September 1999Prepared by:Design Workshop, Inc.1390 Lawrence Street, Suite 200Denver, Colorado 80204Prepared for:Colorado Springs Utilities30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 703Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903U.S. Forest ServicePikes Peak Ranger District601 South Weber StreetColorado Springs, Colorado 80903Funded in part by:Great Outdoors Colorado
Colorado Springs Utilities - Water ResourcesU.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger DistrictBureau of Land ManagementEl Paso CountyTeller CountyColorado Division of WildlifeColorado State Forest ServiceCity of Manitou SpringsCity of Woodland ParkTown of Cripple CreekTown of Green Mountain FallsTown of VictorPikes Peak - America’s MountainColorado Springs ParksLead ConsultantsDesign Workshop, Inc.DenverSub ConsultantsThomas and ThomasColorado SpringsColorado Natural Heritage ProgramFort CollinsFelsburg Holt & UllevigDenverMontgomery WatsonDenverErik OlgeirsonDenverCTMBoulderBlack & Veatch
........................................i.........................................................1Project Context and SignificanceManaging PartnersVisionGoalsDocument Organization and Intended Use.........................................9Public Involvement OrganizationInventory and AnalysisProgram DefinitionAlternative DesignsPreferred AlternativeMaster Plan Documentation.............................37Regional ConceptsProjectsResource Elements
....................73Leaders of the VisionManaging PartnersNon-Profit FoundationLand Use Management StrategyLandscape Management Guidelines.................99Implementation PrioritiesPlan Adoption and ApprovalCooperative Working AgreementsTools for Resource Protection.................................................................117
Source: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water ResourcesA-1 Framework Diagram.................................................................................iiA-2 CAG Summary of Confidence Survey........................................iiiA-3 Colorado Springs Local Connections to RegionalConcepts..........................................................................................................ivA-4 Management Objectives for Stream Crossings......................iv1-1 Managing Partners Collaboration....................................................41-2 Ownership and Jurisdiction Zones.................................................52-1 The Planning Process.............................................................................102-2 Opportunity Map - Stewardship Issues...................................172-3 Opportunity Map - Community Issues...................................182-4 Opportunity Map - Economic Issues........................................192-5 Carrying Capacity Map........................................................................202-6 Land Uses and Capacity Fit Modified Delphi SurveyResults..............................................................................................................21
2-7 Weighted Capacity Criteria.................................................................212-8 Alternative A - Stewardship Scenario........................................222-9 Alternative B - Community/Recreation Scenario...............232-10 Alternative C - Economic Scenario..............................................242-11 Charrette Program Assignments Matrix....................................252-12 Alternative Synthesis..............................................................................262-13 AB Alternative Futures Scenario....................................................262-14 BC Alternative Futures Scenario....................................................272-15 Resource Impact Analysis Survey.................................................302-16 CAG Summary of Confidence Survey.......................................312-17 Model Comparison Matrix................................................................363-1 Framework Diagram..............................................................................383-2 Limited Use Areas Context Map....................................................393-3 Restoration Zones Context Map....................................................393-4 Buffer Zones Context Map.................................................................403-5 Gateways Context Map........................................................................403-6 Scenic Loop Context Map..................................................................413-7 Access Portals Context Map..............................................................413-8 Perimeter Loop Trail Context Map...............................................423-9 Recreation Use Centers Context Map.........................................423-10 Recreation Use Center and Locations.........................................423-11 Interpretive Centers Context Map.................................................433-12 Interpretive Centers and Locations...............................................433-13 Alternative Routes to the Summit.................................................443-14 Regional Visitors Center Context Map.......................................453-15 Manitou Springs Gateway Context Map.................................463-16 Manitou Springs Gateway Local Connections to RegionalConcepts.........................................................................................................463-17 Cascade Gateway Context Map......................................................473-18 Cascade Gateway Local Connections to RegionalConcepts.........................................................................................................47
3-19 Green Mountain Falls Gateway Context Map......................483-20 Green Mountain Falls Gateway Local Connections toRegional Concepts...................................................................................483-21 Woodland Park Gateway Context Map....................................493-22 Woodland Park Gateway Local Connections to RegionalConcepts.........................................................................................................493-23 Colorado Springs Gateway Context Map................................503-24 Colorado Springs Gateway Local Connections toRegional Concepts...................................................................................303-25 Cripple Creek & Victor Gateway Context Map...................513-26 Cripple Creek & Victor Gateway Local Connections toRegional Concepts...................................................................................513-27 Divide Gateway Context Map.........................................................523 - 28 Divide Gateway Local Connections to Re g i o na lC o n c e p t s. ..................................................................................................523-29 Gillett Gateway Context Map...........................................................533 - 30 Gillett Gateway Local Connections to Re g i o na lC o n c e p t s. ...............................................................................................533-31 Chipita Park Portal Context Map..................................................543-32 Chipita Park Portal Local Connections to RegionalConcepts.........................................................................................................543-33 Catamount Ranch Open Space Portal Context Map.......543-34 Expanded Barr Camp Portal Context Map.............................553-35 Crags Campground Portal Context Map..................................553-36 Mueller State Park Portal Context Map....................................553-37 South Slope Portal Context Map...................................................563-38 Limited Use Areas off the Trail Corridor..................................563-39 Wye Campground Portal Context Map....................................563-40 Backcountry Portal Context Map..................................................573-41 Cheyenne Canyon Portal Context Map....................................583-42 Gold Camp Road Context Map.....................................................583-43 Pikes Peak Highway Context Map................................................59
4-1 Recommended Management Structure......................................764-2 Potential Land Use in Carrying Capacity Zones..................794-3 Wetland Types and their Locations..............................................814-4 Management Objectives for Stream Crossings.....................844-5 Stream-side Plant Communities.....................................................844-6 Wildlife and Trails Checklist..............................................................874-7 Potential Conservation Areas...........................................................914-8 Bridge Construction in Floodplains.............................................924-9 Standards for Single Lane Packed Gravel/Dirt Road.......944-10 Trail Construction....................................................................................945-1 Local Jurisdictions and Agencies Context Map.................1045-2 Responsibility Matrix..........................................................................1055-3 Examples of a Signage Program..................................................1085-4 Funding Sources Legend for Acronyms.................................116
Source: Design Workshop, Inc.Pikes Peak Regional Vision Plan............................................after page 38Carrying Capacity Map................................................................after page 76Potential Wetlands...........................................................................after page 80Riparian Vegetation Areas..........................................................after page 84Wildlife Values....................................................................................after page 88Floodplain.............................................................................................after page 90Erosion Potential..............................................................................after page 92Fire and Hazard................................................................................after page 94Unique Natural Communities.................................................after page 98Funding Sources Matrix...........................................................after page 116
Source: Design Workshop, Inc.Pikes Peak is a public landscape of national prominence in which a balancebetween preservation of critical water and other natural resources, and desires forrecreational access demanded a comprehensive regional planning effort. The localdivision of the U.S. Forest Service, Pikes Peak Ranger District, and Colorado SpringsUtilities recognized the need for a balance, and as co-stewards of Pikes Peak, arecognizant of the need to balance the demands for recreation and access with theresponsibility to prevent further loss and degradation of the mountain’s naturalresources. For this reason, the planning intentions, approach and products for thePikes Peak Multi-Use Plan are based on strong public involvement to achieve a newstandard. The effort to develop the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan was directed by theManaging Partners, a group composed of all resource management agencies andlocal municipalities throughout the 168 square mile planning area. The ManagingPartners are listed below. The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is a long-range vision thatwill continually be updated overtime so that it remains useful and correct.The process succeeded at engaging unprecedented public participation through theCitizen's Advisory Group (CAG) scheduled public meetings. Complex resourceplanning issues were addressed by a Technical Advisory Group of local resource
A detailed inventory of natural andcultural resources, the Pikes Peak Atlas,was collected and published to readilyFigure A-2CAG Summary of Confidence SurveyQuestionYesanswer complex questions. Asophisticated analysis process definedmost appropriate locations forrecreational, economic andenvironmental stewardship uses ando p portunities. A Carrying Capa c i t ya nalysis defined the ability of thela n d s c a pe to support these multiple la n duses. The Carrying Capacity Map is at ool for long-range mana g e m e n t .• 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%The development of the Pikes PeakRegional Vision Plan included creatingand testing a range of future scenariosand a refinement process thatconsidered both public desires andpotential impacts. Public satisfactionwith the final Regional Vision Plan wasevaluated by giving a ConfidenceSurvey to the Citizen's Advisory Group.While the composition of the CAGincluded diverse interests such as theSierra Club and motorized trailadvocates, 94 percent responded thatthe plan was a good or very goodrepresentation of the group’s input. Allmajor concepts in the Regional VisionPlan were publically evaluated for theirappropriateness and the average for allconcepts combined was an 86 percent• 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%approval by the CAG. The confidencesurvey results are shown in Figure A-2.To ensure that the Regional Vision Planwill be implemented and managedeffectively, research determined the mostappropriate management model basedon advantages and disadvantages ofseveral model types. A prioritized list ofprojects has been developed thatincluded potential implementation
Figure A-3Colorado Springs LocalConnections to Regional ConceptsSource: Thomas & ThomasFigure A-4Management Objectives forStream CrossingsSource: Design Workshop, Inc.participants. A tool kit ofimplementation mechanisms arediscussed outlining federal, state andlocal scales of implementation.The Regional Vision Plan includes botha map depicting the physicalcomponents as well as a description foreach major potential project and how itcontributes to the whole vision, a VisitorCenter, Scenic Loop, Perimeter LoopTrail, Gateway Portals. Interpretive andRecreation Use Centers and alternativeroutes to the Peak. Projects at the localscale provide detail that identifies thelocal implication of these majorpotential projects. These projects mayrequire a National EnvironmentalProtection Agency (NEPA) process anddocumentation. Community parks andtrail plans have been represented todemonstrate the opportunities for everycommunity to connect existing facilitieswith the Regional Vision Plan. Figure A-3 shows connections between localfacilities and the Regional Vision Plan.The Management Strategy begins with arecommended management framework:a hybrid of the Non-Profit andIndependent Model. The variousManaging Partners would continue tomanage their lands independently whilebeing supported by a non-profitorganization focused on coordinationand implementation of the RegionalVision Plan.To facilitate common managementobjectives for both public and privatelands, the remaining managementchapter discusses landscapemanagement guidelines. These issuesinclude: Wetlands, Riparian Areas,Wildlife, Erosion Prone Areas, Fire
Hazard Areas and Conservation. As anexample, management objectives forwetlands are illustrated in Figure A-4.the recognized need to continue and insome cases increase the protection ofs e n s i t i ve natural resources that be n e f i tboth recreationists and the surroundingu r ban communities. As the region’spo p u lation continues to increase,recreation and natural resourceprotection needs must workThe Implementation Strategy beginswith a prioritized list of concepts andprojects to make this Multi-Use Planattainable. These implementationpriorities become the action stepsneeded to achieve the Regional VisionPlan. A discussion of each project isfollowed by a potential list ofparticipating agencies and jurisdictions.symbiotically to find new solutions andi n n ov a t i ve colla boration. Second, theprimary land owners of the Pikes Pe a kregion, Colorado Springs Utilities andthe U.S. Forest Service Pikes Pe a kRanger District recognized the Multi-Use Plan must be genuinely informedby the stakeholders and surroundingcommunities for the Plan to be via b l eat all governing leve l s .Various implementation tools fromfederal, state and local agencies aresuggested with detailed informationprovided in the Appendix. Potentialfunding sources based upon the type ofdevelopment considered is included.The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is theresult of a concerted effort by thenatural resource and recreationstewards of the Pikes Peak region, theM a naging Partners of this Plan. Th e i rforesight was two-fold. First, thecontinued increased use of the Pe a k ’ sr e c r e a t i o nal opportunities cha l l e n g e s
Source: The Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors BureauThe allure and beauty of Pikes Peak has been well known andd ocumented since Zebulon Pike “discovered” the peak in 1806. Th e“great shining peak” was known to numerous indian tribes for twohundredyears prior to the coming of the white man. Demands onthe resources of “America’s Mountain,” like America’s po p u la t i o n ,are escalating -- demands for greater access, increased commercia land residential development, and more recreational opportunities.The local division of the U.S. Forest Service, Pikes Peak RangerDistrict and Colorado Springs Utilities recognize these pressures,and as co-stewards of the majority of the land in the Pikes Peakregion, are cognizant of the need to balance the demands forrecreation and access with the responsibility to prevent further lossand degradation of the mountain’s natural resources.The Pikes Peak Multi-Use planning process strives to achieve aba lance between the demands for recreation and preservation of
critical water and natural resources. Th ep u r pose of the study is to establish avision and a set of guidelines that directsand maintains a program that will preve n tdamage to the existing natural resources.The mission of this endeavor is toc o n s e r ve Pikes Peak, while enabling prudentrecreation use which does not causeloss, decay, waste or injury to its resources.of the ancestral Rocky Mountainslocated 30 to 50 miles to the west of themodern-day Rockies, stopped rising.Ancient rivers began to carry rocks anddebris from the shrinking mountain,distributing them in alluvial fans overthe area where Colorado Springs istoday. A great sea covered Colorado forthe next 150 million years. Then,Pikes Peak from Garden of the God s .Source: The Colorado Springs Convention and Vi s i t o r sB u r e a uapproximately 60 million years ago, theRockies arose again and as a massivedome grew at the site of Pikes Peak, itThis plan is a managementtool for use inaddressing environmentalstewardship, watershedquality and conservation,recreation managementand urban growth.DENVERStudy Area Context MapSource: Design Workshop, Inc.COLORADOSPRINGSPikes Peak, the inspiration for America TheBeautiful, is located west of ColoradoSprings. It is surrounded by urban andnatural areas. The Pikes Peak planningarea totals approximately 168 squaremiles, from Colorado Springs to CrippleCreek. The U.S. Forest Service Pikes PeakRanger District, Bureau of LandManagement, Colorado Springs Utilities,Colorado State Land Board and privateland owners all have property withinthe study area. From the summit,Denver is visible 70 miles to the north.To the south, the Spanish Peaks andSangre de Cristo Mountains can be seen,and to the west, the Sawatch andMosquito Ranges are visible. Geologichistory began approximately 300 millionyears ago when Frontrangia, a segmenttilted the horizontal rock layers along itsedges into vertical slabs, creating themajestic peak we see today.The great droughts of the thirteenthcentury AD forced the Mesa Verdepeople from their cliff dwellings to thenorth in search of water and coolerweather. It is believed that they knewthe “Great Shinning Peak.” They soughtwater and hunting grounds. In theManitou area they found springs withwater and a pass (Ute Pass) that lead toSouth Park where the high, coolpastures supported big buffalo, deer, andelk, and where streams were full ofbeaver and fish.For two hundred years prior to thecoming of the white man, a successionof Indian tribes roamed through the
Pikes Peak region. The Ute Indians werethe first to roam the area in small bandsin search of buffalo for food, clothing,and shelter. When out on the plains theUte Indians retreated from their enemiesto the base of Pikes Peak where theybuilt a series of small forts between BearCreek and Fountain Creek to protecttheir pass into the mountains.Many tribes lived on the plains nearPikes Peak, including the Commanchesand the Kiowa who roamed themountains and the plains. TheCheyenne Indians appeared in thevicinity of Pikes Peak around 1850.Although the Cheyenne traveled overthe plains to hunt buffalo, their favoritecamping ground was along CheyenneCreek, just south of the present City ofColorado Springs.Throughout human history, Pikes Peakhas been recognized as a beacon fororientation and an icon for home. TheUte tribe inhabited the Peak and areassurrounding the Peak uncounted yearsbefore Europeans reached the mountain.It is the focus of their culture.Zebulon Pike was the first whiteexplorer to record a sighting of the Peak,later named in his honor. In November1806, while following the Arkansas Rivereast of present-day Pueblo, he saw whathe described as a “small blue cloud''high above the Plains. The first ascentcame just 14 years later, made by Dr.Edwin James, a botanist with the LongExpedition. In 1859, the mountaingained its enduring place in history. Thegold rush brought thousands of fortunehunters west in Conestoga wagons with"Pikes Peak or Bust" emblazoned on thesides. While most of the flake gold wasactually found 100 miles to the north,near Central City, the rich ores of thePeak proved to be a magnet for wouldbemillionaires. In 1893 Katharine LeeBates penned the now-famous poem,“America the Beautiful,” while teaching atColorado College. By the end of the 19 thCentury, Colorado Springs, ManitouSprings, Cripple Creek and Victor werewell established.Following the designation of vastacerages as the Pikes Peak ForestPreserve (now Pike National Forest),much of the area on the flanks of themountain began to be developed forwater supply collection and storage. U.S.Congress set aside certain lands on PikesPeak in 1913 as a municipal watersupply reserve for the benefit ofColorado Springs and Manitou Springs.Pikes Peak Cog RailroadSource: The Colorado Springs Conventionand Visitors Bureau
Zebulon Pike estimatedthe mountain’s height at20,000 feet (it is actually14,110 feet).Figure 1-1Managing Partners CollaborationSource: Design Workshop, Inc.These were to be administered by theU.S. Forest Service in cooperation withthe Cities for the purposes of storingand conserving the water supply,protecting the lands from pollution, andpreserving the timber on the lands toaccomplish these purposes. Today, theForest Service continues to administerthe lands, in c oo peration with theCities. The focus of this coo pe r a t i veeffort is watershed protection,preservation of wildlife habitat, forestm a nagement, fire management, andm a i n t e nance of the land in its na t u r a lcondition to the extent consistent withthese purpo s e s .The Managing Partners are the clientgroup that guided the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Process and Plan. The Partners areagencies, cities and counties that haveresource responsibility within thedesignated Pikes Peak area or areinfluenced by all activities within thearea. The U.S. Forest Service Pikes PeakRanger District and Colorado SpringsUtilities, champions of the process, hadthe foresight to recognize that the planwould be most appreciated if all vestedPartners of the Pikes Peak area wereinvolved in the process of the plan.Figure 1-1 shows how all ManagingPartners came together to shape thevision of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan.Each Partner is charged with the localimplementation of the concepts andprojects in their jurisdictions.The Partners represent regionalconstituencies that include:• Colorado Springs Utilities - WaterResources• U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak RangerDistrict• Bureau of Land Management• El Paso County• Teller County• Colorado Division of Wildlife
PIKES PEAKProject BoundaryAgencies:Figure 1-2Ownership and Jurisdiction ZonesSource: Design Workshop, Inc.Bureau of Land Management - Royal Gorge Resource Management Plan, 1996State of ColoradoDepartment of DefenseFlorissant Fossil Beds National Monument: General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan, 1985Pike National Forest: PSICCL and Resources Management Plan, 1984County Jurisdictions:El Paso County:Ute Pass Comprehensive Plan, 1982; Policy Plan, 1984 (zoning code regulations and master plan currently being revised); Parks, Trailsand Open Space Master Plan, 1997Fremont County: Fremont County Master Plan, 1990Park County: Park County Comprehensive Plan, 1991; 1041 Resource Overlay Mapping, 1993Teller County: Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan, 1997Local Jurisdictions:Manitou Springs:Rainbow Vision Plan, 2020; Open Space Master Plan, 1997; Woodland Park: City of Woodland Park Master Plan, 1995; Parks, Trails andOpen Space Master Plan, 1997; Colorado Springs: Multi-Use Trails Master Plan, 1986; Cripple Creek; Green Mountain Falls; Victor
After riding a burro upthe Peak in 1886, ZalmonSimmons, founder of theSimmons MattressCompany, said “theremust be a morecomfortable way to reachthe summit of PikesPeak,” and built the cograilway in 1890.• 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 ParksIn many areas of Pikes Peak, theManaging Partners have someoverlapping areas of influence that arejointly managed by the various Partners.Other areas of the Peak have littlemanagement strategy or gaps betweenzones that have no management plan.Figure 1-2 demonstrates zones withinthe Pikes Peak area that are withinvarious jurisdictions and the relatedmanagement plans.planning process that guided anddefined the vision and goals of the PikesPeak Multi-Use Plan. These include:• The watersheds on Pikes Peak andconsequently the health and safety ofColorado Springs, Manitou Springs,Cripple Creek, Victor and Ute Pass citizens,must be protected.• Demands for utilization and preservationshould be balanced to the fullest extentpossible, while conserving the mountain’sr e s o u r c e s .• National forests are mandated by forestland resource plans and federal legislationto allow multi-purpose access.• A sustainable vision should contemplateadequate personnel and budget forresource management and maintenance.• Damaged areas will be restored usingnative vegetation.The Multi-Use Plan defines the visionfor publicly-owned lands and resourceson Pikes Peak. This vision accommoda t e sr e c r e a t i o nal activity while simultaneouslyprotecting natural and cultural resourcesof the mountain for future generations.• All existing plans and projects relevant tothe study area factor into the Pikes PeakMulti-Use Plan.Fly-FishingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.Fundamental issues were used to createa foundation at the beginning of the
Section Two, The Planning Process,These five goals for the Pikes PeakMulti-Use Plan were established by theManaging Partners at the start of theplanning process.1. Determine the impact of growth on thesurrounding communities of Pikes Peak.2. Develop an environmentally-based planthat establishes the preservation of waterquality as its highest priority.3. Develop strategies for balancing thepreservation of the Peak with publicaccess and commercial use.4 . Identify and protect quality wildlife habitat.5. Describe stewardship programs thatencourage the public to behave in waysthat will help preserve existing resources.describes the approach used to accomplishthe Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan,including the Regional Vision Plan, thepublic participation groups and process,and the technical experts involved in thedecision making process.Section Three, The Regional Vision Plan,describes the final plan, its key concepts,specific projects within the Pikes Peakarea and resource elements such aswater resources and transportation.Section Four, Management Strategy,discusses recommended managementstrategies for multi-jurisdictional effortsto attain the vision and managementguidelines for areas that may requirespecific mitigation measures such asriparian corridors, wetlands, fire hazard,unstable slopes, floodways, andconservation zones.Horse Riding through Aspen Grove sSource: Design Workshop, Inc.This document describes the planningprocess utilized to develop the Multi-Use Plan and provides the toolsrequired to accomplish the goalsestablished at the beginning of theprocess.Section Five, Implementation Strategy,describes and identifies methods toimplement the plan, prioritizes theprojects to be implemented, andrecommends a strategy for funding andoutlining responsibilities.The Ap p e n d i x contains pertinent publicpa r t i c i pation information such as the
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 isintended to be used by stakeholders ofthe Pikes Peak region. This includes theManaging Partners, surroundingcommunities and interested citizens. Theplan serves as a defensible foundationthat informs agency- and jurisdictionspecificplans. It is anticipated that theplan may be adopted by municipalitiesand counties, and incorporated into thebody of knowledge used in decisionmakingat the state and federal level.
