Zoning

Zoning and subdivision ordinances

commonly require minimum lot sizes. In

suburban single-family residential areas,

minimum lot sizes typically range from

one-quarter to two acres. To preserve

agricultural areas, forests, wetlands,

floodplains, and other types of wildlife

habitat, Colorado communities have

adopted a variety of special agricultural

land and large-lot zoning programs that

require larger minimum lot sizes. In

addition, many of these ordinances

increase the requirement that a specific

percentage of each parcel must remain in

open space. Lot size controls are generally

considered to be site level controls.

A few communities have adopted exclusive

agricultural zoning, which has proven to be

quite effective in protecting farmland. To the

degree that the community wants to protect

t y pes of wildlife habitat that are found in

and around farming operations, this can be

an effective wildlife tool. Generally, such

zoning includes a large minimum pa r c e l

size, often 160 acres or greater, the exclu-

sion of all non-farm land uses, and other

restrictions such as limits on the number of

building permits in the zone. Again,

because they are usually aimed at la r g e

areas of farm or ranchland, agricultural

zoning is a la n d s c a pe-scale tool.

Large-lot zoning provisions may come in

a variety of forms. So-called “quarter-

quarter” zoning allows each landowner

one buildable lot per 40 acres of farmland.

Once the allowable number of lots have

been developed anywhere on the property,

no more construction is allowed. This

approach works best in rural areas with

only moderate growth pressure and larger

farms, and is used extensively in the rural

areas around Minneapolis/St. Paul.

In contrast, sliding-scale zoning decreases

the number of residences allowed per acre

as the parcel size increases: a ten-acre par-

cel may be allowed one residence, a 40

acre-parcel only two, and a 160-acre tract

only three units. Sliding-scale zoning has

shown to be effective in agricultural areas

that are under development pressure. It

allows some development to occur, but

still preserves some farmland, particularly

larger parcels. Adequate buffers must be

established between agricultural and resi-

dential uses.

Large lot zoning has several features that

work well to protect habitat. It prevents

the development of large tracts of open

spaces and agricultural areas. In addition,

it may reduce inflationary land specula-

tion by reducing the prospects for easy

conversions to higher intensity, non-agri-

cultural uses. It is also simple to administer

and involves little cost to government. On

the other hand, large lot zoning can be

harmful to wildlife habitat protection if it

encourages valley floors or watersheds to

be broken up into checkerboards of indi-

vidual lots that ignore habitat values.

Communities that use large lot zoning

techniques to reduce overall densities

should generally offer the alternative of

clustering the same number of homesites

in portions of the area without high habi-

tat value and offer a density bonus for

such clustering. It will often be more eco-

nomical and marketable for a large

landowner to create ten smaller homesites

near existing roads and utility systems

than to create ten large lots scattered

across a valley and have less impact on

wildlife. In addition, communities that

pursue large lot zoning should ensure that

the standards they adopt allow for some

economic use of each parcel of land.

Performance Zoning

Performance zoning regulates development

primarily by limiting development impacts

rather than densities or uses. Such

ordinances may target either a single type

of impact or a broad range of impacts,

such as traffic generation, pollutant emis-

sions, storm water runoff, and open space

preservation. Developments that meet

these standards are allowed regardless of

whether they are residential, commercial,

industrial, or institutional, but even low-

density developments that fail to meet the

standards are prohibited. While perform-

ance zoning regulations have been used

since the 1950s, they have become increas-

ingly popular as local governments have

realized that the impacts of development

are relatively unrelated to the category of

land use.

Performance standards may be expressed

in terms of minimum open space ratios,

maximum vegetation disturbance limits,

maximum noise or glare limits, minimum

contiguous landscaping standards, or

similar standards. Since habitat protection

focuses on the impact of development on

critical areas, performance zoning is

basically well suited to wildlife protection.

Sophisticated performance zoning

ordinances targeting multiple impacts may

incorporate point systems. Development

proposals are assigned point values for

their ability to minimize a variety of

impacts, and all development proposals

must achieve specified minimum scores.