Source: The Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors BureauPikes Peak is a prominent public landscape. As such, it was important that thePikes Peak planning process center around public outreach and decisionmaking.Several public methods were utilized to facilitate public awareness andinform stakeholders about the planning process and ways in which toparticipate. The two-year effort was structured to facilitate a quality RegionalVision Plan for the Pikes Peak region developed by citizens, governmentagencies and technical experts. Timely and relevant information was providedto all participants in making informed choices and decisions.This Section reviews the planning process, including the citizen and stakeholderinput, and jurisdictional and technical expertise used to develop the fina lRe g i o nal Vision Plan and Multi-Use Plan. Figure 2-1 shows how the pla n n i n gand public processes worked together.
Planning Process• Public I n v o l v e m e n tO r g a n i z a t i o n• Inventory and Analysis• Program Definition• Alternative Designs• Preferred Alternative• Master Plan DocumentationThe initial phase of the planning effortwas dedicated to identifying theprimary issues, individuals and loc a lresources needed to create a defensiblep lan that could be supported by allstakeholders. The establishment of apublic invo l vement process was criticalto legitimize the planning process andincluded:interviews with local leaders and usergrouprepresentatives initiated thep lanning process. Th i r t y - m i n u t einterviews were conducted with theidentified community leaders andr e s ponses were recorded. A completelist of key informant and spe c ia linterest groups that pa r t i c i pated in thisp lanning effort and the findings arel ocated in the Appendix.Key Informants expressed the follow i n gmajor values in the interviews:• Key Informant Interviews• Stakeholder Meetings• Citizens Advisory Group• Technical Advisory Group• Public Surveys• Public Outreach• The mountain area should be managed tocontrol negative impacts.• The mountain is currently an economicasset with continued potential.• Pikes Peak is a spiritual force that affectslife in Colorado Springs.Figure 2-1The Planning ProcessTo help identify primary issues and keypa r t i c i pants, a series of key informant• Recreational uses and cultural resourcesshould be managed.Interviews and MeetingsCitizen’s Advisory GroupTe chnical Advisory GroupSurveysNatural & CulturalFeatures InventoryNeeds AssessmentProgramOpportunity MapsCapacity MapsAlternative FuturesCharretteAlternative RefinementResource ImpactAnalysisConfidence SurveyRegional Vision PlanManagement Strategies
citizens. This group attended more thanInvitations were sent out to more than200 individuals and groups toencourage attendance and participationat the Stakeholder Meeting. In additionto personal invitations, advertisementsin local newspapers encouraged generalpublic involvement. The focus of thismeeting was to recruit citizens for thePikes Peak Citizen’s Advisory Group(CAG): an active working committee thatwould define the Regional Vision Plan.The stakeholder meeting, conducted bythe planning consultant, DesignWorkshop, reviewed the following issuesof the planning process:• Planning Process and Explanation• Project Schedule• Preliminary Goals and Objectives• Anticipated Products of the Planning Effort20 public meetings, over an 18-monthperiod, in an effort to define a regionalvision that was both sustainable andlogical. The planning activities theyaccomplished include:• Refine primary goals and objectives• Refine program list - activities to beconsidered in the region• Learn about various agencies and usergroupperspectives• Identify, refine and locate desired elementsand projects within the region• Define important resource areas that needprotection• Review alternative future scenarios for thePikes Peak regionCitizen’s AdvisoryGroup Worksession.Source: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resources“Everyone’s voice isvalued in this process.”- Vic Eklund, Colorado SpringsUtilities - Water Resources’The CAG played a “hands-on” role inshaping the Regional Vision Plancomponent of the Multi-Use Plan. CAGmembers included a broad range ofusers and stakeholders representing largelandowners, environmental groups,tourism interests, motorized trailproponents, equestrian advocates, hikers,bikers, miners and other interested• Synthesize alternative scenarios into adraft plan• Confirm level of confidence in final planelementsA technical body of local resourceplanners was recruited to help identifychallenges, opportunities and solutions
Citizen’s AdvisoryGroup Worksession.Source: Design Workshop, Inc.Technical Advisory Group Wo r k s e s s i o nSource: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resourcesresulting from the development of acomplex plan for multiple resources anduses. The 14-member group of localresource planners was involved in threeimportant evaluations:• Define cri t e ria for the Opportunity Maps.(See page 16)• Define criteria for the Carrying CapacityMap. (See page 20)• Establish a fit between capacity zones andland uses including the program list forPikes Peak. (See page 15)A Modified Delphi Survey was used todevelop consensus among the 14-member TAG regarding the importanceof various criteria. The Modified DelphiSurvey is a method used to gainconsensus among technical experts.The Delphi Survey was developed tosolicit expert opinions while achievingconsensus. The Rand Corporationoriginated the technique to estimate thelength of time required to satisfyresearch goals. In its original form, theexperts were anonymous; neither thosein the expert group nor those in thegeneral population were aware of theidentity of the experts. In ModifiedDelphi Survey, the experts may beknown. Opinions are requested of theexperts in series. A statement is madesuch as, “Over a ten-year period, whatis the likelihood that mountain bikingwill seriously diminish the health of analpine meadow?” The experts willrespond with answers that may rangefrom 100 percent likelihood to 50percent likelihood. To begin the secondround, each expert will be given a tallyfrom the first round and asked for arevised opinion. Let us say that the tallyof answers from the first round of agroup of twenty experts was: one said100 percent, three said 90 percent, ninesaid 80 percent, five said 70 percent andtwo said 50 percent. The tally from thenext round might look like this: foursaid 90 percent, eleven said 80 percentand five said 70 percent. The requestswill continue, always with theknowledge of the answers from theprevious round, until there is consensuson the issue.The original survey was presented at thekickoff meeting where the method andobjectives were described. The results ofthe survey were summarized andcirculated back to each expert oncecompleted. They were then asked torespond to the results, and to agree orrestate their opinion if it differed from
the group. The criteria established forthe Opportunity Maps and the CarryingCapacity Map used this approach.of Peak Vi e w s are located in the Appe n d i x .A web site was also designed inconjunction with Colorado SpringsUtilities’ home page that described thep lanning effort and announced futureA public invo l vement strategy wasd e ve l o ped at the beginning of the project.To discuss the planning process, a seriesof public meetings were scheduledthroughout the planning process andconducted in the following communities:• Colorado Springs• Woodland Park• Cripple Creek• Manitou SpringsThese meetings were scheduled early inthe process to collect public input ongoals, objectives and desired uses. Laterin the process, public input meetingswere held to inform and gathercomments regarding the Regional VisionPlan. Public meeting comments arelocated in the Appendix.A newsletter, called Peak Vi e w s w a screated and each volume was distributedto all pa r t i c i pants. These newslettersp r ovided information on the progress ofthe planning process and the loc a t i o n sand times of the next meetings. Copiesmeeting dates and loc a t i o n s .A Recreation User Survey was designedand distributed to all interested pa r t i e sand printed in local newspa pers. It wasalso made av a i lable in public facilitiesthroughout the region to gathercommunity attitudes about recreation.The response was tremendous and theresults were used as a point of depa r t u r efor programming desired uses for theregion. A complete summary of theRecreation User Survey can be found inthe Appe n d i x .Inventory is the process of compilingbase information on the region thatinforms decision-making throughout theplanning process. The analysis processsynthesized the inventory maps intosummary maps and transformed rawdata into useful information.Two newsletters were used toinform the public of futuremeetings, current activities, andresults of past meetings.Find out more about thePikes Peak Multi-UsePlan on the web:www.csu.org/water/ppplan/ppplan.html
and cultural features for the Pikes Peakregion. Examples of the inventory mapsOwnership Map ExampleSource: Design Workshop, Inc.Elevation Map ExampleSource: Design Workshop, Inc.Vegetation Map ExampleSource: Design Workshop, Inc.The inventory consisted of manydifferent types of information. First, mapdata was assembled from seve ng overnmental agencies and includedelements such as resource mapping, sitefeatures and political bo u n daries. Otheri n ventory elements included existingp lans and management reports from allsurrounding agencies and municipa l i t i e s .This information was compiled within anA 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 nUser Surve y. A community profile wasthen constructed using currentdemographic data collected from tow n sand counties. The community profileh e l ped to inform the activity and usedesires used to develop the program forthe planning area.The synthesized data and reports wereorganized into a volume of information,called the Pikes Peak Atlas, that was usedto inform the design and planningphases of the process. The Pikes Peak Atlaswas published as a separate documentand includes an inventory of naturalare shown at left, complete maps can befound in the Pikes Peak Atlas and includethe 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
Programs are activities and uses carriedout in the Pikes Peak region, such ass n ow s h oeing, rock climbing and hiking.The Program Definition phase of thep lanning process was structured tod e velop the list of appropriate uses tha tshould be considered for inclusionwithin the Pikes Peak region. The useswere later tested using alterna t i ve designsfor appropria t e n e s s .Both existing uses and proposed useswere considered in the programdefinition. The Recreation User Surveyprovided useful information about usesof existing recreational facilities, andwhat additional uses might beconsidered in the future. The CAG usedthe Recreation User Survey results ofpotential program elements to refine andprioritize the program elements into alist of activities. The activities were latertested in alternative plans.The following is a list of the activities(programs) considered to be appropriatethat were later recommended in thedesign 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 areaSnowshoeingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.Rock ClimbingSource: 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 preserveThe Opportunity Maps define spe c i f i cla n d s c a pe opportunities, such as goodp laces for recreation stewardship andeconomic development. Stewardship refersto 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 criteriafor uses such as stewardship, economicand community required input frome x perienced resource managers. Th e14 - m e m ber TAG was asked topa r t i c i pate in an exercise to develop thec r i t e r ia for the analysis maps. Th eM odified Delphi Surve y, a consensusbuilding approach, was used to definethe criteria for the Stewardship,The Opportunity Mapsdefine specific landscapeopportunities, such asnatural resources locatedwithin the planning area.Based upon the identified issues, goalsand objectives, the complied inve n t o r ya nalysis, and listed program, threeO p portunity Maps were deve l o pe d :• Stewardship (natural resources)• Community (recreation)• EconomicEconomic and CommunityO p portunity Maps. Figures 2-2 through2-4 summarize the criteria establishedand the weighting values applied toeach criteria.The criteria were then applied to theinventory mapping with GIS models toproduce the Opportunity Maps shownadjacent to the opportunity criteria. TheModified Delphi Survey instrument andresults can be found in the Appendix.
Figure 2-2Opportunity MapsStewardship IssuesWetlandsCultural SitesHabitat AreasAquiferRare SpeciesRiparianErosionWaterwaysStewardship refers toresponsiblemanagement ofnatural resources.
Figure 2-3Opportunity MapsCommunity IssuesVisual SensitivityHistoric sitesHazardsRecreationWatchable WildlifePublic LandsOpen SpacesCommunity issuesinclude visualsensitivity, recreation,open space andhistoric sites.
Figure 2-4Opportunity MapsEconomic IssuesAgriculturalDevelopable LandsMiningTimberRecreationWater ResourcesAccessEconomic issues includedevelopable lands, mining,recreation anda c c e s s .
The Carrying CapacityMap demonstrates whereland uses are appropriatebased on seven sensitiveresource criteria.Figure 2-5Carrying Capacity MapA Carrying Capacity Map, Figure 2-5,a nalyzed the la n d s c a pe’s ability tos u p port land uses and characterized thela n d s c a pe into seven capacity zones.A p p r o p r iate uses for each Capacity Zo n ewere then identified. This map informedthe design process, and serves as a longtermmanagement tool. The method fordefining the criteria and weighting valuesto characterize carrying capacity on thela n d s c a pe was similar to that used todefine the Opportunity Maps. The TA Gbegan by brainstorming the spe c i f i cissues (e.g. slopes) that influence carryingc a pa c i t y. Land use and capacity fit definethe suitable range for each land use type(see Figure 2-6). The next step was toredefine the legend of each identifiedissue from one to five, one meaningmost capable and five meaning leastc a pable. For example, slopes from 0-6percent rated one, and slopes over 50percent were rated five. Each individualissue was weighted based upo ni m portance rela t i ve to the other issues(e.g., importance of slope compared tor i pa r ian areas).The final step to define carryingc a pacities invo l ved evaluating the entirelist of po t e n t ial program elements that fitwithin the seven capacity zones. AM odified Delphi Survey was used by theTAG to define the appropriate carryingc a pacity zones for each program element.Figure 2-7 summarizes the results of thes u r ve y. The program elements (activities)are weighted for compatibility withc a pacity criteria listed. The Mod i f i e dDelphi Survey instrument and results canbe found in the Appe n d i x .
Capacity Zones: 1-7Grey Bar = Land Compatible for Use)Figure 2-6Land Uses and Capacity FitModified Delphi Survey ResultsFigure 2-7Weighted Capacity Criteria1 = most capable: 5 = least capableCapacity CriteriaErosion Potential 4.13Land Cover 3.76Hydrology 4.50Slope Map 3.63Visual Sensitivity 3.22Habitat 3.70Fire Hazard 3.70The combination of the public input,Program Definition, and the technicalprocess provides a powerful tools forlong-term land management. (SeeSection Four, Management Strategy, for adetailed description.)
Three Alternative DesignScenarios were developed• Stewardship• Community• EconomicFigure 2-8Alternative AStewardship ScenarioA l t e r na t i ve design scenarios invo l ved therigorous testing of multiple land usedesign concepts. Concepts wereevaluated by both the Citizen Ad v i s o r yGroup and representatives of loc a lagencies and municipalities for aq u a l i t a t i ve response. An impa c tevaluation was also conducted by water,cultural, wildlife and transpo r t a t i o ne x perts to quantify po t e n t ial impacts ofa l t e r na t i ve scenarios. The combination ofboth public and expert evaluation ofdesign concepts enabled the summaryr e c o m m e n dations to address communitydesires and be technically respo n s i ve tonatural resource sensitivity.Three design teams were assembled fromthe CAG, local municipalities, andg overnment agencies. The design teamscame together for a three-day cha r r e t t eto identify three future scenarios tha toffered various po t e n t ial land uses. Th r e eclearly defined scenarios were deve l o pe dto encourage the design teams toconsider as many possible ideas for eachs c e nario. Figure 2-8 through 2-10 andthe following scenario descriptions wereused as design parameters during thet h r e e - day cha r r e t t e :Alternative AStewardship ScenarioThis Scenario highlighted programelements with emphasized conservationand educational components and placedenvironmental values first. This Scenariodefined areas that should be closed tohuman use, seasonal closure and allowspedestrians on the Pikes Peak Highwayonly. The Summit House would only beaccessible by the Cog Railway. The fictitiouspremise for the StewardshipScenario follows:
“The year is 2004 and Al Gore is thepresident of the United States. Mr. Gorewas elected (some believe) on anenvironmental platform that waspopular due to published studies withquantifiable proof that the Earth’s lifesupport systems are in serious decline, asituation much more serious than waspreviously believed. His trustedSecretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbithas assumed much authority in the newadministration and has fathered a seriesof new legislative bills that preservenatural areas and unique naturalresources and mandates the clean-up oflandscapes that have been adverselyimpacted by human habitation.Aggressive public policy for redemptionand conservation in and around publicland holdings has been imposed, andmanagement plans are required withinone year. To this end, a multijurisdictionaltask force has beenconvened to develop a plan for thePikes Peak region. The design team hasbeen assembled to confront the issue ofenvironmental enhancement andpreservation first, and other humanneeds where they do not conflict withthis objective.”elements from both stewardship andc o m m u n i t y. The plan focused one x panding recreation significantly withinthe Pikes Peak region while areas wered e voted to either conservation orr e c r e a t i o nal use. An aggressive recreationsystem was established. Key ideasinclude a Re g i o nal Visitor Center,I n t e r p r e t i ve Centers, Recreation Us eCenters, Perimeter Loop Trails and Ac c e s sPortals. The premise for theC o m m u n i t y /Recreation Scenario follow s :Figure 2-9Alternative BCommunity/Recreation ScenarioAlternative BCommunity/Recreation Scenario" Re c r e a t i o nal Mecca of the We s t e r nStates." This scenario includes program
Figure 2-10Alternative CEconomic Scenario“The year is 2010. The 2006 WinterGames have recently been held inColorado Springs and the facilities forthe games are located all around thePikes Peak region. Even though thegames are over, the world was given achance to see Colorado Springs duringthe much publicized games and touristsfrom all over the country and aroundthe world just keep coming. Thedemand for recreation, natural systems,education and public infrastructure tosupport year-round tourism continuesto grow. The demand far exceeds thesupply, and the region recognizes thatmany recreational opportunities need tobe created to meet the needs of localcitizens and visitors. A cooperativemulti-agency task force has convened toaddress the issue and seek expandedrecreational opportunities whilepreserving resource qualities for theentire Pikes Peak region.”Alternative CEconomic Scenario“Pikes Peak or Bust.” This Scena r i oincludes program elements from allc harrette program assignment areas.This plan focused on testing numerousm e t h ods to creatively finance publicrecreation. Ideas included land trades, ag o n d o la from Cripple Creek, resortd e velopment on public lands, extensiveuse of the South Slope and privatelyownedrecreation development. Th epremise for this Scenario follow s :“The Y2K bug is no hype! The worldeconomy has taken a big hit and with itthe United States slumped into a fiveyeardepression. Much public andpolitical pressure has come to bear onthe new Republican leadership. Thispressure has materialized in the form ofnew legislation to stimulate economicdevelopment on and around publiclands. The new legislation has
mandated economic development whileconserving the land and providingrecreational benefits. Managers ofPublic Lands throughout the countryhave been charged with developing theeconomic opportunities on public landsand support private landowners indoing the same. This design team ischarged with developing a plan foreconomic development that can bedescribed as sustainable, yet can provideboth short and long term economicbenefit to the local community. Thisplan seeks to maximize the economicbenefit for both public and private landswithin the Pikes Peak region.”The design team used the matrix shownin Figure 2-11 to ensure that all potentialprogram elements were tested. Thematrix associates every program elementwith at least one of the three scenarios.Each team began by defining goals andobjectives for each scenario, followed bydesign principles to govern decisionmakingand the resulting consequences.Diagrams of the region were preparedAlternative Design ScenariosProgram 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 Preserveby each team to explain a logic for theways in which site opportunities andconstraints might impact the designprinciples. Ultimately, a series of threeplans emerged from the design process,one for each scenario (Figures 2-8through 2-10). Each design teampresented to the charrette group, to ateam of agency heads and communityleaders, and finally to the CAG.Table 2-11Charrette Program AssignmentsMatrix. This was used to assurethat all potential uses were testedin the alternative design phaseStewardshipCommunityEconomic
Figure 2-12Alternative SynthesisAlternative. This reflects all of thecomments from the three Scenarios,while eliminating concepts not endorsedby the CAG or having significantresource and transportation impacts.Figure 2-13AB Alternative Futures ScenarioThe CAG made specific comments aboutelements they liked and others they feltwere inappropriate. Figure 2-12represents the process used to facilitatethe final product: the ABC BestAt each step in the synthesis process, theCAG re-evaluated the alternatives foragreement or disagreement with thedesign concepts. This evaluation wasultimately applied to the ABC scenarioto derive the first draft of the RegionalVision Plan. The Regional Vision Plan isdescribed in its entirety in Section Three.