Breckenridge and Boulder, Colorado, are

examples of communities that have

embraced point systems, with emphasis on

protection of environmentally sensitive

areas and promotion of high-quality

development. Performance zoning may

either supplement or replace traditional

zoning regulations. Thus, an overlay zone

district might incorporate performance

standards rather than specific development

requirements. Communities that chose the

performance approach should make a

commitment to careful measurement of

individual impacts of development.

Performance standards have several dis-

tinct advantages over traditional zoning in

some circumstances. They provide oppor-

tunities for developers to design innova-

tive development layouts that can accom-

modate development while attaining

wildlife goals. It does not presume that the

solution contained in a set of physical

zoning regulations is the only way to

achieve the community’s goal.

Subdivision Review Standards

In contrast to zoning regulations,

subdivision approval standards address

primarily the size and shape of lots that

can be made available for development

and the amount of infrastructure that

must be installed before development can

proceed. Although originally designed to

protect consumers from the sale of sub-

standard or undevelopable lots and to

protect the public from low quality devel-

opment, subdivision standards have

expanded to include many restrictions

aimed at controlling the impacts of devel-

opment. Under Colorado law, many con-

trols that could be included in zoning reg-

ulations can also be addressed in

subdivision controls, and vice versa. While

Colorado cities and towns may appoint a

planning commission and adopt

subdivision regulations if they wish,

Colorado counties are required to do both.

Counties do not currently have the power

to directly regulate the subdivision of land

into parcels larger than 35 acres.

In order to protect wildlife habitat, for

example, subdivision standards could

require the use of large lots to limit the

number of people living in the area, or

could prohibit the creation of lots in

sensitive areas. In addition, many modern

subdivision ordinances impose strict

buffering requirements in an attempt to

protect undeveloped areas. Subdivision

regulations could also include standards

requiring that storm drainage be managed

to promote riparian vegetation where

desirable or to avoid disturbing desert

vegetation important to a species.

Similarly, lot size and shape regulations

could be structured so as to minimize the

number of different lots that are laid out

along an important drainage or migration

corridor, because human activity is often

proportionate to the number of houses in

the area.

Land Dedication Requirements

Colorado statutes explicitly authorize

county governments to require landown-

ers to dedicate a portion of their land as

future s c h ool and park sites as a condition

of development. The Colorado and U.S.

Supreme Courts have required that the

required dedications be roughly

p r o po r t i o nal to the impacts of the pro-

posed development. Local gove r n m e n t s

have considerable latitude to designa t e

which land should be designated for future

parks, and to decide whether the appropri-

ate park for that area should be an active

or pa s s i ve area.

Sanctuary Regulations

Legislatively adopted “sanctuaries” is an

increasingly popular tool for existing types

of land use. Many agricultural areas

encounter difficulties when new

development locates nearby. The problems

begin when relatively low land values

attract residential or commercial

development. After construction, new

residents find that the pre-existing

agricultural uses emit odors and stir up

dust. These issues lead to conflict, often

involving expensive litigation, and in

many cases the initial users leave the area

to seek new locations to avoid such con-

flicts and expenses. When the original

agricultural area served as wildlife habitat,

this leaves the habitat open to develop-

ment. Where local governments wish to

retain agricultural and wildlife uses, they

can create sanctuaries that prevent the

encroachment of incompatible uses. “Right

to operate” provisions in such sanctuary

zones immunize local farmers or ranchers

against nuisance claims, rezonings, or

other pressures to require changes in

operations that would be detrimental to

the farm or ranch and might lead it to

stop operations.

The Colorado General Assembly has

adopted a variation of this protection

against nuisance claims by specifying that

an agricultural operation cannot be

defined as a nuisance. More specifically,

“an agricultural operation is not, nor shall

it become, a private or public nuisance by

any changed conditions in or about the

locality of such operation after it has been

in operation for more than one year.”

Local ordinances that define agricultural

operations a nuisance or provide for their

abatement as a nuisance are void24.

An Overall Growth

Management System

Protections for wildlife habitat can also be

integrated into overall growth management

systems through the use of urban growth

boundaries, targeted growth strategies, and

capital improvement programs. Again,

because these tools generally address

growth patterns in an entire jurisdiction,

they are good examples of landscape-scale

protection tools.

• Urban Growth Boundaries

The use of growth boundaries allow cities to

guide new development patterns by direct-

ing urban services to such areas and

withholding them from others. In particu-

lar, communities with urban growth

boundaries can ensure that those bound-

aries do not include sensitive habitat areas.

If they do, then the city or town may want

to re-think where it wants to install

infrastructure so as to avoid habitat areas

that it wants to protect.

The regional government for the Portland,

Oregon, Metropolitan Area has delineated

an urban growth boundary administered

by local governments in compliance with

state legislation. This program has proven

generally successful in confining growth to

the areas within the boundary. Within the

boundary, development has often bypassed

previously “urbanized” areas and located in

outlying “urbanizable areas”, but the

program has been generally successful at

containing leapfrog development, preserving

more outlying areas for agricultural and

other less intensive uses, and maintaining

order in metropolitan growth patterns.

Some communities have established urban

growth boundaries even without a

statewide mandate. Boulder, Colorado delin-

eated boundaries for the extension of urban

services and has worked with the County to

channel growth to areas adjacent to already

developed areas. This method precludes

development and costly service extensions in

the mountainous areas bordering the city.

• Targeted Growth Strategies

Another similar approach is that of

designating development areas to which

new growth is targeted within a region. A

targeted growth system could reduce

development in large areas of a county or

region where sensitive habitat areas exist.

One recent example comes out of the

MetroVision 2020 Task Force of the Denver

Regional Council of Governments. As an

alternative to dispersed development pat-

terns that may result as the region adds a

predicted 900,000 people over the next 25

years, the MetroVision 2020 Task Force has

recommended consideration of development

of satellite cities where growth would be

channeled. These satellite cities that could be

existing communities or new planned

communities would be physically separated

from the central urban area by open space

or undeveloped land. Other urban growth

would be limited to existing cities and

already approved master planned

communities. In some cases, this would

tend to preserve contiguous areas of habitat

and/or wildlife corridors between the

settlement centers.

In general, targeted growth arrangements

cannot be effective as habitat protection

tools unless they involve the cooperation of

at least the county government or a region-

al planning area. Although individual

cities and towns can protect limited areas

within their borders, efforts to protect near-

by areas will always be subject to develop-

ment permitted by the county or an adja-

cent city or town.

• Capital Improvements Programming

In addition to urban growth boundaries

and targeted growth schemes, Colorado’s

local governments can incorporate wildlife

protection goals into their capital

improvements programs and budgets. In

many jurisdictions around the country, a

strong relationship has been shown between

the presence of infrastructure and

development of the land. Local governments

can effectively discourage the development of

habitat areas by not planning for or

budgeting for water or sewer lines or roads

in the area, and by discouraging the cre-

ation of special districts to finance those ele-

ments of infrastructure. Since the creation of

all water, wastewater, and metropolitan dis-

tricts is subject to the approval of either the

county or city government in which it is

located, local governments can prevent the

creation of infrastructure financing districts

by withholding that approval.

Coordination with Other Land

Development Codes

Wildlife habitat protection does not exist

in a vacuum. It must be consistent with,

and reflected in, the other local govern-

ment land use control systems. In addition

to the types of zoning, subdivision, and

growth management controls described

above, wildlife protection standards must

be coordinated with street and access

codes, annexation policies, and environ-

mental control systems. Street design codes

should be drafted to allow smaller and less

disruptive streets near wildlife areas, and

to allow alternative access patterns direct-

ing traffic movements to less sensitive

areas. Local annexation policies should

reinforce habitat protection by providing

that annexation or development agree-

ments must be consistent with wildlife

protection plans and regulations, and to

discourage the extension of utilities into

sensitive areas. Unless all of a city’s or

county’s land use controls work together

to treat habitat areas in a consistent way,

they will probably not be effective.