AB and BC Scenarios were created as aAB and BC Alterna t i ve Futures Scena r i o swere created as a result of public andagency review of the individual A, B andC Scenarios. The most appropriate ideasfrom the A and B Scenarios werecombined into the AB Scenario, while theweakest concepts were eliminated. Th eBC Scenario was created using the be s tconcepts from B and C respe c t i ve l y, whileagain eliminating the weakest concepts.result of public and agency review ofthe A, B and C Scenarios.Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show the AB andBC Alternative Futures Scenarios thatcombine the most appropriate programuses for all alternative scenarios as wellas activities specific toStewardship/Recreation (AB) orRecreation/Economic (BC).Figure 2-14BC Alternative Futures Scenario
only minor impacts on surface andThe Alternative Future Scenariospropose various levels and degrees ofphysical change to the Pikes Peak region.These changes are important to the variousresources that are impacted. TheImpact Analysis aided in selecting whichalternative would have greater or fewerimpacts on water, environmental,cultural and transportation systems.The consultant team included expertsthat conducted physical impactevaluations on the AB and BC scenariosto provide a quantitative rationale forselecting concepts included in the draftRegional Vision Plan. Water,transportation, wildlife and culturalresources were all examined forpotential impacts from the AB and BCScenarios specific to concepts presentedon the two alternatives. A full summaryof each impact analysis can be found inthe Appendix. The abstracts belowsummarize the resource impactevaluations:Water ResourcesThe impact analysis on water resourceswas completed by the engineering firmof Montgomery Watson. They reportedthat the AB Scenario(Stewardship/Recreation Scenario) hasground water resources in the PikesPeak planning area. Scenario elementswhich open up new areas for visitor useand increase the intensity of existinguses (e.g., new trails, activity centers andthe Auto Touring Loop) could result inimpacts to water quality and watershederosion. However, these impacts areexpected to be localized and manageablethrough implementation.The BC Scenario (Re c r e a t i o n /E c o n o m i c sS c e nario) has more po t e n t ial impa c t son water resources than theS 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 usesthroughout the planning area, and maybring more visitors to the area.TransportationTr a n s portation and traffic impacts wereassessed by traffic engineers Felsburg Holtand Ullevig. They reported that the mostsignificant difference between the twos c e narios rela t i ve to transportation is thei m p r oved accessibility be t w e e nsurrounding communities andr e c r e a t i o nal opportunities that isa s s oc iated with Scenario BC. Ad d i t i o na lor 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 isp r ovided within the recreation area.S e veral access routes that are common toboth scenarios would access morer e c r e a t i o nal opportunities in Scenario BC.two Scenarios are based on thedistribution of access points and activitycenters. Based on an equal number ofpotential users, the BC Scenariopotentially distributes users over agreater area and number of activityWildlife ResourceThe wildlife resource impact ana l y s i swas completed by biologist ErikOlgeirson. He reported that thep r o posed economic development BCS c e nario, allows for virtually unlimitedaccess to the park. The propo s e dd e velopments will have rela t i vely minori m pacts on the natural resources of thepark. It is the increase in ve h i c u lar trafficand recreational users assoc ia t e dwith this Scenario that will have thegreatest impact on the natural resourcesin this area. The proposed roadi m p r ovements and the addition ofmotorized campsites and lodging in thesouthern region of the planning areaare of spe c ial concern. While thisS c e nario may not alter current usessignificantly it does little to preserve andprotect valuable natural areas.centers, reducing the impact on local orsite-specific resources. The AB Scenariolimits the number of activity areas andconcentrates or controls users access toa smaller portion of the site, preservinga greater sense of the “regional” resource.The overall scoring, shown on Figure 2-15, reflects slightly higher impactsassociated with Scenario BC. This isillustrated in a greater number ofdevelopments impacting the regionalcontext. While many of the individualsites may benefit from siteimprovements and reduced daily visitornumbers, the proposed distributionwould impact the experience in existingsensitive areas to local users.Conversely, non-local users may see thebroader distribution of activity centersand access points as an improvement tothe regional resource.Cultural ResourcesThe cultural resources impact analysiswas completed by the planning firm ofThomas and Thomas. They reportedthat significant differences between the
Transportation Water Resources Wildlife ResourcesCulturalResourcesFigure 2-15Resource ImpactAnalysis Summary* Transportation ranking: 1 = poorest transportation solution5 = little or no impactOther resource rankings: 1 = little or no impact5 = greatest impact
The results of both the qualitativeevaluation and the expert evaluations(resource impact analysis) were used toinform the final decision making thatdetermined which concepts would berepresented on the ABC Scenario.Refinements to the ABC Scenario weredetermined in meetings with keyagencies, municipalities, public meetingsand the CAG committee.A Confidence Survey was circulated tothe CAG following the presentation ofthe Regional Draft Vision Plan. Theresult of rigorous public involvement,detailed inventory, innovative analysisand appropriate public and expertevaluations produced a plan developedthrough consensus by all of those thatFigure 2-16CAG Summary of Confidence Survey• 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%Yesparticipated. The final ConfidenceSurvey asked "Is the plan a goodrepresentation of all those thatparticipated?" and 94 percent ofparticipants responded positively. Thehigh level of success is confirmed by thediverse groups that responded, such asthe motorized trail users and membersof the Sierra Club. The full results ofthe Confidence Survey are listed inFigure 2-16.Management of a region such as PikesPeak cannot be implemented without aclear vision of desired outcomes. TheRegional Vision Plan outlines roles andresponsibilities for the vested parties andmanaging authorities for the plan to
Potential ManagingPartner Members• Colorado Springs Utilities -Water Resources• U.S. Forest Service Pikes PeakRanger 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 ParksPikes Peak Multi-Resource Plan Criteria:• System-wide coordination• Efficiency• Administrative skills• Vision thru implementation• Task expertise• Multi-resource objectivessucceed. Once the Regional Vision Planwas completed, the Managing Partnersdiscussed potential organizational andmanagement models and existingmanagement structures employed in thePikes Peak region today.The project team from Design Workshopidentified four potential organizationalstructures that could be utilized tomanage the short and long-termoperational needs of Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan area.The desire to accommodate involvementfrom all Managing Partners, however,should not supersede efforts tostreamline and maintain qualitydecision-making. Given the complexand fragile nature of the subject area,the future operational and advisingorganization should be both technicallyskilled and able to facilitate consensusbuildingin order to achieve thefollowing:• Administration and Business Management• Cooperative land owner relationships• Coordination with public land owners• Fee collection• Fund-raising• Interpretive programming• Operations and maintenance of the trailsystems• Patrol and emergency• Programming and event staging• Resource management• Safety and risk management• Visitor needsThe po t e n t ial members of the appropria t eorganization are listed to the left. Fo u re xamples of organizational structures ared e s c r i bed be l ow. The models arecomplemented by details of existingorganizations that were formed to solves i m i lar issues to those faced by the PikesPeak planning team, CAG and TAG.This model presents one agency (U.S.Forest Service, Pikes Peak Ranger Districtfor example) as the lead coordinator forthe overall management of the PikesPeak Multi-Use area. The agency-ledmodel requires that the neighboringagencies accept the agency as lead andenter a cooperative agreement (officialor unofficial) to jointly manage theentire area, regardless of ownership.Strengths• Provides a clear line of communicationand leadership with designated authorityand funding sources.
Weaknesses• Does not facilitate consensus across allpolitical and ownership boundaries.• The agency leading the organizationwould prescribe their philosophy andlegislative authority.• Establishes a regional promotionframework.• Develops clear responsibility for fundraisingby the non-profit.Weakness• Limited funds may hinder the level ofcommitment the Board of Directors is ableto generate.The non-profit model involves theformation of a volunteer board ofdirectors, who raises money from grantsand corporate donations, and hires anExecutive Director. The ExecutiveDirector would spearhead the non-profitvisioning and fund-raising, in concertwith the Board of Directors, as well asdevelop budgets and implementationstrategies to realize the vision. Agovernment entity would still be theresponsible authority to which the Non-Profit reports.Strengths• Minimizes "conflicts of interest" issuesthat other models with multiple agenciesmay face.• Enhances relationships between governmentagencies and private land owners.• Provides an organization to “carry thetorch” and be the keepers of the vision.• Funds are the results of fund-raisingefforts, which would not supply a steadystream of financial support.Case StudyThe Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC)is a private, non-profit educationalorganization of individuals, volunteers,maintainers and clubs, formed in 1925.The National Park Service hasadministrative responsibility for the Trailand the ATC is accountable to theNational Park Service for the propermanagement of the Trail.A 25-member Board of Directors, thepolicy-making governing body, guidesthirty-five affiliated volunteer groups. Asmall professional staff of approximately30 people helps coordinate the trailmaintenance and management activitiesof the volunteers. A completedescription of The Appalachian TrailConference is located in the Appendix.
• Agreements of the best managementThe Conservation Agency model isformatted around the hiring of aconservation management agency (i.e., theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to fulfill ar e g i o nal vision plan’s stated objective s .Strengths• Model led by a group whose sole purpose isto heighten conservation efforts. The futureof the land and its ability to sustaintargeted uses would be the primary focus ofthe managing organization.practices would be minimized, and allindividual interests could be pursued withlimited conflict.Weaknesses• Individual interests could lead to controversyif not managed as a team effort.Case StudyMt. Washington Observatory, located inNew Hampshire, is managed by a groupthat includes both public and privatelandowners. The public land agenciesrepresented include the U.S. ForestThe Independent Model allows each typeof la n d owner (public and private) tom a nage their part of a defined area. Fo re xample, Colorado Springs Utilitieswould manage their watershed, the U.S.Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger DistrictService, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,and National Park Service. For dailymanagement requirements, each groupis responsible for its own area, but all sit"at the table" together in order to solveissues that ultimately affect everyone.would manage their lands, etc. Eachindividual or group may agree tom a nage their part of the Multi-Use area,consistent with a single mana g e m e n tp h i l o s o p h y, but day - t o - day ope r a t i o n sand maintenance would be site spe c i f i c .A solid process for managing difficultissues should be deve l o ped at the initia lo r g a n i z a t i o nal stage.Strengths• Each land owner and operator managesland based on their own jurisdiction of it.The Cooperative ManagementAgreement engages the sustainedinvolvement of the local hostcommunity residents and theirgovernments, recreation-tourismbusiness and industry, and public landmanagement agencies.According to Don Bruns, a recreationalplanner for the Bureau of Land
Management, this model addressesmany elements faced by managers ofbroad, natural resource based activities.Bruns adds that because no single groupland managing agency, service provider,or local government actually providesthe benefits of activities, management ofthe area needs to incorporate allproviders. The management structuremust allow for functional lines ofcommunication, authority andcommerce, without sacrificingresponsibility, decision making andentrepreneurial opportunities.Strengths• Builds community consensus and synergyamong all stakeholders.Weaknesses• The decision making process may behindered by the complex nature of "everyoneis at the table" type of organization.• Technical expertise is limited to thosefish and wildlife agencies, wildlifeconservation organizations and others.The mission statement of the OwlMountain Partnership is to serve theeconomic, cultural, and social needs ofthe community, while developing longtermlandscape management programs,policies and practices that ensureecosystem sustainability.Case StudyWhen Colorado became a State in 1876,the federal government gave the stateapproximately 4.5 million acres offederal lands, of which the state stillowns three million. All of these acresare managed by the five person StateLand Board and a staff of 29 to benefitthe School Trust and seven smallertrusts. The Board is the "trustee" forstate trust lands and has a fiduciaryresponsibility to the beneficiaries of theland, which are the individuals in theColorado public school system.involved.Case StudyThe Owl Mountain Partnership is aprototype for ecosystem management inNorth Park, Colorado. This project isorchestrated by Seeking CommonGround, which is a partnership offederal land management agencies, stateManagement, operations and projectimplementation are the key strengths ofthe Non-Profit Model and ConservationAgency Model. The Agency-Led Model’smain focus is the implementation ofprojects and day-to-day responsibilities,
Figure 2-17Model Comparison Matrixit is limited in the areas of fund-raising,administration and its ability toinfluence private land owners. TheCooperative Management AgreementModel only exhibits moderate strengthsin day-to-day responsibilities but it isleast capable to raise funds, vision, andpromote the Pikes Peak region. TheIndependent Model is the weakestmodel in a number of categories andshows only moderate capabilities foroperations and maintenance. Based onstrengths and weaknesses inherent inthe Independent Model, it isrecommended that a hybridmanagement model be implemented toenhance the currently employedIndependent Model.Functions & Capabilities RequiredAdministration/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 ManagementVisioningModelsAgency Non-Profit Conservation Independent CooperativeLed Agency ManagementAgreementsVery CapableModerately CapableMinimally Capable
Source: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water Resources DepartmentThe Pikes Peak Multi-Use Planning Process was created as a common vision based oncommunity values. To properly manage this region, an understanding of end-use desiresand a clear vision of future conditions is necessary. The Regional Vision Plan is the resultof the planning process of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan that involved publicparticipation, planning and design, and technical expert analysis. The Regional VisionPlan represents the heart of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan. After more than eighteenmonths the Regional Vision Plan evolved from ideas, concepts and knowledge frompublic meetings and the Citizen Advisory Group, combined with the guidance andexpertise of consultants and local resource experts. The diligent work and concertedeffort from all of these groups together with the Managing Partners, the Regional VisionPlan is a tremendous opportunity that provides multiple recreation opportunities whileprotecting sensitive natural resources for the surrounding communities today and forfuture generations.The Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG) worked with the managing partners to develop theRegional Vision Plan. This group represented the broadest possible set of users in thePikes Peak area including: participants from environmental groups, motorized trailsrepresentatives, climbers, mountain bikers and other users that were interested in
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 SummitFigure 3-1Framework Diagramparticipating in the process. The CAGhelped to define the goals and objectivesfor the Regional Vision Plan, refine theprogram elements from broader usersurvey results, critique the inventoryand analysis process, and direct thesynthesis of a range of possible futuresinto a final draft. Because of the highlevel of CAG involvement, the finalRegional Vision Plan reflects the valuesand input from broad representation.Ninety-four percent of the CAG agreedon the plan in the final ConfidenceSurvey circulated to all members. Adescription and summary of the surveyfindings is located in Section Two, andthe instrument and detailed results canbe found in the Appendix.The concepts discussed in the RegionalVision Plan are delineated into twocategories:• Regional Concepts• Site Specific ProjectsAccordingly, this chapter has beenorganized into these two categories anddiscusses the concepts and projects indetail.Regional Concepts define anddistinguish the Pikes Peak area based onenvironmental stewardship (Limited UseAreas and Restoration Zones) andcommunity and visitor services(gateways, scenic loops and portals, etc.).These concepts are found in variousareas of the region and may be a part ofsite specific projects.The various regional concepts, localprojects and resource elements combineto form a system that integrates existinglocal facilities with the Pikes Peak vision.The Summit and surrounding Pikes Pe a kregion is viewed as a resource with multipleland use opportunities. The Multi-Us eP lan is a framework of routes, gateway s ,portals and recreation use centers that arelinked to provide access and recreationa lo p portunities while preserving criticalnatural resources. Figure 3-1demonstrates this system.
Pikes Peak Regional Vision PlanWoodland Park Gateway- Visitor ServicesDivide Gateway- Visitor ServicesCatamount Ranch Open SpaceDudeRanchWinter CenterBuffer Zone(traditional agriculture tobe encouraged)Water Rec. CenterCrystal ReservoirPIKES PEAK REGIONALVISITOR CENTER- Visitor Orientation (system-wide)Use Centers / Interpretive CentersMueller PortalBarr Trail AccessCOG Rail AccessGlen CoveManitou Springs Gateway- Visitor ServicesCrags CampgroundEnhancedBarr CampHHPike Peak Summit- New Summit House- New ObservatoryHHHH HCheyenne CanyonEnvironmentalEducation CenterAdditionalLocal AccessColoradoSpringsGateway- VisitorServicesHDudeRanchGillett PortalSouth Slope PortalCripple Creek Gateway- Visitor ServicesBuffer Zone(traditional agriculture tobe encouraged)DudeRanchBack Country (Primitive)- Camping/HikingVictor Gateway- Visitor ServicesWye Campgound -MotorizedTrail CenterBLM Wilderness Study AreaLEGEND:Regional Visitor CenterGateways -Community Base Visitor ServicesAccess PortalScenic Loop (Auto Touring / Access)Perimeter Loop Trail- Multi-useActivity TrailMotorized TrailLimited Use AreaRestoration ZonesBuffer ZonesPavedGravel (treated)LAND COVERDeciduous ForestDisturbed/Rock OutcropHuman SettlementPine ForestPrairie LandscapeAlpine TundraWaterINTERPRETIVE THEME CENTERSUte Nation EducationMining History/PresentsPikes Peak HighwayRailroads, regional historyEnvironmental EducationAgriculture, past and presentWater Resource StoryMiles1 2 3 4 5RECREATION USE CENTERSWinter SportsWater SportsEquestrian CenterBack Country (Primative)Mountain BikingMotorized Trail UsesClimbingAuto TouringDESIGN WORKSHOP, Inc. Denver ColoradoSept./1999Wildlife
Limited Use Areas are primarily definedby the environment and are often usedin ecosystem management. Limited UseAreas have the highest level of resourcesensitivity, such as critical habitat, rareand endangered species, selectedwetlands and riparian corridors, andvaluable water resources. Figure 3-2shows the Limited Use Areas within theplanning area. These sensitive resourcelands are connected into a system thatfurther enhances the benefits of theseresources while increasing theirprotection. The Limited Use Areas havebeen identified on the Regional VisionP lan and are intended to be managed bya common approach for use andpreservation. All activities within thearea would follow the objective sestablished for the Limited Use Area andp r o posed uses must demonstrate noa d verse impact to the resource.The objectives established for theLimited Use Areas include:• Manage these lands for resource protectionand enhancement.• Design and construct structured facilitiesto absorb potential impacts due to accessand recreation.• Retain control of these areas throughpermit-only access system and ensure thatusers uphold management objectives.In addition to establishing properplanning, design and management of theLimited Use Areas, a signage systemcould accompany the Permit Use systemto inform users that they are recreatingin a protected area.Restoration Zones are used in ecosystemmanagement and are primarily definedby the environment. Restoration zoneshave been identified in areas whereerosion and natural resourcedegradation have occurred. The zonesindicated on the Regional Vision Planinclude the areas below Pikes PeakHighway, Barr Trail, and the motorizedtrail area in the vicinity of WyeCampground in the southeastern part ofPikes Peak. Figure 3-3 identifies theRestoration Zones within the planningarea. Additional areas are likely to bedefined as Restoration Zones as moreinformation is collected for the region.The zones identified should be surveyedand fully understood as a part of thereclamation strategy. In addition, thePikes Peak Region should continuouslymonitor for other potential areas thatmay be candidates as Restoration Zones.A reclamation strategy should bedeveloped and implemented for eacharea to repair existing damage.Figure 3-2Limited Use Areas Context MapFigure 3-3Restoration Zones Context Map
Figure 3-4Buffer Zones Context MapFigure 3-5Gateways Context MapThe Buffer Zones identified on theRegional Vision Plan are anacknowledgement of the important rolethese lands play in the long-termmanagement of the planning area.Unlike the majority of the planning area,these buffer zone represent large privateland holding immediately adjacent tothe Resource Boundary, internal to theScenic Loop system. This plan alsoacknowledges that present uses of theselands is very compatible with proposedmanagement objectives of adjacentpublic lands. It would be advantageousif these lands were to remain inagricultural uses, thus minimizingconflicts between adjacent managementpractices. This Buffer Zone delineationdoes not, however, seek to suggestfuture land use change is notappropriate. If land owners desire toremain in existing agricultural practices,encouragement and incentives should beprovided by local governments toenable them to do so. Significantchanges to existing land use practiceswithin the designated Buffer Zones,should be undertaken with a fullunderstanding of contextual issuesidentified in the Pikes Peak Multi-UsePlan and the adoption of thephilosophy of multi-resourcemanagement is strongly encouraged.G a t e w ays have been defined aso p portunities to provide communitybasedrecreational and visitor services.Restaurants, accommoda t i o n s ,information, privately-owned recreationbusinesses, recreation rentals, groc e r i e s ,education, and entertainment may beincluded as services av a i lable at theG a t e w ays. Figure 3-5 highlights theG a t e w ays on the Plan. The eightG a t e w ays identified on the Re g i o na lVision Plan have been selected based ontheir location as entry points into thePikes Peak Region and as access points tothe po t e n t ial recreation program. Th eG a t e w ays that are identified include:• City of Colorado Springs• City of Manitou Springs• Town of Cascade• Town of Green Mountain Falls• City of Woodland Park• Town of Divide• Town of Cripple Creek• Town of VictorThe establishment of Gateways requiresa commitment from the surroundingcommunities to:• Orient visitors to local attractions andrecreation opportunities within the region,and connections to the regional network.