A second important category of tools for

implementing habitat protection is

i n c e n t i ves. Many local governments tha t

are reluctant to adopt land use regula t i o n s ,

are willing to adopt incentives. With careful

attention, incentives can sometimes be as

e f f e c t i ve, or even more effective tha n

r e g u lations. When crafting an incentive

approach to wildlife habitat, how e ve r, it is

i m portant to ensure that the incentive s

offered to enhance wildlife do not

undermine other important community

goals. Once again, habitat protection doe s

not exist in a vacuum, and loc a l

g overnment incentive programs need to be

integrated as carefully as its regula t o r y

programs.

Density Bonuses

Perhaps the most common form of

incentive is development density bonuses.

In these programs, the local government

offers landowners a chance to construct

more residential or commercial

development on their land if they will take

certain actions to promote wildlife. The

required actions can include locating

development outside of prime habitat

areas, implementing groundwater runoff

controls to avoid erosion into streams

used by wildlife, planting specific types of

vegetative cover that attract (or repel)

wildlife, or avoiding glare and traffic

movements near wildlife areas or corri-

dors. The amount of additional develop-

ment density allowed should vary

depending on the importance and difficul-

ty of the landowner’s actions to promote

wildlife, but are commonly in the range of

a 25 to 50 percent bonus. Larger bonuses

may create fairly significant development

impacts and may raise questions about the

rationale behind the base zoning density.

Care should be taken to avoid granting

incentives that result in additional wildlife

impacts that are greater than the benefit

gained by the landowner’s habitat protec-

tion measures.

Clustering

A second form of incentive is cluster

zoning, which provides flexibility for

developers to construct buildings in clus-

ters while remaining within the constraints

of overall average density restrictions.

Under cluster zoning, maximum densities

are calculated not for individual lots, but

for overall development areas. Rather than

requiring uniform intervals between

building sites, such ordinances often waive

minimum lot size and dimension

requirements to allow tight clusters of

buildings in some areas, with other por-

tions of the parcel set aside for open space

or habitat uses. Often, the local govern-

ment imposes a requirement that cluster-

ing cannot occur unless most or all of the

land that is left undeveloped is protected

from future development through the use

of a conservation easement or deed

restriction. In other cases, the government

reserves site plan review authority over

the clustered d e velopment to ensure tha t

the layout, visibility, and design do not cre-

ate negative impacts on the area. Cluster

zoning concepts are widely used to pe r m i t

d e velopment while setting aside areas for

the preservation of sensitive areas, such as

forested areas, wildlife habitat, wetla n d s ,

agricultural areas, and other such

resources. While some cities and counties

a l l ow clustering throughout their jurisdic-

tion, others target the tool where it is pa r-

t i c u larly important to protect sensitive la n d

or habitat.

Transferable Development Rights

A third form of development incentive for

habitat protection is density transfers,

which are usually implemented through a

Transferable Development Rights (TDR)

program. Density transfers involve the

shifting of permissible development densi-

ties from unsuitable development areas to

more appropriate sites; in this case from

important habitat areas to less important

areas. Under this concept, the local

government studies and designates

appropriate “sending” and “receiving” areas

on a map. A participating landowner in a

sending area transfers development rights

to another landowner in a receiving area,

who increases his or her development

rights in that area beyond what would

otherwise be possible. In general, the price

of development rights being transferred is

left to the private market, and the local

government does not try to affect that

price one way or another.

The success of the program in protecting

wildlife habitat will depend in large part in

the careful ba lancing of opportunities in

sending and receiving areas, so tha t

e x c e s s i ve sending areas do not flood the

market and restrictive receiving areas do

not limit the usability of the credits for sa l e .

Importantly, TDR programs seldom work

if the underlying zoning is too generous

with development density, because neither

potential buyers nor potential buyers of

transferable rights have any incentive to

participate.

Grants and Loans

Local governments can make grants or

loans to support the acquisition or

management of important wildlife areas, to

promote wildlife education, and complete

wildlife inventories. In the alternative, the

local government can apply to the state

and federal governments or to non-profit

foundations and associations for money

to fund such grants.

In addition, grant and loan programs can

sometimes be used to supplement

regulatory tools. At the same time they

can change their regulations regarding

land development, and some communities

make financial resources available to help

landowners cover the added cost of

complying with those regulations.

Grants and loans have several advantages

as a habitat protection tool. Their effect

can be direct and immediate. Development

proposals can be changed, information

can be collected, and education efforts can

begin. In addition, public loans and grants

can often be used as matching funds to

obtain additional private investment or

financing. A little seed money can go a

long way towards a long-term financing

solution. They can also make the adoption

of new regulations more politically

acceptable by giving the public an easy

means to comply with them. Revolving

loan funds can go further by allowing a

fixed amount of government seed money

to be used over and over again as the

recipients repay the loans.

Preferential Tax Treatment

A fifth form of incentives to preserve

habitat is preferential tax treatment.

Although Colorado’s system of prope r t y

assessment and taxation is regulated by

the General Assembly and by constitu-

t i o nal provisions such as the TA BOR and

G a l lagher amendments, there are still

some opportunities for local gove r n m e n t s

to craft incentives for preservation of

i m portant lands.

• Use Assessments

Where potential profits motivate landown-

ers to convert low-density land uses to high-

er intensities, or to convert important habi-

tat areas into intensive development areas,

preferential tax programs can counter these

motives by providing incentives to maintain

existing low intensity uses. One of the most

important forms of preferential taxation is

current use assessments. Local governments

levy real property taxes against the assessed

value of property. Under standard practice,

tax assessors determine value based upon

the “highest and best use” of a property,

which reflects the highest potential use of

such property. Current use assessments alter

assessment practices by requiring

assessments to reflect actual current uses

rather than prospective potential uses.

Where development pressures create higher

property values and tax burdens, current

use assessments provide tax relief to

landowners who choose to continue agricul-

tural, forestry, rangeland, or other low-den-

sity uses that are consistent with continued

habitat value. The Colorado Constitution

provides a preferential tax system to encour-

age continued agricultural land uses.

Another application of the current use

assessment concept allows pri v a t e

landowners to contract with govern m e n t

agencies to restrict the use of their properties.

S u ch agreements limit the range of potential

highest and best uses, thereby decreasing the

assessed value of the properties and

providing tax relief to landowners who agree

to such restrictions. Often, this can be done

through a conservation easement or deed

r e s t riction as well as through a development

agreement. Because use assessments are

granted based on the use of a specific parcel

of land, they work as a site level habitat

protection.

• Tax Credits

Another tax incentive approach that has

proven to be successful in preserving open

space involves offering income tax credits for

the value of approved conservation

easements. Federal tax deductions are

available for donations of qualifying open

space or open space easements to non-profit

organizations. This tool is frequently used

by private land trusts and is discussed in

more detail below. In general, preferential

tax systems present an equitable way to

encourage open space or low density uses by

requiring tax assessments to reflect current

rather than prospective values. They also

help accomplish land conservation goals

without the use of regulations. Conversely,

most preferential tax systems cannot delay

development pressure indefinitely. Potential

profits from the development of habitat

land can easily outweigh the benefits of a

property tax break. Where there is no

recapture provision, as in Colorado,

preferential taxes may reward land

speculators and developers by lowering

holding costs until the development market

creates sufficient profit incentives for

conversion to nonagricultural uses. Finally,

such tax systems do create indirect public

costs in the form of foregone tax revenues.

Since tax credits for easements depend on

the specific parcel of land involved, they are

primarily a site level tool.