• Provide services to regional and localvisitors to meet their needs and desires.• Provide adequate signage and inform a t i o nthat orients the visitor within the context ofthe Pikes Peak Region.Portals are access points within the PikesPeak study area. Ten Portals have beenestablished between the Scenic Loop andrecreation opportunities within theplanning area. Figure 3-7 identifies theAccess Portals in the Pikes Peak region.The Portals are designed to accomplishThe Scenic Loop consists of Highway 24,Highway 67 and Gold Camp Road. Thisauto-oriented loop around Pikes Peakprovides access to the abundantrecreational activities that surround thePeak. The concept brings visitorsthrough the Gateways arranged along theautomobile roadways, or Scenic Loop asidentified in Figure 3-6. The Scenic Looprecognizes that “driving for pleasure” isthe most popular recreational activity inthe area. Communities along the ScenicLoop may choose to participate in avariety of tourism-based activities.Signage along the road is critical to thesuccess of the concept, both fororientation and educational uses.Signage should be displayed at turnoutsand used as a means of conveying thenatural resource and historic themes ofthe region. A signage system thatrepresents both the region andindividual communities should bedeveloped. Implementation of a signageplan is discussed in Section Five.the following specific functions:Figure 3-6Scenic Loop Context Map• Serve as transition points between vehiclesand recreational activities such as hikingand biking.• Provide services such as trash receptacles,parking areas, information, drinkingwater, and restroom facilities.• Provide locational information to thevisitor on recreational opportunities in theimmediate area and region.• Limit the users within the area bydesigning parking areas to accommodate aspecific number of vehicles.• Provide user information aboutappropriate recreational activities, trailuse, and safety tips.Red: paved Yellow: unpavedFigure 3-7Access Portals Context Map
Figure 3-9Recreation Use Centers Context MapFigure 3-10Mountain BikingNorth Cheyenne CanyonB a ck Country ActivitiesBack Country PortalMotorized VehiclesWye CampgroundEquestrian CenterGillettFigure 3-8Perimeter Loop Trail Context MapRecreation Use Centers and LocationsThe Perimeter Loop Trail is a multi-usesystem of connected trails that circlesPikes Peak, as shown in Figure 3-8. Th i ssystem of trails relies on existing roadsand trails, both designated andu n d e s i g nated, to complete the Loop. Th ePerimeter Loop Trail has been designedto connect the Ac c e s s Po r t a l s and create ape d e s t r ian system linked to the S c e n i cL o o p. Trails that lead from the Pe r i m e t e rL oop Trail to other areas and activitieswithin Pikes Peak are also accessible. Th ePerimeter Loop Trail has been cla s s i f i e das a “multi-use” trail that is appropria t efor all trail uses except motorized uses.In order to maintain safety standa r d s ,f i nal construction grades of trails mayfurther limit trail uses.Winter SportsMueller State ParkWater Sports CenterCatamount Ranch Open SpaceClimbingUpper Pikes Peak HighwayTouringRegional Visitors CenterRecreation Use Centers have beenidentified throughout the Pikes Peakregion for a range of specific users. Theconcept of Recreation USe Centersemerged as a means to provide facilitiesfor all user groups. How and where doyou find areas for both motorizedvehicle recreation or trails and backcounty activities such as back packingand wildlife viewing? The CAG workedclosely with the Managing Partners,planning consultants and technicalexperts to identify Recreation UseCenters that responded to the programneeds identified by the Recreation UserSurvey while not negatively impactingsensitive lands called out forpreservation. This system of RecreationUse Centers allows for different needs tobe met without diminishing the qualityof the experience for any recreationalist.It also provides an opportunity for thestewards of natural resources to informusers about appropriate types ofbehavior and what they can do to helppreserve sensitive areas and zones.While these centers are not the onlyd e s i g nated location for a pa r t i c u lar use,they have been defined as the hub orstaging area for the various uses. Fo r
e xample, a mountain bike enthusia s twould be guided through signage tothe Cheyenne Canyon MountainRecreation Use Center and would findinformation specific to mountainbiking in the entire Pikes Peak region.The information av a i lable formountain biking at the Recreation Us eCenters could include:• Mountain bike rules and responsibilities.• Maps of mountain bike trails in thespecific Recreation Use Center andthroughout the Pikes Peak region.• Designated facilities and areas for loadingand unloading, maintenance and repair,and rental concessions are applicable.Access to the Recreation Use Centercould begin at the Regional Visitor Center(see description to follow in Projects)where locations and recreationa lo p portunities of all Recreation Us eCenters are described in detail. At eachRecreation Use Center visitors maygather additional information abo u trules and responsibilities and otherl ocations where simular activities area p p r o p r iate. Figure 3-10 shows thes y m bols and locations for spe c i f i cRecreation Use Centers in the Re g i o na lVision Pla n .Interpretive Centers recognize theimportance of local history andnatural history located throughout thePikes Peak region. From the Ute triberespecting the region as a sacred place,hunting grounds and lookout pointsto urban growth pressures on waterresources originating on the Peak, theInterpretive Centers inform visitors andlocals alike about the history, currentissues and the future sustainability ofPikes Peak. Similar to Recreation UseCenters, the Regional Visitor Center will orientthe visitor to the InterpretiveCenters throughout the region asshown in Figure 3-11. Visitors arrivingat the Regional Visitor Center canreceive information on all tenInterpretive Centers. Displays willbriefly describe the various centers andprovide information to guide thevisitor to them. Figure 3-12 shows thesymbols for each Interpretive Centerand their locations.Figure 3-11Interpretive Centers Context MapFigure 3-12Interpretive Centers and LocationsNative AmericansPikes Peak SummitMining HistoryCripple Creek and VictorPikes Peak HighwayPikes Peak Highway & SummitRailroadsCog Rail Entrance & DivideEnvironmentalNorth Cheyenne CanyonAgriculturalD i v i d eWater ResourcesCrystal ReservoirWildlifePikes Peak Highway
Figure 3-13Alternative Routes to the SummitContext MapThe Barr Trail is the only hiking trailwhose final destination is the summit ofPikes Peak. This trail has experiencedoveruse resulting in erosion problemsand maintenance issues. Throughoutthe planning process, a strong desirewas expressed to find alternative routesto the summit that would increaserecreational opportunities and reduceoveruse of Barr Trail. The Crags Trail, anofficially recognized trail within thePike-San Isabel National Forest, reachesthe summit. This trail originates fromthe Crags Campground on the west sideof Pikes Peak, accessible from Highway67. An extension at the west end of thissystem trail would allow a user toaccess the Pikes Peak Highway nearDevil’s Playground, cross the highway,and continue directly eastward towardthe summit without using the highwayas an access route.the Cripple Creek-Victor watershed andwould require careful planning anddesign to ensure compatibility withnatural resource management objectives.An alternative route proposed by theRegional Vision Plan begins near theGillett Portal in the southwest corner ofthe study area, adjacent to Highway 67at Cripple Creek. The proposedalignment uses an existing trail alongBeaver Creek and proceeds north alongthat drainage. This route does not usean existing system trail, resides within
Projects in the Regional Vision Plan areuses and activities at the site-specificscale that incorporate many of theregional concepts previously described.Planning and design for projects isbased on existing or proposed conceptsfrom local planning documents thatcoincide with the objectives of theRegional Vision Plan.The following seven Gateways and twoAccess Points illustrate the interfacebetween the Regional Vision Plan andthe opportunities near surroundingcommunities. It is not intended to showsite-specific designs, but simply toexpress the general visions of theRegional Vision Plan.The following diagrams reflect thegeneral understanding of the existingand proposed concepts and projects ofthe Regional Vision Plan.Each plan identifies the gateway visitorcenters, local portals and recreation usecenters, existing and planned trails, andproposed trail links. Each of thecommunity’s facilities is illustrated at anappropriate scale to reflect the generallocal and regional relationships to theplanning area. The conditions and userlevels of the individual existing trailsand facilities have not been evaluatedbut are identified as existing accesspoints for consideration. The diagramsbegin to illustrate the integration of thelocal resources with the Regional VisionPlan concepts.The Regional Visitor Center is the largestand most significant single projectrecommended by the Regional VisionPlan. The implementation of this projectrequires a significant effort, carefulplanning and a considerable time framebefore it is actualized because itfunctions as the main hub ofinformation for the region. An interimsolution should include a visitor stopwith outdoor kiosks that describe theRegional Vision Plan and the proposedVisitor Center. The location of thisfacility adjacent to Highway 24 ensuresvisibility and orients the visitors to theregion as shown in Figure 3-14. Placingit along Highway 24, close to the PikesPeak Highway entrance, is alsoimportant, as this is the major entrancefor a visitor. Pikes Peak Highway is themost visited attraction in the region andmay be utilized to help both local usersand visitors appreciate and understandthe entire range of recreational andeducational opportunities throughoutthe 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 andEnvironmental Education Center• Gold Camp Road• Pikes Peak HighwayFigure 3-14Re g i o nal Visitor Center Context Map
are extensively utilized by a wide varietyFigure 3-15Manitou Springs GatewayContext MapFigure 3-16Manitou Springs Local Connectionsto Regional ConceptsMany formal and informal social trailsand historic links exist in and aroundManitou Springs making it a greatcandidate to be a Gateway, as shown inFigure 3-15. Figure 3-16 demonstratesthe existing and proposed facilities inthe Regional Vision Plan. The Barr Trailand Cog Railroad provides two majorroutes to the Pikes Peak Summit and theregion. Both of these connections, alongwith the Iron Springs Trailhead areaccessed by way of Ruxton Road, fromdowntown, and function as Portals andRecreation Use Centers. These two Portalsof users creating periods of congestionThe Iron Springs Trailhead also providesan opportunity to create an access pointalong the proposed Perimeter Loop Trail.The Perimeter Loop Trail, or Multi-Use Trail,links the Ute Indian and Red MountainTrails. The Manitou Mesa Open Space,located on the southeast side of town,may also support a third local Portalalong the proposed Perimeter Loop Trailjust north of the Bear Creek RegionalPark. Further consideration should begiven to connections from the adjoiningresidential areas to the Ute Indian Trail.Manitou Springs and the Cog Railroadhave been identified as possiblelocations for a regional Historic RailroadInterpretive Center.Manitou Springs also serves as animportant regional connection and linkto Colorado Springs by way of theFountain Creek, Midland, and Garden ofthe Gods trail systems. Theseconnections reinforce the importance ofManitou Springs as a Gateway toprovide visitor services such asinformation, toilet facilities, telephones,parking, handicapped access and helpvisitors find connections to varioustrails for different uses.
Cascade, a community located on theeastern side of the Pikes Peak regioncould serve as a Gateway, as shown inFigure 3-17. The community of Cascadeoffers two main connections to theregion:the Pikes Peak Highway, and theMt. Heizer and Ute Pass Trail linksshown in Figure 3-18. A third elementof the Cascade Gateway is a proposedFigure 3-17Cascade Gateway Context MapRegional Visitor Center.The historic Pikes Peak Highway is anatural draw for visitors and wouldFigure 3-18Cascade Local Connections toRegional Conceptssupport a Regional Visitor Center location.The Regional Visitor Center could be part ofthe Highway’s toll facilities or operatedat a different location closer to theintersection of Highway 24 andFountain Avenue. The Regional VisitorCenter would service as a starting pointfor eco/adventure tours and tours of thePikes Peak region, regional auto toursand multi-use trail users. With theconnections of the planned Ute Pass,existing Mt. Heizer, and French trails, alocal Portal may be considered in theexisting Cascade community park.
Figure 3-19Green Mountain Falls GatewayContext MapFigure 3-20Green Mountain Falls LocalConnections to Regional ConceptsGreen Mountain Falls with its historicLakeside Park and Pavilion provides aunique opportunity for a northernG a t e w ay to the planned Ute Pass Tr a i l(see Figure 3-19) . At Green MountainFalls, the planned Ute Pass Tr a i ls e parates from the Highway 24corridor and enters into the adja c e n tsmall communities. Green MountainFalls offers the first opportunity southof Wood land Park for creating a loc a lvisitor center and Po r t a l.With a possible Po r t a l and winter spo r t sand Recreation Use Center l ocated in theexisting Lakeside Park, access linkswould be provided along existing foresttrails and City water services roadss h own in Figure 3-20. GreenMountain Falls supports alterna t i veconnections to the propo s e dCatamount Ranch Open Space andCrystal Creek reservoir facilities. Th e s elinks include the Mount De w e y, NewCatamount, and Felton Thomas Trails.Unique cultural and natural features ofthe area include Catamount Creek Fallsand the Garden of Eden. Winter spo r t sactivities may include ice skating,sledding and cross country skiing. Th eRecreation Use Center would provide ameeting place and parking area.
significance of agriculture could occur inL ocated on the northern edge of thePikes Peak region (see Figure 3-21),Wood land Park offers a broad range ofestablished services and facilities as wellas regional and local trail connections.The regional trails include the Ute Pass,C e n t e n n ial, and American Discove r yWoodland Park.Local access to the Pikes Peak region isprovided west of town from MeadowWood Park and south along WoodlandAvenue in Crystola to other parts of theregion and National Forest land.Trails. The American Discovery and UtePass Trail connections are provided viaH i g h w ay 24 running south to ColoradoSprings and west to Divide. Th eC e n t e n n ial Trail along Highway 67 alsoconnects Wood land Park to the north.Figure 3-21Woodland Park GatewayContext MapFigure 3-22Woodland Park Local Connectionsto Regional ConceptsThe Ute Pass and American Discove r yTrails and Highway 24 provide thei m portant links north of the identifiedPe rimeter Loop Tr a i l and Scenic Loop.Ute PassCultural CenterA community-based Visitor Center andGateway is a natural part of the area’sexisting visitor services and facilities.Visitor services are provided by theWoodland Park Chamber of Commerceat the Ute Pass Cultural Center or Lion’sPark Memorial Visitor Center shown inFigure 3-22. Several local parks alsoprovide visitor amenities. AnAgricultural Interpretive Center that focuseson the historical and continued
variety of visitor services. As shown inFigure 3-23Colorado Springs GatewayContext MapFigure 3-24Colorado Springs LocalConnections to Regional ConceptsThe Colorado Springs Gateway islocated on the eastern edge of the PikesPeak region (see Figure 3-23) and servesas a Gateway for the urban populationsof Colorado Springs and surroundingsuburbs. Colorado Springs’ existingroads and trails provide a broad rangeof local and regional connections to thePikes Peak region. The North CheyenneCanyon Park continues to offer a greatFigure 3-24, the existing StarsmoreDiscovery Center, trailheads and picnicareas provide supporting facilities forthe proposed local Po r t a l s and visitorservices. A second Po r t a l has beenrecommended to the north for the GoldCamp Road and High Drive Junction.The Fountain Creek and Ute Pass Tr a i l slink to statewide trail connections. Amajor part of the Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l i scompleted with the links alongIntermann and High Drive Trails. HighD r i ve also offers an alterna t i ve link tothe Au t o -To u ring Loop through the OldStage Road and Bear Creek Drive .Other trail connections include 26 t h a n d21 s t S t r e e t s .Two existing access Po r t a l s along thewestern edge of Colorado Springsalready receives heavy use, and, as aresult, an additional Po r t a l is needed todistribute the vehicles, and reduce then e g a t i ve impacts upon these existingPo r t a l s. The Re g i o nal Vision Pla nsuggests a Po r t a l between Barr Trail andNorth Cheyenne Canyon Re c r e a t i o nArea that links visitors to the CorePe rimeter Loop Tr a i l and most recreationa lactivities throughout the region.
The Cripple Creek and Victorcommunities located on thesoutheastern edge of the planning area(see Figure 3-25) share a mining historyand are key stops along the proposedAuto-Touring Loop, American DiscoveryTrail and the Perimeter Loop Trail. Theexisting Gold Belt Touring route supportthis regional loop system. Local accessto historic sites and points of interest areFigure 3-25Cripple Creek and VictorGateways Context Mapmade possible as local trails and parksare created.Both Cripple Creek and Victor arecommunities where local InterpretiveCenters could tell the mining story.Figure 3-26Cripple Creek and Victor LocalConnections to Regional ConceptsIndividual or shared visitor servicesmay be incorporated into the localhistoric parks and museums (i.e., CityCentral and Gold Bowl Parks).An alternative local Po r t a l may belocated at the American Eagle HistoricalPark and Lookout, or at the Range ViewRoad junctions (see Figure 3-26). Fromhere, links could be created to theadjacent Cripple Creek, Victor, and Gillettlocations in conjunction with the localCripple Creek Trail Plan.
Figure 3-27Divide Gateway Context MapWhile Divide, like other communitiesnoted, is outside of the immediate PikesPeak region, (see Figure 3-27), thiscommunity provides an important linkto the State and regional trails.Highways 24 and 67 have beenidentified as links in the Perimeter LoopTrail and in the Auto-Touring Loop. Theselinks include connections along Four-Mile and Shelf Roads.Visitor services have also been identifiedfor Divide. The services could be loc a t e din the existing commercial node atH i g h w ay 24, the old De pot or in theH ayden Divide Park South on Highway67. Also, as part of the Re g i o nal Vi s i o nP lan, it would share Po r t a l and R e c r e a t i o nUse Center services with the Mueller StatePark. These concepts would prov i d evisitors trail and equestrian access to thePeak through the existing Crag CampRo a d .Figure 3-28Divide Local Connections toRegional Concepts
The proposed Gillett Portal and R e c r e a t i o nUse Center could support a wide range ofr e c r e a t i o nal opportunities. The Re g i o na lVision Plan recommends an Recreation Us eCenter t hat would maintain a traditiona lranching character while prov i d i n gservices for users of the Pe rimeter LoopTrail, Au t o -To u ring Loop and local trails.The plan would utilize existing serviceroads and gateways. The Gillett Po r t a ls h own in Figure 3-29 provides ano p portunity to enhance access from thewestern slope of Pikes Pe a k .Access to the Pikes Peak Region fromthe Cripple Creek and Victor areas onHighway 67 is very limited. The GillettPortal takes advantage of the closeproximity between public lands andHighway 67. The Portal would provideneeded trailhead facilities and allowaccess to the Perimeter Loop Tail (Multi-Use Trail) and alternative spoke trailsthat are additional routes to the summit(see Figure 3-30). Issues needingresolution include the design of trails tosafeguard watershed quality. Thecapacity of area trails will need to beassessed for compatibility with the rangeof uses that has been recommended bythe CAG and technical experts. Thetrails designated multi-use, includeequestrian use, mountain bikes andhiking. A complete analysis is requiredto verify compatibility and capacity withlong-term water quality.Figure 3-29Gillett Portal Context MapFigure 3-30Gillett Local Connections toRegional Concepts
Figure 3-31Chipita Park Portal Context MapFigure 3-32Chipita Park Local Connections toRegional ConceptsChipita Park lies along the Ute Pass trailcorridor (see Figure 3-31) and providesan alternative access Portal into the PikesPeak region. The community may offersome level of Portal services such asparking and water but would requirefurther local decision-making. The Portalwould be located along Chipita ParkRoad, with direct forest access providedby way of Mt. Esther Trail at the end ofPicabo and Mountain Roads.Located more in the interior of the PikesPeak region (see Figure 3-33), theCatamount Ranch Open Space Portaloffers sport and multi-use recreationalopportunities. The existing CatamountRanch Open Space recreationaldevelopment, completed by TellerCounty for public open space andrecreation, is in need of additionalPortals. Currently, the region can beaccessed from the North SlopeRecreation Area to the southeast of theproperty, but additional access from thenorth and west is desirable. An existingcounty road would provide the bestaccess from the north and a new Portallocated on public lands just north of theproperty is recommended.Catamount Ranch Open Space Po r t a ls e r ves as a Recreation Use Center for waters ports such as canoeing, fishing andhas a fish ha t c h e r y.Figure 3-33Catamount Ranch Open Spa c ePortal Context Map
The existing Barr Camp, located in theinterior of the Pikes Peak region, (seeFigure 3-34), is an icon of thecommunity’s love for the Pikes Peakregion. Because of the popularity of thisfacility, controlled access strategiesshould be devised and a reclamationstrategy developed to address thehistoric heavy use of Barr Trail and BarrCamp facility. This Pikes Peak RegionalVision Plan endorses therecommendation that currently existsfor improvements to the Barr Camp.Recommended enhancements includeimproved sanitation systems andcaretakers facilities. The Pikes PeakRegional Vision Plan also recommendsadditional enhancements be consideredto expand the capacity of Barr Campwithout changing its unique character.The Crags Campground is the onlyexisting access point along the west edgeof the Pikes Peak region (see Figure 3-35). It provides a basic campingexperience and access to the CragsTrailhead. The Regional Vision Planrecommends that modest expansion ofcampsites is appropriate, as well asincreased parking at the trailhead. Areconfiguration of camp sites andtrailhead facilities should be tested toimprove circulation and functionality ofthe limited space available.The Portal at the Crags Campgroundprovides connections to the Crags Trailfrom the east and intersects theproposed Perimeter Loop Trail on a northsouthalignment. The proposed CragsTrail to the east would be an alternativeroute to the summit.Mueller State Park is one of the largestof the Colorado State Parks system. It isused extensively for winter sports suchas cross country skiing, and campingand hiking. This park has become asignificant destination along the westedge of the Pikes Peak region (see Figure3-36). Connections from Mueller to theother recreation systems proposedwithin this Regional Vision Plan areimportant to both users of the StatePark, as well as users of Pikes Peak.Issues that remain unresolved includethe designation of a safe trail crossing atHighway 67.The west side of Pikes Peak has a historyof equestrian activity and Mueller StatePark provides limited equestrian facilitiesto support those users.Figure 3-34Expanded Barr Camp PortalContext MapFigure 3-35Crags Camp Portal Context MapFigure 3-36Mueller State Park PortalContext Map
a single camping site and would requireThe Portal that connects South SlopeTrails with the Perimeter Loop Trail is atWye Campground located in thesoutheastern portion of the Pikes Peaka reservation at the time of permitapplication. The South Slope is a viableInterpretive Center to tell the “WaterResource Story.“region (see Figure 3-37). A full range ofrecreational services would be providedat this Portal and would include:Figure 3-37South Slope Portal Context Mapcamping, picnicking, multi-use trailusers, restrooms, loading and unloadingfacilities, trash services, and drinkingwater. Trails connect Wye Campgroundto Barr Trail and provide anopportunity to reveal historic sitespreviously inaccessible to the public.Historic hotel sites, a lumber mill siteand early century hydroelectric facilitiesremain unexplored because of theFigure 3-38Limited Use Areas off the Trail Corridorrestricted access to the South Slopewatershed. A series of interpretive looptrials that branch from the main trailFigure 3-39Wye Campground PortalContext Mapcould allow users to see and learn aboutthe miners from the turn of the century.Unauthorized access off of the main trailwould not be allowed, because thesurrounding area lies within the LimitedUse Area. A permit would allow usersinto areas off of the trail corridor andinto the Limited Use Areas (See Figure 3-38). Backcountry campgrounds could beestablished. These camping areas wouldaccommodate only small groups withinWye Campground represents the onlyPortal along Gold Camp Road in thesoutheast portion of the Pikes Peakregion (see Figure 3-39). The existingfacilities include a campground and atrailhead. This area has traditionally hasbeen used for extensive motorized trailactivities and the Regional Vision Planproposes that Wye Campground beused as a staging area for thesemotorized activities. The program for
Wye Campground would also include:• Loading and unloading facilities• Parking for cars and small trailers• Camping and restroom facilities• Signage• Maps and trail etiquette informationMany of the existing motorized trails areadjacent to Limited Use Areas and theAccess to Wye Campground for smalltrailers will be addressed with thereopening of lower Gold Camp Road tovehicles when Tunnel Number Three isreconstructed. The grades fromColorado Springs to Wye Campgroundprovide more feasible access torecreation vehicles than the presentlyused Old Stage Road.Restoration Zone. Limited Use Areas and theRestoration Zone. do not overlay trailcorridors, they begin and end alongdefined corridor limits. In this way, theydo not coexist on the same land, yetadjacency issues need to be resolved atthe site scale. Trail-use educationmaterials should clearly state that usewithin the Limited Use Areas and theRestoration Zones are restricted to trailsonly and failure to comply will result infines and loss of privileges.A study to determine the compa t i b i l i t yof motorized uses and ecosystemm a nagement objectives on the trailswithin the Restoration Zo n e and Limited Us eArea could recommend preservation,mitigation and educational approachesto this challenge. While the study is inprogress, and until measures aredelineated, signage restricting accessbe yond the trails should be installed onall existing trails in these zones.A Back Country Portal is recommendedin an area east of Wye Campground, atthe intersection of Old Stage and GoldCamp Roads. The far southeast cornerof the planning area (see Figure 3-40)represents what is likely to be the mostremote part of the Pikes Peak region.This southeast corner is an opportunityto provide a Recreational Use Center andexperience that currently does not existelsewhere in the region: backcountrypacking and camping. A sensitivesystem of backcountry camps,connected by trails into the Beaver Creekwilderness study area to the southshould be established for use by permitonly. A reservation system for thesecampsites would be implemented and aphilosophy of “no-trace” campingencouraged to minimize the operationalcosts of maintaining the backcountrycamping program and preserve thenatural environment.Figure 3-40Back Country Portal Context Map
Figure 3-41Cheyenne Canyon PortalContext MapFigure 3-42Gold Camp Road Context MapNorth Cheyenne Canyon is one of themost accessible mountain Po r t a l along thewest edge of Colorado Springs (see Figure3-41). The Re g i o nal Vision Plan recommendsa Po r t a l be located at Cheye n n eC a n yon to provide access to the Pe ri m e t e rLoop Tr a i l and the Starsmore Discove r yCenter in North Cheyenne Canyon.The designation of a Re g i o nal I n t e r p r e t i v eC e n t e r for North Cheyenne Canyon asEnvironmental Education is due in pa r tto its existing facilities, the StarsmoreD i s c overy Center. How e ve r, it alsoreflects the value of the na t u r a lresources surrounding the area andp r ovides convenient access for schoo lchildren to utilize the Center.O p portunity exists for environmentaleducation throughout the Pikes Pe a kregion, and as they are deve l o ped theywill be described and communicated onmaps and literature, made av a i lable atthe Starsmore Discovery Center. Th ed e s i g nation of this environmentally richarea as an Interpretive Center f o renvironmental education is intended tohelp coo r d i nate and communicate theseresources and activities throughout thePikes Peak region. The Cheye n n eC a n yon will be a mountain bikingRecreation Use Center.Re c e n t l y, the Gold Camp Road fromColorado Springs to Cripple Creek (seeFigure 3-42) was placed on the Nationa lRegister of Historic Places, recognitiont hat elevated the value of the road as ana t i o nal cultural resource. The U.S.Forest Service is mandated to protectcultural resources, and will open thetunnel to restore the historic automobileuse along this corridor. Since 1988 whenthe tunnel collapsed, the lower segmentof Gold Camp Road, located on U.S.Forest Service land has been closed tovehicles be yond Tunnel Number Th r e e .The use of Lower Gold Camp road as avehicle corridor contributes to theoverall vision for the Pikes Peak regionin other significant ways that include:• Improved automobile access to the remotesouthern parts of the region.• Improved universal access for those withdisabilities to a unique and scenic portionof the study area.• Improved circulation as part of the ScenicLoop, a vehicular route that travelsthrough the study area.• Consistent with existing forest landmanagement plan.• Improved emergency vehicle access andfire-fighting capacity in a critical urbanruralinterface area.
• Reduced dependency on Old Stage Road, asteep and dangerous alternative access routemaintains the original investment as am o t o rized route and enhances the existingh i s t o rical resource.For these reasons, the Re g i o nal Vi s i o nP lan recommends that the road ber e paired and re-opened to ve h i c l e stouring the region. Throughout thepublic pa r t i c i pation process, costs andbenefits of re-opening the lower GoldCamp Road were actively discussed, andthe CAG and TAG concluded that thebenefits outweighted the costs.There is currently a tremendous amountof recreational use on the first mile ofLower Gold Camp Road from HighDrive to the closed tunnel. Theremaining seven and a half miles ofGold Camp Road is used primarily bymotorbikes and mountain bikes. Whenthe tunnel is repaired and the road isreopened to vehicles, all existing useswould continue.The Pikes Peak Highway locatedbetween Cascade and the Summit asshown in Figure 3-43, represents asignificant regional attraction and a planexists for its continued improvement.The planning process tested andendorsed a series of concepts related tothe further development of the PikesPeak Highway.The issue of paving the upper reaches ofthe Pikes Peak Highway was discussedoutside of this planning process. TheCity of Colorado Springs concluded thata hard surface finish would be appliedto the surface of the road where thegravel surface now exists. In addition,the managers of the Pikes Peak Highwayhave recommended a limited number ofdesignated camping sites be providedalong the highway corridor for somevisitors. Locating a small amount ofcamping in the area between CrystalReservoir and Glen Cove may befeasible, however the design andconstruction of these facilities will meetAmerican Disabilities Act Standards andwill require considerable mitigation tominimize the environmental and visualresource intrusion associated with thishighway corridor.The development of additional serviceswould affect the nature of visitorservices in the area, and needs furtherstudy. These services may include:• overnight accommodation• hiking trails• evening programs• 24 hour gate keeping• emergency service.Figure 3-43Pikes Peak Highway Context Map
Resource Elements• Water Resources Resources• Cultural Resources• Transportation Resources• Wildlife Habitat Resources• Recreational ResourcesWater resources are a criticalc o m ponent of the environmentalsetting in the Pikes Peak region. Surfaceand groundwater resources prov i d ei m portant regional benefits that havebeen deve l o ped, enhanced, andprotected as the Pikes Peak area ha sg r own. The uniqueness of the PikesPeak area is due in part to the highvalue of the regional water resources.• North and South Catamount Reservoirs• Crystal Reservoir• Mason and McReynolds Reservoirs• Penrose Rosemont Reservoir• Variety of collection and delivery systemson the North and South SlopesWhile surface supplies are plentiful,groundwater aquifers are limited andgenerally confined to na r r ow valleycorridors. Protecting the quantity andquality of water supply sources is ani m portant mission of Colorado SpringsU t i l i t i e s .The following description provides abrief overview of the key waterresources elements to the RegionalVision Plan.Water SupplyThe Pikes Peak area provides ani m portant component of the watersupply for the Colorado Springs area.O ver the years Colorado SpringsUtilities has spent millions of dolla r sacquiring water rights and deve l o p i n gwater collection and storage facilities.The Constructed Water SupplyInfrastructure Map in the Pikes Peak At l a ss h ows the location of the major watersupply system elements in the pla n n i n garea include:Environmental BenefitsThe streams, lakes, and wetlands in thePikes Peak area provide impo r t a n tr e g i o nal environmental benefits. Th e yp r ovide habitat for a broad diversity ofwildlife. Runoff originating in the PikesPeak headwaters area supports ripa r ia ncorridors dow n s t r e a m .Recreation and BenefitsThe recreational values provided by thePikes Peak area are closely tied to waterresources. Hiking, fishing and campingexperiences are all enhanced by highqualitylakes and streams. Pressure forincreased recreational access andopportunities in the area is one of thereasons a Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is
needed. Preserving the existing quality ofregional water resources is important tomaintain or expand the recreationvalues provided by the region.increased use and higher intensity of usehave the potential to adversely impactthe quality of water available from thiscomponent of the Colorado SpringsEvaluation of Final PlanEach project element of the Re g i o na lVision Plan was evaluated with respe c tto criteria discussed in the Appe n d i x .Possible po s i t i ve or negative impacts ofproject elements on regional waterresources are described be l ow.The Pikes Peak Regional Visitor Center couldhave minor adverse impacts on localsurface and ground water quality due toincreased traffic and other potentialpollution sources. Environmentallysound measures (i.e., stormwaterretention, buffer strips, minimizingdirectly connected impervious areas)should be incorporated into the sitedesign. It is also assumed that facilitylayout will be selected to avoid impactsto the Fountain Creek floodplain andriparian area.Crystal Reservoir Visitors Center and theWater Recreation Center around CrystalCreek Reservoir and North and SouthCatamount Reservoirs will greatlyexpand recreational use and access tothese water storage facilities. Thewater supply system. In addition, thesestorage facilities were not designed withpublic access in mind, resulting inpossible safety and vandalism issues.When planning these recreation projects,measures should be included forminimizing facility and user impacts onreservoir water quality. In addition,public access to areas critical foroperation and maintenance of the waterdevelopment features of the reservoirsand associated water collection anddelivery systems should be restricted.Construction impacts could result inincreased sediment loads to creeks. Plansshould include measures to limit thearea and duration of disturbance, andshould include Best ManagementPractices to mitigate runoff impacts.Plans should also include measures tomitigate possible water quality impactsof increased tourist use and traffic (trashmanagement, sanitary services, nonpointpollution prevention).The Re g i o nal Vision Plan includespaving Pikes Peak Highway. Th i sshould result in significant benefits inIf you stand at Manitou& Pikes Peak Railwayplatform you can see adark swath of trees to thenortheast. This is theBlack Forest, the largestconcentration ofPonderosa pines in thecountry.