One of the most effective ways of

preserving wildlife habitat is to purchase it.

L ocal ownership often simplifies

m a nagement decisions and provides a

r e la t i vely permanent way to protect the

habitat. Government acquisition strategies

can be used effectively as a supplement to

r e g u lations, espe c ially where control of the

land is necessary to prohibit essentially all

d e velopment in sensitive environmental

areas or to prohibit general public access

for recreational and other purposes. Wh i l e

r e g u latory protection programs must leave

an economic use of the land for the ow n e r,

g overnment ownership removes tha t

obstacle, because the government is

e s s e n t ially agreeing to use the land for

non-economic purposes. Thus, when

communities be l i e ve that the only way to

protect habitat is to prevent virtually all

use of the area, they should consider fee or

d e velopment rights acquisition programs.

Ownership programs generally fall into

two categories. First, some programs seek

to buy the land itself, which are often

called “fee ownership” programs. The sec-

ond type of program seeks to buy the

rights to develop the land into uses incon-

sistent with its role as wildlife habitat, and

are often called “sellback”, “leaseback”, or

“development rights” programs. Local

communities interested in obtaining land

or development rights for habitat preser-

vation should also think about incentives

that may be available to induce the

landowner to donate the land to the com-

munity or to a third party who will man-

age it. Often, such donations can be a way

for wealthy landowners to obtain a valu-

able tax deduction. The local government

can also agree to name the protected habi-

tat area in honor of the landowner making

the donation.

Because acquisition programs focus on the

need to acquire specific areas of land and

the value of that land, they are often

thought of as site level tools. However, if

the community pursues a consistent strat-

egy to acquire lots of land or development

rights in a defined habitat area, the result

can be a very effective landscape level

protection.

• Fee Simple Purchase

Ownership of land includes rights of

possession, access, exclusion, disposition,

and rights to specified uses such as mining,

hunting, or development. Where one party

owns the entire bundle of these rights, that

party owns the land “in fee simple.”

Acquisition of land in fee simple gives the

purchaser full title to and possession of all

rights associated with the purchased

property, subject only to the constraints

imposed by nuisance laws and valid public

regulations including zoning and

subdivision. Fee simple ownership provides

the simplest and most effective means of

implementing habitat control: the

government owns the land, controls its

development, redevelopment, preservation,

and access. Once the government entity

assumes fee simple ownership, it has a

broad range of options: The government

may reconvey selected interests in the land,

restrict future uses of the land, lease the

land, or otherwise control the bundle of

property rights in a manner consistent with

its habitat objectives.

• Integration into Park and Open Space

Purchase Programs

Many Colorado communities already have

a program in place for the acquisition of

open space for parks and trails. Most often,

such programs are included in the city,

town, or county’s regular capital

improvements programming, where they

must compete with other pressing needs for

public investment. In other cases such as

Boulder, Jefferson, and Douglas Counties,

the voters of the county have approved a

separate tax to fund a free-standing open

space acquisition program that does not

need to compete for scarce public monies.

Where such programs exist, it may be

possible to expand them to include the

acquisition of important habitat lands

merely by amending the list of eligible types

of land and criteria for the selection of habi-

tat lands. In many cases, this expansion

would be consistent with the intent of the

existing program, and would not require

the creation and funding of an open space

program specifically designed for wildlife. In

cases where open space purchase programs

have been approved through voter

referendums, however, great care should be

taken to ensure that an expansion of the

program is clearly consistent with the

referendum approved by the voters.

• Sellbacks and Leasebacks

Once the government owns the land,

however, it does not need to retain

ownership of all of the bundle of sticks in

order to protect wildlife habitat. It can use

its position as the owner of the land to facil-

itate the rezoning of the land or to impose

negative easements, deed restrictions, or

development agreements, and then resell the

land to a third party. This is known as a

“purchase and sellback” transaction.