educing erosion from the existingu n paved road surface and subsequentd e position of sediment in dow n s t r e a mw a t e r w ays. Limiting access to buses orr e g u lating the number of vehicles usingthe highway should be considered tominimize non-point source impacts ofincreased vehicle use on water quality.Increased vehicle traffic to the Portals andvisitor use of various services at theselocations would increase pollutantsources in the region. Pollutionprevention measures should beincorporated into designs to minimizecontact of rain and storm water withpossible pollution sources (e.g., parkinglots, solid waste facilities, septic systems).This memorial plaque found onthe summit of Pikes Peakcommemorates the 100 thanniversary of the inspiration of“America the Beautiful” byKatharine Lee Bates. Source: DesignWorkshop, Inc.The Wye Campground Motorized TrailCenter could have adverse impacts onthe watershed by increasing thepotential for erosion (on trails and otherdenuded areas), and subsequentlydegrading downstream water quality.Increased vehicle use on trails as well asvisitor services could also have adverseimpacts on water quality. Impacts arenot as serious in this part of theplanning area because it is not asensitive zone. However, high use areasshould avoid areas that are tributary toRosemont Reservoir, which is part of theColorado Springs water supply system.The various Portals and enhanced trailsand camping areas could all have thepotential for adverse impacts on localwater quality conditions. Standard bestmanagement practices for designingtrails and campgrounds should beemployed to minimize the impacts ofincreased hiking and camping use.A cultural resource prov i d e se x perience, materials and anunderstanding of the surroundings tha thelps a community identify with itsh i s t o r y. The Pikes Peak Re g i o na lVision Plan suggests various levels ofphysical change that impact theaccessibility and natural resourceswithin the region. It is these cha n g e st hat have been important in theevaluation of the Cultural Resources.The evaluation of existing culturalresources begins with a broad regiona lpe r s pe c t i ve of Pikes Peak. From thisbroad pe r s pe c t i ve, a layer of culturalresources can be identified. The primaryand most obvious resource is theSummit which holds na t i o nal and statevalue as a regional icon. This is follow e d
y overall wilderness value andr e c r e a t i o nal opportunities whichcontributes to community life andr e g i o nal identity. The rich historic andarcheological sites and stories of theregion. Fina l l y, there are the surroundingcommunities that provide a sense of loc a lcultural identity for area residents.Recreational Use Centers distribute users ove ra greater area, reducing the impact onl ocal or site-specific resources. Byoffering expanded visitor oppo r t u n i t i e s ,the Re g i o nal Vision Plan directs visitorsto lesser-known areas in order to reducethe concentration of visitors on existingover-used but be t t e r - k n own resources.The implementation of regional conceptsThe Pikes Peak Multi-Use Planconsidered the impacts that users haveon the physical properties of theresources with which the surroundingcommunity identifies, and thepsychological impacts associated withan increased number of visitors usingan area. For the former, the impact canbe trail deterioration. For the latter, theimpact can be a violation of the senseof isolation or wilderness found whenencountering a large number of users.These factors have an impact on theusers perceived value or quality of theirexperience and the given culturalresource. The question raised, is thelandscape discouraging or providing apositive user’s experience and sense ofidentity?The Re g i o nal Vision Plan provides too l sto conserve and enhance the usere x perience and thus protect the valuedresources. The proposed Portals a n dand projects also impacts the regiona lcontext. While many of the individualsites will benefit from site improve m e n t sand reduced daily visitor numbers, thep r o posed distribution may impact thee x perience in existing sensitive areas tol ocal users. Conve r s e l y, non-local usersm ay see the broader distribution ofRecreational Use Centers and Portals as ani m p r ovement to the regional resource.The Re g i o nal Vision Plan recommends aba lance of new activity areas and greateraccess control to existing natural andcultural resources. The Re g i o nal Vi s i o nP lan recognizes the opportunities tha texist within these resources and seeks tocreate a ba lance by building on theframework of existing roads, trails, pa r k s ,and Po r t a l s. While these physical loc a lresources exist, many are under-utilizedt oday. Recognizing the impacts of theseresources and their importance, the Pla nhighlights the under-utilized sites byAspens along the Pikes PeakHighway. Source: The Colorado SpringsConvention and Visitors Bureau
d r awing a new distribution of visitorsacross the greater region of the PikesPeak region. This includes the efforts toi m p r ove access and visitor services alongthe north and western slopes.improvements also include existing dayusefacilities along the highway tobroaden Recreation Use Centeropportunities. As the main gateway, thehighway and summit house presentanother opportunity to tell the PikesCripple Creek and Victor are recognizedas important historic resources, withgrowing recreational opportunities. Theintroduction of Interpretive Centers andPortals along the western slope, CripplePeak regional story. The Regional VisitorCenter in Cascade, introduces visitors tothe story and provides them with anopportunity to observe the patterns ofthe cultural influences on the landscape.Source: Design Workshop, Inc.Barr Trail is consideredthe “granddaddy of trails”on Pikes Peak, and themain hiking route to thetop. It was constructedalmost singlehandedly byFred Barr, a miner,between 1914 and 1921.The trail travels 12.6miles and gains morethan 7,500 feet ofelevation on its way fromManitou Springs to thetop, making it one of thehardest round- trip trailsin Colorado.Creek and Victor offers a broader rangeof wilderness opportunities and localcultural experiences for visitors. Theseexpanded services also offer a relief tothe east and south-slope resources.The Auto-Touring and Perimeter Loop Trailincrease the accessibility for elderly anddisabled community members. Increasedaccessibility offers an excellentopportunity to improve the culturalresource identity for a growing segmentof the greater regional community. Thisis an important benefit whenconsidering the cultural managementvalue of strengthening the communityand regional identity.Suggested improved Pikes Peak Highwayand summit services have beenconsidered in conjunction with existingplans for the facilities. TheseThe planning process has also identifieda variety of local visitor and Interpretiveand Recreation Use Centers. The suggestedcenters are intended to provide localcommunities with the opportunity tohighlight local cultural resources andrelationships that make up the greaterPikes Peak region.While a majority of the local or sitespecifichistoric and archeologicalresources lie outside the planning areaboundaries, they influence the PikesPeak experience. The rich mining,railroad and water resource engineeringhistory of the area has greatly shapedthe regional landscape. Mining and therailroads have defined culturalestablishments, while patterns and themanagement of watershed lands haveprotected and created unique wildlife
habitat and ecosystems. The value inthese cultural resources adds to thevisitor’s experience and establishesbroad relationships with regionalscientific, historical, and recreationalcommunities.The Regional Vision Plan considers agreat number of physical changes to theplanning area while reflecting on thelayers of cultural resources thatinfluence local and regional identity. Inall cases, the Managing Partners need tocontinue to evaluate the importance ofthe local and regional visitor’sexperience. This includes recognizing thecultural context of individual culturalresources and tracking the changesinherent in the context and physicalconditions of the resources over time.This may include changing attitudes, aswell as identifying contextual influencesthat impact the resources. As part of thecontinued evaluation, a planning toolshould be in place to facilitate thesharing of information required toadjust to changing conditions acrosspartnership boundaries.The transportation plan for the Re g i o na lVision Plan consists of an outermotorized access loop (Scenic Loop) andan inner non-motorized, multi-use traill oop (Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l), both of whichp r ovide continuous routes around thePikes Peak region. These two loops arelinked at several portals at which visitorscan transition from the motorized roadway system to various Recreational Use andInterpretive Centers t hat are also accessiblefrom the Pe rimeter Loop Tr a i l. Utilization ofexisting roads and trails should bee n hanced before constructing any newroutes that don’t currently exist.Scenic LoopThe motorized access loop consists ofU.S. and Colorado State Highwayslocated on the west, north, andnortheast sides of the plan area. Pavedand unpaved local roads form thesouthern and southeastern portions ofthe Scenic Loop. Segments of the ScenicLoop and their regional continuity areThe Pikes Peak COG Rail RoadSource: The Colorado Springs Convention andVisitors Bureau
The 1986 World CyclingChampionshipsfeatured140 bikersascending the Peak 18.7miles from the tollgate tothe top, with a winningtime of 1 hour 50minutes.described as follows:• U.S. 24 forms the northeastern andnorthern parts of the loop. U.S. 24 hashistorically provided, and is expected tocontinue to provide, the primary access tothe planning area from Colorado Springsand other Front Range Communities viaI-25. U.S. 24 is currently a four-lanehighway from Colorado Springs toWoodland Park on the north. AtWoodland Park, U.S. 24 turns to the westas a two lane highway, planned by theColorado Department of Transportation tobe improved to four lanes. U.S. 24continues west to Buena Vista and beyondto connect with U.S. 285 and I-70.• State Highway (SH) 67 forms the westernpart of the loop. SH 67 is a two-lanehighway, connecting Victor and CrippleCreek in the southern part of the planarea, to Divide on the north, thencontinuing on the U.S. 24 alignment toWoodland Park, where it turns north andextends into Douglas County.• Gold Camp Road is a historicmountainous gravel road that forms thesouthern and southeastern part of themotor loop. The southeastern segment ofGold Camp Road that is currently closedis planned to be reopened. With itsreopening, Gold Camp Road and OldStage Road will provide two alternativeroutes to U.S. 24 via the Colorado Springsstreet system.Perimeter Loop TrailThe multi-use loop trail will beestablished with a combination ofexisting, improved, and new trailsegments. It will accommodate all nonmotorizedtravel, including hiking,bicycling, and equestrian activity. Atlocations where the outer motor loopand inner trail loop are significantlyseparated, trail facilities will also beprovided parallel to the motor loop.PortalsAccess Portals from the Scenic Loop to thePerimeter Loop Trail are planned at eightlocations. The separation between theautomobile (Scenic) and pedestrianloops may vary at different Portals, withdistances ranging from approximatelytwo miles at the Mueller Portal to beingadjacent at the Pikes Peak RegionalVisitor Center. No Portals are plannedon the northern segment of U.S. 24between Divide and Woodland Park.Access to the Pikes Peak Summit will beavailable via the Pikes Peak Highway,the Cog Railroad, the Barr Trail, andfour new trail connections that will beestablished from the south and west.The Pikes Peak Highway will be pavedto the Summit.
The planned transportation system willprovide enhanced accessibility to andamong recreational activities within theplanning area. The communities ofVictor, Cripple Creek, Woodland Park,western Colorado Springs, and ManitouSprings will all have enhanced access torecreational opportunities via themotorized and non-motorized trailloops. Likewise, all recreationalopportunities will be connected via thecontinuous motorized and trail loops.New trail connections to the Pikes PeakSummit will provide additional hikingopportunities. With the paving of thePikes Peak Highway, Summit Houseexpansion, and general enhancements toarea recreational amenities, Pikes PeakHighway travel demand can be expectedto increase over time. Implementationof additional two-way and one-way (forone-way hikers) bus and van shuttleprograms should be investigated toenhance access opportunities and reducepeak period traffic on the highway.The most significant motorized trafficconcentration will continue to occur atthe Pikes Peak Regional Visitor Center.Improvements to U.S. 24 access at theRegional Visitor Center should beconsidered as activity increases,including the potential for a gradeseparatedconnection from northboundU.S. 24 at some point in the future.ParkingIt will be important to ensure thatadequate parking is provided toaccommodate peak season demand atthe visitor centers. This is particularlyimportant at the Colorado Springs andManitou Springs Gateways, where anexcess of parking demand could impactsurrounding neighborhoods.The only significant access reduction inthe Re g i o nal Vision Plan as compa r e dto the current situation is thee l i m i nation of the existing seasona laccess from the north to theCatamount Ranch Open Space area.Until the existing access is pe r m a n e n t l yclosed, the challenge will be to directvisitors to Portals on the east and west.Conservation ConceptsThe objective of the conservation conceptis to limit the numbers and acceptableu sages within the Pikes Peak region.While this restricted use limits access, italso conserves recreational enjoyment.Making the trip from theeastern plains of Coloradoto the top of Pikes Peak islike traveling fromMexico to Alaska, ajourney through five ofthe six life zones in NorthAmerica.
The second major objective is tocarefully plan and minimize impactsassociated with facilities and trailsystems. In planning trail systems, it isimportant to remain flexible in adjustingtrail alignment during planning andconstruction.Wetland and Riparian AreasWetland and riparian areas are closelyrelated and overlap within the PikesPeak region. Both are stronglyassociated with intermittent andperennial streams throughout the area.These are sensitive areas that providevaluable functions to the Pikes PeakSource: Colorado Springs UtilitiesThe Bighorn Sheep is theofficial state animal ofColorado. It inhabits thePikes Peak region thatextends from the Gardenof the Gods to the summitof the Peak.ecosystem as a whole. Aside fromproviding critical wildlife habitat,wetlands and riparian areas houseunique plant communities, stabilize soilsand preserve and enhance water quality.Intrusions into these areas should beminimized at all times. Trail systemsshould be carefully planned to minimizeimpacts. Appropriate measures shouldbe taken to discourage people fromwandering away from the designatedtrails. Both wetlands and riparian areasare, to some degree, regulated by the USArmy Corps of Engineers (COE). COEregulations require a permit for anydisturbance that takes place withinwetlands or waters of the United States.
Threatened and EndangeredSpecies and Wildlife HabitatThreatened and endangered speciesmust be addressed on a species-byspeciesbasis under the jurisdiction ofthe United States Fish and Wildlifeplant communities grow extremelyslowly. Decades of growth can be wipedout by a carelessly laid footstep. Forthese reasons, tundra is highlysusceptible to degradation throughhuman activities.Service (USFWS). The USFWS mayrequire surveys for specific projects orareas as well as management practicesfor certain activities. Wildlife habitat isstrongest when habitat fragmentation iskept to a minimum. It is also importantto provide suitable travel corridorsbetween major habitat areas to facilitateseasonal movement and a healthyexchange between isolated populations.Travel corridors must be wide enoughto provide safe passage and should berelatively free of human activitiesand/or restrictive barriers such as hightraffic roads.Alpine TundraAlpine tundra is the most sensitiveecotype within the Pikes Peak planningarea. Currently, this is one of the mostecologically disturbed ecotypes withinthe master planning area. Only a smallnumber of specially adapted plants cansurvive in this inhospitable climate.Those that are capable of survival havevery slow growth rates. For example, aten-foot tall tree at timberline is wellover 100 years old. Fragile lichen andGateways and PortalsThe concept of Gateways and Portalsshould enhance the conservation ofPikes Peak natural resources. Controlledaccess points should be very useful inmanaging and controlling the area’susages and their associated impacts.Direct impacts to resources should beminimized when planning andconstructing new facilities, but overallimpacts should be negligible due to theirperimeter location.Summit House Road & Trail Sys t e mI m p r ovements to this area are needed toc o n s e r ve and enhance the existing tundraresource. Paving the Pikes Peak Highwaywill reduce erosion and disturbance ofhabitat. The greatest concern is the trailsystem through this area. Effective l yreducing foot traffic on or over tundraareas will conserve and protect thise c o t y pe. New trails should be minimizedTimberline on Pikes PeakSource: Design Workshop, inc.
and adhering to the trail system must bestrictly enforced. Signage and interpretiveeducation programs are also effectivemeasures for persuading recreationa l i s t sto obey barriers.Interpretive andRecreation Use CentersThe Cheyenne Canyon InterpretiveCenter should provide excellenteducational opportunities given itsWye Campground and TrailsMotorized vehicles are always adetriment to natural areas. They canspoil the experience of those who havechosen a non-motorized mode oftransportation or are seeking awilderness experience. Limitingmotorized use to segments of theplanning area as indicated by the planproperly addresses the way toaccommodate multiple uses.proximity to a multitude of naturalresources. However, this proximitySnow MobilingSource: Design Workshop, Inc.must also be considered in planning. Ifthe center is targeted toward attractinglarge groups, it may well defeat itspurpose. Groups larger than 25 tend todisrupt natural communities and shouldbe discouraged from interpretive walksunless small groups can be formed.Gillett PortalThe Gillett Portal must be carefullyconsidered and planned. The proximityto sizeable wetlands and riparian areasenhances the potential for adverseenvironmental impacts to water quality.Also, use of weed-free hay must berequired to prevent the spread ofnoxious weeds. Livestock is notoriousfor denigrating stream banks andinfluencing water quality. Properconsideration must be given to theseissues when planning this site.People are drawn to the Pikes Peakregion for its natural landscape beautyand recreational opportunities. Whilethe surrounding communities offer avariety of cultural experiences, they allshare a common resource in the Peak.Outside of the Garden of the Gods, thePikes Peak Summit House and Highwayattracts the greatest number of regionalvisitor per year than any other naturalfeature in our region. The Peak providesthe basis for the communitiesrecreational opportunities, such as trail,fishing, biking, climbing, and camping.These outdoor wilderness andrecreational opportunities account for alarge percent of the six million plusannual visitors to the region.
The major attractions and resourcesvalue.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 FallsThe noted major resources are alsos u p ported by local community programst hat celebrate the area’s rich natural andhistoric la n d s c a pe, such as the Run of theGarden of the Gods, Pikes Pe a kMarathon, the Pikes Peak Highla n dGames, and Donkey De r by Day s .The goals of the Regional Vision Planhave recognized the benefits andimpacts of the existing recreationalactivities on the areas cultural andnatural resources. Through carefulconsideration and analysis the planseeks to broaden the range ofrecreational opportunities whilemanaging areas of sensitive ecologicalThe efforts to introduce newopportunities are combined withprograms that restore damagedenvironmental and historic landscapes.These areas include the proposedrestoration zones along the east slopesand limited access to the south slope.Supporting a broader range ofopportunities, the plan formalizes aninterior Perimeter Loop Trail, Auto-TouringLoop and a series of Portals and RecreationUse Centers. The formalization of theseaccess points provides greater yearroundaccessibility to the planning areafor a greater range of users.By defining an Au t o -To u ring Loop and reestablishinga connection along GoldCamp Road the propo sal recognizes arange of community recreational needs.Considered as a lost cultural resource, thehistorical Gold Camp road auto-by w ayonce again meets the needs of an agingand less physical po p u lation. The Au t o -To u ring Loop i m p r ovements also enha n c efire and service access that protects theresources and users expe r i e n c e s .Through the development of Portals andRecreation Use Centers the plan begins toidentify suitable land and recreationalopportunity relationships that supportWinter RecreationSource: Design Workshop, Inc.
the regional landscape vision.Controlling access points for suchactivities as motorized vehicle use allowsthe Managing Partners the opportunitythe cost of maintenance can be focusedon a few primary trails, providing highquality amenities that hold up better forto a growing number of users.to consider and control broad rangelandscape restoration programs, whileimproving services for given resourceusers. Individual levels of attention willbe given to parking, water, landscaperestoration and camping amenities, withthe development of each Recreation UseCenters. The addition of local Portals andRecreation Use Centers also becomesimportant as a means of identitydirecting regional users to appropriateactivity areas and more evenlydistributing users across the study area.As with the cultural resource analysis,the recreational resources and user’sexperiences benefit from reduced userconcentrations. An example of theresource distribution benefits can beseen with the proposed trail alignmentconcepts. The plan first attempts toconsider multiple routes to majordestination points from differentaccesses that reduce the user pressureon individual trails. Second, parallelroutes are eliminated, as a means ofOther expanding recreationalopportunities can be associated with theproposed Portals into the South Slopearea, Teller County’s Catamount RanchOpen Space site and reservoir access,and the Gillett Portal. The CatamountRanch Open Space Portal is intended tooffer new water and winter sportopportunities. The Portal would includefishing facilities and trail information forbackcountry skiing. With theseimprovements and the relationshipspossible with the Crags Campgroundand Mueller State Park regional usersare offered an enhanced western sloperecreational destination. The GillettPortal would serve multiple users, andalso establish a new remote equestriancenter along the southwest slopes of thePeak. Again, the Portal would helpbroaden the access and recreationalopportunities and provide relativeservices within the historic context ofthe regional landscape.reducing maintenance costs, andunnecessary accesses that contribute toenvironmental degradation and demandmanagement resources. In both casesThe South Slope limited use propo sa lcombines new regional oppo r t u n i t i e s .First the limited use/and or permitted use
Source: From the Collection of Paul Gilbert, Sr., Colorado Division of Wildlife, RetiredLand within the boundaries of the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is owned by six differententities and falls into multiple jurisdictions and spheres of influence. The recommendedmanagement structure for the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan is a composite of theCooperative Management Agreement/Independent/Non-Profit models as described inthe Planning Process Section. Each land owner implements the plan for their jurisdictionand existing long-standing agreements and partnerships are supported by the VisionPlan. This model is supplemented by Leaders of the Vision, Managing Partners, and theNon-Profit Foundation. The role of each entity is defined by their policies, landmanagement tools, and relative strengths.