Alternatively, a city or county government

could purchase the property and then lease

it to a third party subject to conditions and

restrictions as provided in the lease. This is

known as a “purchase and leaseback”.

• Purchase “Triggers”: Options and Rights of

First Refusal

Just as the local government may not need

to keep ownership of the entire fee interest

in land to achieve its goals, it may not need

to purchase the property at all until an

alternative use or sale of the land is

contemplated. Purchase “triggers” apply the

basic concept of purchase options in real

estate transactions — they provide a means

for a potential purchaser to “tie up” a

property without actually buying it. By

purchasing an option on property, a

potential purchaser reserves the exclusive

right to purchase the property within a spec-

ified time period, or in the event that certain

events happen. A related tool is a “right of

first refusal”, under which the local govern-

ment entity pays for a first right to pur-

chase a property if the property is to be sold.

The buyer of a right of first refusal often

does not need to negotiate a price in

advance, but is obligated to match a bone

fide offer submitted by another potential

purchaser. This avoids the difficulty of

valuing habitat land now, but does protect

the seller against having to sell at a bar-

gain price when there is a better offer from

another potential buyer. Because right of

first refusal programs leave the potential

purchase price for the land to be determined

by a third party, they may create problems

for local governments that need predictable

costs in order to meet their budget con-

straints and funding cycles. To avoid this

problem, local governments that want to tie

down the price of a future purchase now

should instead buy an option or execute a

right of first refusal with a clear statement

of the agreed upon price

• Life Estates

In some cases, a Colorado town, city, or

county may be able to achieve its wildlife

habitat goals through the acquisition of life

estates in important lands. Not infrequently,

the owners of agricultural or ranch lands

would prefer not to develop their lands and

would like to see the farm or ranch remain

intact as long as possible. However, many

of these same owners would like to be able

to pass their land on to their children for

them to do with as they wish. For that rea-

son, they are unwilling to grant easements

or impose deed restrictions or covenants that

would bind their children in their use and

disposition of the land. In those

circumstances, and if prime habitat areas or

corridors are involved, the local government

may want to purchase a life estate in the

land and lease the property back to the cur-

rent owner at roughly the same cost. The

terms of the transaction allow the

government to control the use of the land

during the owner’s lifetime, but terminate

that control at the time of the owner’s

death. Even though the land could be put to

incompatible uses some time in the future,

the purchase of a life estate can buy time for

the local community to consider follow-up

steps and/or to raise money for the eventual

purchase of the property. Again, since life

estates are negotiated for specific parcels of

land, the purchase of a life estate is consid-

ered a site level protection tool.

• Easements and Purchases of Development

Rights

Easements can be viewed as just a few of

the bundle of rights that are included in fee

simple ownership. They constitute severable

interests in land. The severable nature of

easements allows a landowner to convey or

reserve specific rights associated with a

property apart from the right to poses and

use the land in general. By applying the

law of easements, local governments can

control land development without buying

the fee simple interest in the habitat land

itself. Easements and development rights

programs are essentially programs enabling

the local governments to pay landowners to

forgo certain land development rights, and

documenting the transfer of those

development rights to the government.

• Land Dedications and Impact Fees

Land dedications are conveyances of land

from a private owner to a local government

either voluntarily, or to offset the anticipat-

ed impacts of a proposed development. An

increasing number of Colorado local

governments are imposing land dedication

requirements or fees-in-lieu of dedication as

conditions for permit approvals. State

statutes explicitly authorize Colorado’s

county governments to impose land

dedication requirements or fees-in-lieu for

parks and schools, and a large number of

home rule municipalities impose similar

requirements.

• Land Trades

Local governments should always consider

whether the most cost-effective way to

acquire habitat lands may be to trade other

lands owned by the government and no

longer needed for their original purposes. In

the course of time, many towns and

counties discover that they have an

inventory of land parcels in or near

developed areas that the government no

longer needs. Instead of selling those parcels

on the open market, the government may

want to consider a trade for habitat lands

further away. In cases where the current

owner of the habitat lands is holding it for

future development, a potential trade for

land nearer to water and sewer lines and

market demands may be very attractive.

Often, Colorado’s local governments may

find opportunities to protect quality

wildlife habitat through negotiations with

individual la n d owners at the time when

s pecific development propo sals are brought

forward. The most flexible technique for

doing so is a development agreement.

Colorado statutes specifically allow cities

and counties within the state to enter into

d e velopment agreements obligating bo t h

the government and the la n d owner to

carry out certain actions in order to “ve s t ”

a preferred development plan for a desig-

nated pe r i od of time. De velopment agree-

ments can give the la n d owner more cer-

tainty that the government will not act to

d e lay or deny the development activity for

a pe r i od longer than the statutory pe r i od

of three years. In return, the local gove r n-

ment can ask the la n d owner to design and

o perate the proposed development in way s

t hat will protect or even enhance the exist-

ing wildlife habitat on the prope r t y.

Because they are negotiated on a project-

by-project basis, development agreements

can be an effective site scale tool for ha b i-

tat protection.

1 See Christopher J. Duerksen and Richard J. Roddewig, Taking Law in Plain English, The

American Resources Information Network, 1994.

2 49 U.S.C. 303.

3 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.

4 See David Salvesen, "Banking on Wetlands", Urban Land (June 1993).

5 7 CFR 703.

6 7 CFR 704 (1985-1990); 7 CFR 1410 (1990-1995).

7 Arthur Allen, "Agricultural Ecosystems" in Our Living Resources, U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC 1995.

8 110 Stat. 888; April 4, 1996.

9 Bruce A. Stein, "Significance of Federal Lands for Endangered Species" in Our Living

Resources, U.S. De partment of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington DC 1995.

10 See Bruce Blanchard, Wildlife in a Changing World: Urban Challenges for the Fish and

Wildlife Service, in Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments 15, (Lowell W.

Adams and Daniel L. Leedy, eds., Nat. Inst. for Urban Wildlife 1990)

11 See J. David Almand, A New Era for Fish and Wildlife in the BLM, in Wildlife

Conservation in Metropolitan Environments 21, (Lowell W. Adams and Daniel L. Leedy,

eds., Nat. Inst. for Urban Wildlife 1990)

12 Article XXVII, Colo. Constitution; C.R.S. 33-60-101 et. seq.

13 See, Colorado Private Land Habitat Programs, Colorado Division of Wildlife, April 1996.

1 4 See Steven J. Bissell et. al., The Use of Zoning Ordinances in the Protection and De ve l o p m e n t

of Wildlife Habitat, in Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment 37,

( L owell W. Adams and Daniel L. Leedy, eds., Nat. Inst. for Ur ban Wildlife 1986)

15 Robert E. Coughlin, Diana C. Mendes, and Ann L. Strong, Private Trees and Public

Interest: Programs for Protecting and Planting Trees in Metropolitan Areas, Research

Report Series No. 10, University of Pennsylvania Department of City and Regional

Planning (1984).

16 See Michael A. Aurelia, The Role of Wetland Regulation in Preserving Wildlife Habitat in

Suburban Environments, in Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan

Environment 213, (Lowell W. Adams and Daniel L. Leedy, eds., Nat. Inst. for Urban

Wildlife 1986).

17 Linda Sikorowski, Steven J. Bissell, and Jim Jones, "Conservation Techniques in Land

Conversions" in County Government and Wildlife Management" A Guide to Cooperative

Habitat Development, Linda Sikorowski and Steven J. Bissell, ed., Colorado Division of

Wildlife (Denver, 1986).

18 Ibid., pages X28-X29.

19 Ibid., pages X22-X24.

20 See John L. Lyle and Ronald D. Quinn, Ecological Corridors in Urban Southern

California, in Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments 105, (Lowell W. Adams

and Daniel L. Leedy, eds., Nat. Inst. for Urban Wildlife 1990).

pikes peak multi use plan

Documents