Managing Partners• Colorado Springs Utilities -Water Resources• U.S. Forest Service Pikes PeakRanger 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 Fa l l s• Town of Victor• Pikes Peak - Am e rica’s Mountain• Colorado Springs ParksThe following roles of the managemententities are recommended:The U.S. Forest Service Pikes PeakRanger District and Colorado SpringsUtilities have served as the leaders forthe planning process and the resultingvision created in the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan. These two entities shouldcontinue to champion the resource andthe vision. The continued cooperationof these two entities will ensure adynamic partnership that can meet allof the management objectivesestablished for the project.All entities that have managementresponsibilities within the Pikes Peakarea have met regularly throughout theplanning process for the Pikes PeakMulti-Use Plan to provide information,insight, recommendation, andcomments. on key concepts. Thesynergy created by these meetings hassignificantly benefited the outcome.It is recommended that a Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) be developedamong the agencies to agree to meet ona regular basis (at a set interval to bedetermined). This quarterly worksessionwould discuss actions andPikes Peak Multi-Use PlanColorado Springs UtilitiesU.S. Forest Service PikesPeak Ranger DistrictFigure 4-1Recommended ManagementStructure501 c3 Non-ProfitFoundationBureau of LandManagementColoradoSprings Utilities- Water Re s o u r c e sDepartment ofWildlifeU.S. ForestService PikesPeak RangerDistrictEl Paso CountyTeller CountyTownsand CitiesOthers
implementation strategies related to thePikes Peak Multi-Use Plan.recommendation from the Pikes PeakMulti-Use Plan into their respectiveCounty Comprehensive Plans.Cities and Towns of Cripple Creek,Each land owner has a significantr e s ponsibility to implement the Multi-Use Plan within their jurisdiction.These include:Green Mountain Falls, ManitouSprings, Victor and Woodland ParkThe cities and towns should adopt therecommendations from the Multi-Useplan into their respective local masterU.S. Forest Service (USFS)- Pikes Peak Ranger DistrictThe USFS will be responsible forplans. Manitou Springs will continue tobe co-stewards of national forest landsunder current management agreements.operational and stewardship functionson national forest lands and continue toserve as the primary land manager.Colorado Division of Wildlife (DO W )Colorado DOW will continue toparticipate in the greenback cutthroatColorado Springs Utilities (CSU)- Water ResourcesCSU will continue to operate and beco-stewards of their watersheds innational forest land under currenttrout program in cooperation with CSUand the USFS. They will continue intheir role as primary steward of wildliferesources and manage both hunting andfishing recreation.management agreements.Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS )Bureau of Land Management (BL M )BLM will be responsible for operationaland implementation functions of theplan for the land under their control. InThe CSFS will continue to provideguidance on forest resource issues andwildlife response coordination on nonfederallands.some instances this has been delegatedto the USFS.Colorado State ParksA Portal at Mueller State Park should beEl Paso and Teller Countiesproposed.The counties should adopt the
knowledgeable of the planning area.They defined the individual landscapeA Non-Profit Foundation serves as thefacilitator, fund-raiser, project manager,liaison between agencies andlandowners, and involves localcommunities in volunteer projects andspecial events. The Foundation boardand members serve as the "visionkeeper." The Foundation does not getinvolved in regulatory processes.features that characterize carryingcapacity and then developed theweighting factor by which they werecombined. Once the Carrying CapacityMap was created and segmented intoseven capacity zones, this same group ofresource planners established the kindsof uses appropriate within each capacityzone. This carrying capacity evaluationwill serve as a long-term managementtool that can be used to identifypotential conflicts with future proposeduses. Since virtually every potentialland use has been evaluated, Figure 4-2and the Capacity Map can be used toevaluate the potential impact of anyA comprehensive technical process waspart of the planning process toc haracterize the capacity of thela n d s c a pe to support land uses. Allprogram elements were evaluated, aswell as additional generic uses such asr e s i d e n t ial and commercial. A fulle x p la nation of this technical proc e s shas been described in the Pla n n i n gP r ocess section of this doc u m e n t .future land use proposal, such as trailalignments, camping sites, etc.This Program/Capacity Fit Matrix listsall uses appropriate within each capacityzone. Since Zone One has the highestcapacity and Zone Seven the lowestcapacity, the list of uses diminishes asthe landscape's capacity to support itdiminishes.The Carrying Capacity Map (see page20) was created by the TechnicalAdvisory Group (TAG). These advisorsconsisted of 14 resource planners
contain little or no oxygen and aresaturated for varying periods of timeduring the growing season. CertainM a nagement Guidelines have be e ndefined for areas within the study areat hat may require spe c ial mana g e m e n tt ools to mitigate challenges faced by theM a naging Partners in achieving thep u r pose of preserving natural resourceswhile providing recreationa lo p portunities. Management guidelineshave been described be l ow for sixsystem-wide zones: wetlands, ripa r ia nareas, wildlife and recreation areas,unique species and conservation zones,f l ood p lains, erosion prone areas, andfire hazard areas. Many of theguidelines described be l ow follow thePikes Peak Watershed Forest Management Plan.These Landscape Mana g e m e n tGuidelines are recommended forrelevant zones within the Pikes Pe a kM u l t i - Use Plan study areas.plants are adapted to living in wet, lowoxygenconditions and thrive in wetlandareas. When compared to other naturalhabitats in the region, wetlands supporta greater number of bird, mammal, andamphibian species.Wetlands are well known for the rolethey play in protecting water quality,but they also provide a broad range ofother functions of value to thecommunity. Wetlands are known to becritical 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• RecreationFigure 4-3 shows wetland types andWetlands are defined as those areas thatare inundated or saturated by surface orgroundwater enough to supportvegetation typically adapted to wet soilconditions. A wetland has certaincharacteristics that distinguish it fromother natural ecosystems. Wetland soilsl ocations within a typical uppe rmountain valley. Not all wetla n d sp r ovide all of these functions, and mostp r ovide only a few to a very high degree.Wetland mitigation measures includerestricting vehicle access into the
surrounding area, creating open waterhabitat, modifying wetland plancommunities, and institutingmaintenance and monitoring programs.The primary method of modifyingwetland plant communities should bethe removal of less desirable plantspecies and revegetation with nativewetland species. Baseline and long-termdata on soil, water, and habitatconditions should be gathered.Management efforts will respond tomonitoring information to insure longtermmitigation project success.Vegetation management options includewater drawdowns, burning, cutting,flooding, herbicide, and planting.In addition to management guidelines,general guidelines are recommended asfollows:Figure 4-3Wetland Types and Their LocationsSource: Illustration adapted from S.Q.Foster in U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 1888)
• Design roads and trails so as not toimpede the natural hydrology includingthe inflow and outflow of flood waters.• Provide cross-drainage during bothflooded and low-water periods. Locateroads on well drained soils.• Construct all fill of granular, free-drainingmaterial. Do not take road-buildingmaterials from wetland sites.• Consider the use of geotextile fabric inconstruction to increase the bearingstrength of the road; minimize fillrequirements, disturbance, andmaintenance costs.-•(e.g., large stone, chunkwood which islighter in weight), anticipate that theroadbed will sink into the organicmaterial.the fill will allow passage ofsubsurface and surface waters.• Where temporary roads are necessary:-•-•-•consider the use of wooden mats,geotextiles, and metal platform devices;consider loosening compacted surfacesafter use is completed; anduse temporary stream crossings; designthem to be removable/portable in caseof flooding.• Build only what is currently necessary.• To ensure adequate drainage, minimizesurface-water velocities, discourage ruttingand erosion, use surface drainagetechniques such as:- crowning,-•-•-•insloping and outsloping,2 percent minimum grade,surface gravel and maintenance.• Construct roads and trails when ground isfrozen to preserve the integrity of the rootmat as much as possible.• Do not undertake construction duringspring thaw and other wet periods.• Use signage to indicate sensitive areas.• Where the organic layer is greater than 48inches thick:-•-•-•place a layer of geotextile fabric;place a layer of “corduroy” logs,parallel to each other across theroadbed;place 12 inch thick layer of porous fill• Divert outflow from drainage ditchesbefore they enter wetlands.Construct ditches on both sides of ther o a d bed to collect surface andsubsurface water, channel watersthrough culverts, and disperse waters
again on the dow n s l o pe side; orientditches parallel to the roadbed; pla c ethem at a distance from the roadbe dequal to three times the depth of theorganic soil; dig them as deep as thec u l verts. Figure 4-4 demonstratesmitigation for stream crossings.To collect surface and subsurface water,construct ditches on both sides of theroadbed. Channel waters throughculverts, and disperse waters again onthe downslope side.Figure 4-4Management Objectives for StreamCrossings Source: Design Workshop, Inc.
of Colorado breeding birds areFigure 4-5Stream-side Plant CommunitiesThe BLM defines riparian ecosystems as“land transitional between aquatic andupland habitats that is characterized byhydric soil and distinctive vegetationrequiring free or unbound water.”Riparian corridors serve a variety offunctions that can be categorized intofour general areas: water quality,wildlife/aquatic life, water quantity, andaesthetics 1 .Riparian areas play a disproportionatelylarge role in maintaining biodiversity,especially in Colorado and otherwestern states. The hydrology andvegetation of riparian areas - usuallystarkly contrasting with surroundinghabitats - create very high biologicaldiversity. For example, of the 627vertebrate species listed by the ColoradoDivision of Wildlife, 458 species (73percent) use riparian, stream, lake, ormarsh habitat types for at least somepart of the year. More than 80 percentdependent on riparian areas. Figure 4-5shows stream-side plant communitiesand changes with elevation.The management guidelines according toriparian functions are described below:• WATER QUALITY. The efficacy of vegetatedbuffers in maintaining water quality,including sediment removal, fecal coliformreduction, nutrient reduction, andstormwater runoff management generallyincreases with buffer width. Therecommended buffer width is 100 to 400feet, however, buffer widths may changepending the implementation andguidelines of the Colorado State WaterAssessment and Protection Program.• SEDIMENT CONTROL. Recommendations forthis vary from 10 feet for filtering sandup to 289 feet for filtering clay.• TE MPER ATURE CONTROL. The relativedegree of shading provided by a buffers t rip depends on a range of factors suchas species composition, age of stand, anddensity of vegetation. Buffer strips withwidths of 98 feet or more generallyprovided the same level of shading asthat of an old-growth stand.• WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION.Recommended buffer widths for protecting
wildlife habitat ranged from 98 feet forsalmonid, 220-328 feet for smallmammals, 246-656 feet for some birds,during the breeding season, and 328 forlarge mammals.Because they are attractive to people,riparian areas endure a multitude ofhuman uses and are degraded. Trailprojects can be catalysts for restoringsuch areas, because they helpconcentrate human use and therebyreduce trampling, and the impact ofpeople in riparian areas. Byunderstanding the relative quality ofriparian areas, it may be possible to findplaces within the riparian zone for trailsthat will have less impact on wildlife.Plants in riparian soils are especiallyvulnerable to trampling becausecompacting soils damages and limitsroots, reduces aeration, decreases soilwater, and destroys soil structure.Where horses, pedestrians, and otherscross streams, erosion can result whichmay affect fish habitat. Also, if restrooms are not available the impacts ofhuman waste may be considerable.Fishing is a type of managed recreationthat has direct impacts on habitat, aswell as fish. Of special concern are theextensive social trails often created alongbanks by anglers, sometimes in sensitiveriparian areas.Recommendations• REGIONAL BALANCE. Looking across thelandscape or region, find a balancebetween the riparian areas that have trailsand those devoted to wildlife conservation.• HABITAT RESTORATION. Use the process ofbuilding trails as a catalyst to restoredegraded stream corridors.• REMOVING GRAZING. Whenever possible,use a trail as a catalyst to restrict cattleand other stock from good qualityriparian areas.• STRATEGIC ENTRIES INTO RIPARIAN ZONE.For both habitat and maintenancereasons, it is better to run a trail justoutside the riparian area (perhaps on atopographic bench) and bring it in atstrategic places, than to keep itcontinuously close to a riparian area.• NOT ENCIRCL ING PONDS. In routing a trailnear a pond or lake, don't run it completelyaround the body of water. Instead, leavesome shoreline without a trail to allowwater birds the option of moving awayfrom people to the far side of the pond.• BEAVER PONDS AS ATTRACTIONS.Occasionally taking a trail to beaver
ponds may provide an opportunity fortrail users to see wildlife habitat close athand. Beaver are not as likely to bedisturbed by recreationalists as otherwildlife, but be careful of sensitive speciesthat also use beaver ponds.• STREAM CROSSINGS. Minimize the numberof times a trail crosses a stream. However,stream crossings may be needed to avoidcritical habitat areas.find ways themselves, likely with greateroverall impact than if a trail is provided.• WIDER CONSERVATION. Use public supportof trails to protect riparian corridors.• RESTORING WETLANDS. Restore wetlandsnear a trail to expand cover, food, andnesting opportunities.• STREAM CONFLUENCES. Avoid crossingswhere two or more streams come together.These are particularly important nodes forwildlife.• STRE A M BUFFERS. To maintain naturalprocesses along a stream corri d o r,maintain an interior or upland buffer onboth sides of a stream, which is wideenough to control over-land flows from thes u rrounding landscape, provide a conduitfor upland species, and offer suitablehabitat for floodplain species displaced bybeaver flooding or channel migration.• POOR RIPARIAN HABITAT. In riparian areasof variable habitat quality, route a trailcloser to a stream where habitat quality ispoorer.• APPROACHING STREAMS. Give trail users theopportunity to be near water or they will
Management of wildlife and recreationzones requires a three step processdescribed in Figure 4-6:• Get the whole picture• Consider alternative alignments• Build and manage the trailGet theWhole Picture1Include wildlife inthe Trail Vision2Organize andcommunicate3ConsiderAlternativeAlignments1Prepare and evaluatealternatives2Design the trailBuild andManage the Trail1Acquire and constructthe trail2Monitor and managethe trailThe following “Checklist” outlines aResearch andinventoryseries of actions to take and questions toask when planning, designing,Figure 4-6implementing and managing wildlifeWildlife and Trails Checklisthabitat interaction with recreationalists 2 .3. Develop initial trail concepts. Whatdestinations, users, and activitiesGet the Whole Picturewould occur on the trail?Include Wildlife in the Trail Vision1. Examine the broader landscape.What opportunities or constraints arethere for trails and wildlife in thebroader landscape? What plans arethere for other trails or wildlifeacross the landscape? In general,what kinds of landscapes would thetrail pass through? Would any beareas that currently have no trails4. Keep wildlife concerns within thefocus of the project vision. Are therebiologists or other professionalsavailable to advise on wildlife andtrails concerns?5 . L ook for opportunities to coo r d i na t ethe trail project with conservation andother complementary projects.and little human modification?Would there be any cumulative trailimpacts by adding a new trail?Organize & Communicate1. Create a profile of the kinds of userswho are likely to use the trail. What2. Develop preliminary goals for theproject. What activities would occuron the trail? What are the wildlifegoals for the project?are likely levels and seasons of use?Are there organizations that wouldbe interested in the trail project?
2. Identify the groups interested inwildlife in the trail area. What wildlifeand conservation organizationsResearch and Inventory1. Determine the physical extent of theproject.would be interested to know aboutthe trail project?2. Conduct a preliminary biologicalinventory. What are the area's3 . S hare ideas and findings with othercommunity members, including bo t htrails and wildlife enthusiasts, prope r t ysensitive plants, animals, and wildlifehabitats? How impacted already arewildlife in the area?owners, and land managers. Who arepeople and organizations that wouldfeel strongly for or against the project?3. Determine the habitat/ecosystemtypes present in the area of theproposed trail and the potential4. Meet with agency planners. Are therecity or county land-use planners andfederal or state resource plannerswho understand the broader contextof the area for the proposed trail? Isthere an area-wide land-use, openspace, or trails plan? If the trail mightspecies or communities of specialconcern. What do the ColoradoNatural Diversity Information Source(www.ndis.nrel.colostate.edu) andother sources indicate are likelyspecies or communities of specialinterest in the area?cross federal land, is there an existingmanagement plan? Is the trailconcept consistent with these plans?4. Draw inferences from scientificstudies done in similar habitats orwith similar wildlife species. Does the5. Start a public discussion of the trailand its implications for wildlife. Whatare the best ways to reach theColorado State Parks wildlife/trailsbibliographic data base include anysuch relevant references?various groups interested in the trail?What are the wildlife issues that mustbe addressed in planning the trail?5. Learn from others who havecompleted projects with similarwildlife issues.
6. Review data found to date andconduct a site visit with a wildlifebiologist or other scientists to identifypo t e n t ial wildlife opportunities and11. Take a step back. What has beenlearned at this point? How well willthis project fit into its largerecological context?constraints. Which areas wouldp r ovide the most interesting routeand have the least impact on wildlife?12. Formalize the project goals. Revise thep r e l i m i nary project goals based onw hat has been learned. What do7. Identify seasons of special concernfor the important wildlife species orm e m bers of the public and othersthink of the project goals?communities. Are there alternativesfor the trail away from such areas?Consider Alternative AlignmentsWould seasonal closures of a trailnear such areas be workable?8. Identify important plants in the area.Are there any sensitive plant speciesor communities in the area? Arethere ways to present thesecommunities to trail users withoutdisturbing sensitive species?9. Evaluate the extent of existingimpacts to wildlife and thelandscape. How much have humansalready modified the area? Is the areaprimarily natural, managed,cultivated, suburban, or urban? Willthe trail provide access to backcountryor areas that have never hadtrails before?Prepare and Evaluate Alternatives1. Create distinctive alternative plans.Develop alternative plans thatmaximize the opportunities andminimize the constraints for wildlife.Especially look for opportunities tocoordinate the restoration ofdegraded habitats. Get professionalhelp preparing and evaluatingalternatives, if possible. Where anexisting trail is to be improved,alternatives might include differentmanagement strategies.2. Consider alternatives for trailheadsand other support facilities. Sites fortrailheads and parking areas aresometime overlooked in evaluatingwildlife impacts of trails. They needcareful design and review.
3. Evaluate the alternatives. Conduct aninternal evaluation of the alternativesusing the goals set earlier.4 . De velop a volunteer plan. Outlines u p port tasks for involving vo l u n t e e r sin monitoring or managing wildlife.4. Ask others to help evaluate thealternatives. Conduct an externalevaluation of the alternatives withwildlife biologists or other agencypersonnel, public, environmentalgroups, landowners, land managers,5. Conduct a final review of the planand its components. Review thefinal plan with a wildlife biologistand other specialists to make certainall the parts went together in waysthat support wildlife.and others, as appropriate.Summarize the pros and cons ofeach alternative.5. Select a preferred plan. Review thecomments made during theevaluation process and select one ofthe alternatives or create a hybridplan incorporating the best qualitiesof two or more plans.Build and Manage the TrailAcquire and Construct the Trail1 . L ook for opportunities forcomplementary conservation. Inacquiring the land needed for the trail,l ook for additional areas that can beset aside for wildlife conservation atthe same time and for the partners toimplement such efforts.Design the trail1. Refine the selected plan. Develop sitedesigns, budgets, and timetables.2. Implement the plan. Be careful toimpact wildlife as little as possibleduring construction.2 . De velop management strategies.Consider how the trail will bem a naged, maintained, and monitored.3. Develop an environmental educationplan. The plan should explain howto communicate to trail users thespecific wildlife issues of this trail.3. Communicate to all interested parties.Share the progress about the trailand what is being learned about coexistingwith wildlife.Monitor and Manage the Trail1. Manage the trail. Implement the planto manage the trail corridor andactivities within it.
2 . Using staff or volunteers, monitor thei m portant plants and wildlife of thealignment, looking for impacts. Ad j u s tm a nagement plans as appropria t e .The Pikes Peak area supports a uniqueset of biodiversity. Fifty significantplants, animals and natural communitiesare found in the study area. Out of this50, an astounding 31 are plants.Included in this number are one plantspecies known nowhere else in theworld, the best known population in theworld for another species, and a thirdsubspecies which is endemic to the area.The Colorado Natural Heritage Program(CNHP) has identifies eight PotentialConservation Areas (PCA) which areimportant to the long-term survival ofthe rare species found here. These PCAsare listed in Figure 4-7 and include arecommended Protection Strategy.Figure 4-7Potential Conservation AreasSitename NameSignificance Recommended Protection StrategyGreen 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
elevation in accordance with stateThe 100-year flood is used by theFederal Emergency Management Agencyas well as local entities to identifyfloodplain areas. This is the flood eventthat would statistically occur once onan average in 100 years; it has a onepercent chance of annual occurrence.criteria. Temporary structures such aspicnic shelters, rest shelters and viewingplatforms may be permitted within the100-year flood plain, provided they aredesigned to be repaired or replaced asnecessary following a flood event. Figure4-8 demonstrates bridge construction infloodplains.All habitable structures, buildings andfacilities, parking lots and critical accessroads must be "flood proof;" therefore,the lowest finished floor elevation of thestructure should be a minimum of 18inches above the 100-year water surfaceFigure 4-8Bridge Construction in FloodplainsSource: Design Workshop, Inc.
• Schedule activities to control the amountC u r r e n t l y, erosion along the Pikes Pe a kToll Road is causing a great deal ofsedimentation into the North Sloper e s e r voirs, primarily South CatamountRe s e r vo i r. Better drainage facilities,seeding and water bars could controlthis erosion problem. 3Research has shown improperlydesigned logging roads and skid trailsare a major source of sedimentation.With proper planning, construction, andmaintenance, sedimentation fromlogging roads can be reducedsignificantly. New road constructionshould be avoided where possible. Thecurrent road system is more thanadequate for hauling roads in mostareas. When designing new roads andskid trails, the following guidelinesshould be used to minimizesedimentation problems.of disturbance to any given watershed atany given time.• Locate roads far enough from streams toprovide sufficient buffering area as shownin the following table. The percentageshows the slope of land between the roadand the stream and the correspondingwidth of buffering strip.Slope (%) Buffer Strip (ft)0 5010 9020 13030 17040 21050 25060 290• Road grades should be kept below tenpercent, except for short distances wherethis limit may be exceeded up to 15 or20 percent. Grades of three to five percentare desirable.Trail construction on steepslopes and erosion pronesoils should be constructedto drain against theuphill side (see Figure 4-10). Trails should alsodrain to low points wheredrainage is passed underthe trail via culvert intograssy swale to absorbdrainage andsedimentation.• Correlate road and harvest plans tominimize sedimentation potential.• Keep roads out of high erosion hazard area.• Locate and layout timber harvest areas insuch a way as to minimize the intensityof activities adjacent to stream channels.Long, steady grades may permit thebuild-up of drainage water and increaseerosion potential unless adequate drainagestructures are installed. To facilitatenatural drainage, occasional breaks ingrade or water bars should be used.
Design Speed MPH 10 15 20Speed 5-15 10-20 15-25Horizontal Curves/Sight obstr. (radius ft.)none 55 110 2009’ from travel way 100 300 600Vertical curves length (ft) 200 200 200Stopping distance 1 h o rizontal/vertical control 100 170 250Travel way (T.W.) (ft) 10 12 12Grade (Heavy Truck)max. sustained percent 7 4 3min. sustained percent 2 2 2Pitch Maximum % 2 18 18 181Two and one-half times single vehicle stopping distance.• The table at left suggests the standards forsingle lane packed gravel/dirt road who’s useis less than 100 vehicles per day. Use thelowest standard road possible as given.• All new roads and skid trails built duringtimber harvesting should be closedimmediately following the removal oftimber. This may require additional waterbars and grass seeding. Certain roads,though closed, should be left accessible forfire access roads.2Pitch length not more than 500 feet.Figure 4-9standards for single lane packedgravel/dirt roadFigure 4-10Trail Construction
• Zone 3. Place low-growing plants andWhen 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 fuelreduction. To this end, initiate the zoneconcept. Zone 1 is closest to a structure;Zones 2-4 move progressively furtheraway.• Zone 1. This well-irrigated area encirclesthe structure for at least 30' on all sides,providing space for fire suppressionequipment in the event of an emergency.Plantings should be limited to carefullyspaced fire resistant species.• Zone 2. Fire resistant plant materialsshould be used here. Plants should be lowgrowing,and the irrigation system shouldextend into this section.well-spaced trees in this area,remembering to keep the volume ofvegetation (fuel) low.• Zone 4. This furthest zone from thestructure is a natural area. Th i nselectively here, and remove highlyflammable vegetation.Also remember to:• Be sure to leave a minimum of 30'around the house to accommodate fireequipment, if necessary.• Carefully space the trees you plant.• Take out the "ladder fuels" — vegetationthat serves as a link between grass andtree tops. It can carry fire to a structure orfrom a structure to vegetation.• Give yourself added protection with "fuelbreaks" like driveways, gravel walkways,and lawns.When maintaining a “smart” fire la n d s c a pe :• Keep trees and shrubs pruned. Prune alltrees up to 6' to 10' from the ground.• Remove leaf clutter and dead andoverhanging 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 wellmaintained.• Use care when refueling gardenequipment and maintain it regularly.• Store and use flammable liquids properly.• Dispose of smoking materials carefully.• Become familiar with local regulationsregarding vegetative clearances, disposal ofd e b ris, and fire safety requirements fore q u i p m e n t .• Slope of terrain; be sure to build on themost level portion of the land, since firespreads rapidly, even on minor slopes.• Set your single-story structure at least 30feet back from any ridge or cliff; increasedistance if your home will be higher thanone story.• Identify and post two means of evacuationplans in the event of a wildfire.In designing and building your "smart"fire structure, remember that theprimary goals are fuel and exposurereduction. To this end:• Use construction materials that are fireresistantor non-combustible when possible.• Follow manufacturers’ instructions whenusing fertilizers and pesticides.When constructing, renovating, oradding to a "smart" fire facilities,consider the following:• Choose a "smart" fire location.• Design and build a "smart" fire structure.• Employ "smart" fire landscaping andmaintenance.To select a "smart" fire location, observethe following:• For roof construction, consider usingmaterials such as slate or tile, metal,cement and concrete products, or terracottatiles.• Constructing a fire-resistant sub-roof canadd protection, as well.• On exterior wall cladding, fire resistivematerials such as stucco or masonry aremuch better than vinyl that can softenand melt.• Consider both size and materials forwindow; smaller panes hold up better intheir frames than larger ones; double paneglass and tempered glass are more effective
than single pane glass; plastic skylightscan melt.warping wood, or cracks and crevices inthe structure.• Cover windows and skylights with nonflammablescreening shutters.• To prevent sparks from entering yourhome through vents, cover exterior atticand underfloor vents with wire mesh nolarger than 1/8 of an inch; make sureundereave and soffit vents are closer to theroof line than the wall; and box in eaves,but provide adequate ventilation toprevent condensation.• Include a driveway that is wide enough –12 feet wide with a vertical clearance of 15feet and a slope that is less than 12percent – to provide easy access for fireengines. The driveway and access roadsshould be well maintained, clearlymarked, and include ample turnaroundspace near the house. Also consider accessto water supply, if possible.• Provide at least two ground level doors forsafety exits and at least two means ofescape (either a door or window) in eachroom, so that everyone has a way out.• Keep gutters, eaves, and roof clear of leavesand other debris.• Make an occasional inspection of thestructure, looking for deterioration suchas breaks and spaces between roof tiles,• Also, inspect the property, clearing deadwood and dense vegetation from at least30 feet from the structure, and movingfirewood away from the house orattachments, like fences or decks.Any attached structures, such as decks,porches, fences, and outbuildings shouldbe considered part of the house. Th e s estructures can act as fuses or fuel bridges,pa r t i c u larly if constructed fromf lammable materials. Therefore, considerthe follow i n g :• Use masonry or metal as a protectivebarrier between the fence and structure ifthere is an attached all-wood fence to thestructure.• Use non-flammable metal whenconstructing a trellis and cover with highmoisture,non-flammable vegetation.• Prevent combustible materials and debrisfrom accumulating beneath patio deck orelevated porches; screen under or b ox inareas below ground line with wire meshno larger than 1/8 of an inch.• Make sure an elevated wooden deck is notlocated at the top of a hill where it will bein direct line of a fire moving up slope;consider a terrace instead.
• Check if the building department hasjurisdictions regarding local restrictionson your building project.The primary reason for undertaking aresource survey is to gather informationneeded to plan for the wise use of acommunity’s management resources.The following cultural management stepsA cultural resource can be defined as aprehistoric or historic landscape, district,site, building, structure or geologicalformation that holds local or regionalsignificant that provides identity andunderstanding of a place.The Regional Vision Plan recognizes thatthere is a growing demand for accessand use of the Pikes Peak natural andcultural resources. With this growthcomes the need for development andthe long-range management of valuableand sensitive resources. An underlyingreason for developing a managementplan is to identify and protect theregion's historic resources, that providespecial character and cultural depth. Asurvey of regional resources can provideunique insight into the area’s historythat answers broad questions about thepast. “To make effective use of historic(cultural) resources, to respect theirvalue and extend their life, it isnecessary to integrate historicpreservation into community planning.”are provided as a guideline for assistingthe Managing Partners in developing ap lan for management and preservation ofthe Pikes Peak regional cultural resources.The steps are not suggested as ar e p lacement for existing Bureau of LandM a nagement and Forest Service culturalresource management programs, but arep r ovided as a means of developing acommon ground for discussion anddecision making. The following stepsoutline information that should becollected and recorded for each culturalresource feature that contributes to thea nalysis of the resources significance andm a nagement needs.Suggested Steps1. Develop an understanding of thephysical condition/integrity of theresource and describe its current culturalcontext. The physical description shouldinclude a photographic inventory ofexisting conditions and a collection ofhistoric photos. A description of thesite's location, make-up and size is alsoimportant. The completed step twosurvey should provide a clear picture of
existing deterioration, level and types ofuse, and significant features.2. Identify how historically the resourcewas shaped/introduced and how thelandscape has been impacted or shapedby the resource. The survey shouldinclude a description of the resource’sorigin, point of historic importance, anda time line of the resource's influence onthe community and landscape.that preserves the resource and historicstory for future generations. Fourdistinct, but interrelated managementapproaches should be considered. Thefour approaches include, and aredefined by the U.S. Secretary of Interior,in the Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties, Preservation,Rehabilitation, Restoration andReconstruction.3. Develop an understanding of theresource within the context of relatedsystems. It is important to provide abroad perspective of the areas culturalresource systems, such as the waterharvesting history of the ColoradoSprings Utilities and the associateddams and reservoirs. The survey shouldinclude interviews with local andregional experts and maps illustratingthe system relationships.4. The fourth step, consists of developing aformal management plan for individualresources. This is viewed as acollaboration of relevant managingpartners to develop an appropriatestrategy through a complete review ofsurvey information and availablemanagement resources.Given a review of contextualinformation, current use, and integrity, alevel of management must be defined• PRESERVATION - Act of applying measuresn e c e s sary to sustain the existing form ,i n t e g rity and materials of a histori c a lp r o p e r t y. Work shall include preliminarymeasures to protect and stabilize thep r o p e r t y, and generally focused upon theongoing maintenance and repairs ratherthan extensive replacements and newc o n s t r u c t i o n .• REHABILITATION - Is defined as the act orprocess of making possible a compatibleuse for the property through repairs,alterations, and additions whilepreserving those portions of the featureswhich covey its historical cultural value.• RESTORATION - An act or process ofaccurately depicting the form, features,and character of a resource as it appearedat a particular period of time by means ofthe removal of features of other periods inits history and reconstructing missing
features from the restoration period.• RECONSTRUCTION - Is defined as the act orprocess of depicting, by means of newconstruction, the form, features, anddetailing of non-surviving sites,landscapes, buildings, or structures for thepurpose of replicating its appearance at aspecific period of time and in its historiclocation.S pe c ial consideration should be given tocultural resources if they exist as anindividual site or as a part of historicdistrict, on the State/Federal HistoricRe g i s t e r. The Managing Partners orp lanning team would need to contactthe appropriate Historic Officer form a nagement guidelines. The Pikes Pe a kSummit is an example were theM a naging Partners would be required tocontact the State and the National ParkService Historic Officer regardingm a nagement and development decisions.Further survey and mana g e m e n tconsiderations are also required if theM a naging Partners wish to submit aresource/site for historic recognition.The preservation of a national culturalresource requires comprehensiveenvironmental, historical, cultural surveyand management strategies that developguidelines for future decision making.Footnotes1Jones, Clary, Brown, Kelly: RiparianCorridor Protection and RockyMountain Resorts. Proceedings from: ANational Symposium: Assessing theCumulative Impacts of WatershedDevelopment on Aquatic Ecosystemsand Water Quality. Chicago, March 19-21, 1996.2Colorado State Parks and HellmundAssociates. Trails and Wildlife Taskforce,.Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind,September 1998.3Farmer, D. A. Pikes Peak WatershedForest Management Plan.4Colorado State Forest Service FireHazard Survey. 1986.In view of the Regional Vision Plan andcultural resource analysis, amanagement plan must recognize thebroad perspective of the Pikes Peakregion as a national cultural resource.
Source: Design Workshop, Inc.Implementation for this Pikes Peak Regional Multi-Use Plan involvesparticipation at the federal, state and local level and many potential participants.Since the Regional Vision Plan will not be realized withoutparticipation from private landowners, both county governments, andthe many towns and communities that surround the Peak, this chapterp r ovides “tools for implementation” that may be useful to allparticipants at both planning and design scales. This section definesimplementation priorities, adoption, approval by government agencies,m e c hanisms and programs, resource protection by gove r n m e n tagencies, local methods for implementation, and funding.The many agencies and local jurisdictions that participated in thisMulti-Use Plan are identified in Figure 5-1.
Implementation• Implementation Priorities• Plan Adoption and Approval• Cooperative Working Ag r e e m e n t sAn important element of implementation isthe proposed management structure.Augmenting the traditional mana g e m e n tm e c hanisms with a non-profit organizationto help coo r d i nate, promote and raisemoney for the realization of the Re g i o na lVision Plan is invaluable. This motivatedorganization can maintain the pla n n i n glimits as their primary focus and use theadvantages of 501-C3 non-profit status tocontribute significantly toward achievingshort and long term objectives muchs ooner than would otherwise be po s s i b l e .Functions of the proposed non-profitorganizations may include:• Topography• Site Features• Vegetation• Surface Hydrology• Ownership• Hazard AreasFloodwaysAvalancheSubsidence AreasSteep Slopes• Resource LandsHabitatCultural & HistoricWetlandsRare CommunitiesVisual.Figure 5-1Local Jurisdictions and AgencyContext Map (See larger map onpage 5)• Coordinate a quarterly Managing Partnersmeeting• Help define a region-wide action plan• Coordinate implementation• Fund-raise/grant writing• Coordinate volunteers• Hold, buy and sell landThe Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan includes aclear expression of future land uses, plusa s s oc iated documents such as the Pikes Pe a kAt l a s. How e ve r, subsequent phases ofp lanning and design should recognize tha tmore detailed information is required tosuccessfully develop desired uses withouta d verse impacts on critical natural resourcesand sensitive lands. A more detailed level ofsite information should include:The scope of the Re g i o nal Vision Pla naddresses an area of more than 128,000acres and many of the Pla nr e c o m m e n dations are based on projectst hat pa r t ially exist today such as trailsand motorized roadways. Publicrecognition of the full range ofr e c r e a t i o nal opportunities has not be e nrealized and new significant concepts andmajor po t e n t ial projects have be e nrecommended to address the deficiencies.The Re g i o nal Visitor Center, the ScenicL oop, and the Perimeter Loop Trail allcombine to create a framework ofrecreation connections and oppo r t u n i t i e s .
The list of priorities in Figure 5-2 is not acomplete list of elements required toa c h i e ve the vision, but rather conceptsand projects that are most realistic andhave the highest level of support. Th eprioritization of concepts and projects is astrategy to pursue a very la r g eimplementation agenda. Major bo t a n i c a lprojects may require a NEPA proc e s s( d ocumentation that will influence fina ldecision along with site design). Th erecommended priorities were establishedthrough three method s :1. The CAG Confidence Survey2. Public meetings and participation fromaffected agencies and jurisdictions3. Logical sequence of projectsThe following discussion examines eachpriority project in detail.Figure 5-2Responsibility MatrixFirst Phase PrioritiesPartners• 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 PlantsU.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 DistrictNext 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
landform or natural features. The intent isThe Perimeter Loop Trail was repe a t e d l yrecommended at public meetings and CAGworkshops throughout the planning effort.to break the big problem down into a unitsize that can be incrementally planned andconstructed.The final "Confidence Survey" that wasdistributed to all members of the CAGsuggested that 94 percent of thepa r t i c i pants support the concept. Th ePerimeter Loop Trail becomes the primarype d e s t r ian system providing recreationa laccess to most regional opportunities. Th i ssingle concept, though large in scale,organizes the region's recreational elementsmore than any other concept expressed.Much of the proposed Perimeter Loop Tr a i lpresently exists, yet community aw a r e n e s sof the system is not well known. Eve nthough existing roads and trails nowoc c u py the proposed alignment, asignificant amount of effort will berequired to make this Perimeter Loop Tr a i la reality. Access points, signage, usa g econsiderations, 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 ls t a n dard will need to be applied to theentire 48 miles prior to trail establishment.The existing trails and roads that comprisethe proposed Perimeter Loop Trail includeForest Service Trail 102.To achieve a project of this scale, thePerimeter Loop Trail should be delineatedin shorter segments. These segments couldbegin and end on ownership lines, or byA Regional Visitor Center is an importantelement to orient visitors to the range ofrecreational and educational programsavailable within the Pikes Peak region. Thelocation of this facility is crucial to makethe visitor center a natural stop of thePikes Peak regional experience. A visitorcenter would provide orientation to theentire region. The ideal location would benorth of Green Mountain Falls where thePikes Peak Highway intersects with StateHighway 24. The Pikes Peak Highway tothe Summit is one of the largest visitorattractions and could be used to informthe visitor of the region and itsopportunities. Adequate interpretive kioskswould be needed to provide an overviewof the Pikes Peak region depicting themany trails, destinations and facilitiessystem-wide.From the Regional Visitor Center, visitorswill be directed to Interpretive andRecreation Use Centers located throughoutthe Pikes Peak region.The concept of a Regional Visitor Centerwas presented to participants during the
design phase of the planning process. Themembers of the CAG, agencyrepresentatives and the general public allrecognized the importance of the RegionalVisitor Center and the final ConfidenceSurvey suggested that 95 percent of theparticipants responding to the surveysupported the concept.The lower segment of Gold Camp Road ispresently closed to ve h i c u lar traffic due toa structural problem assoc iated withTunnel Number Three. This closedsegment of road was once a na r r owgauge railroad line from Colorado Springsto Cripple Creek and Vi c t o r. When therailroad was discontinued, it became ascenic drive all along the southern edge ofThe development of the Regional VisitorCenter will involve significant coordinationand funding. A special committee needsto focus on implementing this project.The potential funding sources are broad,including federal sources, state sources,local government, and individual andthe planning area and provided neededaccess to one of the most remote po r t i o n sof the Pikes Peak region. The USFS ha shad this segment classified as a road andcontinues under that designation whileawaiting funding to repair Tu n n e lN u m ber Three.corporate donations. National and stateorganizations that support naturalresource education, cultural and historicpreservation and mass transit provide abroad range of potential funding sourcesto help realize the Regional Visitor Center.Recently, the entire length of Gold CampRoad was listed on the National Registerof Historic Places, thereby mandating itspreservation as a historic auto-touringroute. The alternative use of Old StageRoad to complete the Scenic Loop isImplementation PartnersAll pa r t i c i pating agencies and the Non-Profit Fo u n dation would be responsible forimplementing the Re g i o nal Visitors Center.possible, but would require extensive roadimprovement to create a safe surface giventhe steep gradients involved. The lowersegment of Gold Camp Road providesdirect access to North Cheyenne Canyon, adestination within the Pikes Peak RegionalAnother important component of theRegional Vision Plan is the Scenic Loop tohelp distribute users throughout theregion. The loop includes parts of StateHighway 24, State Highway 67 and GoldCamp Road.Vision Plan and the gentle gradesassociated with an old railroad line providea safer descent from the upland areas.Implementation PartnersP a r t i c i pants in design and construction ofeach segment of this Scenic Loop would
i n vo l ve those agencies/jurisdictions tha tdirectly or indirectly benefit from access.The U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak RangerDistrict would be a pa r t i c i pant in mostroute segments, as would the non-profitorganization of the management bod y.• Along State Highway 24 travelingnorthwest out of Colorado Springs, beforethe Pikes Peak Highway• Town of Divide• Southeast along either Old Stage or LowerGold Camp RoadFigure 5-3Examples of a Signage ProgramA regional signage plan should bedeveloped to create graphic standards anda hierarchy of signs that would includegateways, portals and all interpretive trailplacards (see Figure 5-3). The ColoradoDepartment of Transportation needs to beinvolved in decisions related to finalizingthe Scenic Loop, given the need forturnouts and wayfinding signage. Signageis very important to the success of thevisitor distribution strategy. Educationalkiosks and directional indicators should beplaced strategically along the Scenic Loop.A large "Pikes Peak Region" welcome signshould be located at the five entrances tothe region and would direct visitors to thegateways and Regional Visitor Center.The five recommended entry points to theregion are:• Victor (minor entry - a lesser sign may beappropriate)• Woodland Park (minor entry - a lesser signmay be appropriate)Each community would have acommunity welcome sign defined by theregional signage plan. A system oforientation signage would direct the visitorto a local central information center orkiosk that describes local opportunitiesand connections to the regional system.Recreational facilities, trail markers,trailhead information, and interpretiveprograms would all utilize the Pikes PeakRegional signage standards to createregion-wide continuity.A traffic study to understand theimplications of a Regional Visitor Centerand the visitor distribution strategy wouldbe helpful to define the range ofimprovements required for state and localroad systems. This study should not beundertaken until after a regional signagestrategy has been developed.
Implementation PartnersAll Managing Partners should support thedevelopment and implementation of asignage program.Many citizens expressed a desire to findalternative trail routes to the top of PikesPeak. Barr Trail, the only existing trail tothe top of Pikes Peak, is considered to beused excessively. The addition of trails toThe Catamount Ranch Open Spacerecently acquired by Teller County issituated northwest of the North SlopeRecreation Area. Access to this open spaceis presently limited to hiking trails fromthe north or southeast. The developmentof a Portal north of the Open Space isimportant for citizens to be able to accessthis valuable open space parcel. The newaccess can be accommodated off of StateHighway 24 east of Woodland Park ontoCounty Road 28. The access along CountyRoad 28 is directly south to a point nearCatamount Ranch Open Space. A parkingarea and trailhead would be located at thePortal to provide access to both thePerimeter Loop Trail, and the network oftrails in the Open Space lands that lead toCatamount Ranch Open Space.Implementation PartnersThe final location of the trailhead parkingarea will dictate who may be involved inthe design and construction of this facility,in addition to Teller County. The nonprofitorganization may be used for bothpartial funding and coordination.the summit may reduce the humanimpacts on Barr Trail. Routes from boththe southwest and northwest areas of theregion have been identified as potentialnew access routes. The Crags Trail andTrailhead, near Crags Campground, offer agreat opportunity for a new trail route onthe west side, since an existing routealmost extends to Pikes Peak Highway.The trail would cross Pikes Peak Highwaynear Devil’s Playground and thedevelopment of a new trail segment northof the Pikes Peak Highway crossing wouldallow a reasonable assent to the summit.The Gillett Portal provides an opportunityin the southwest area of the region. Anexisting road/trail presently exists alongBeaver Creek that would allow hikeraccess to the treeline. A new segment oftrail should be constructed to the CragsTrail extension and intersection with thePikes Peak Highway. Water qualityconcerns associated with the dual use ofthis Beaver Creek watershed as a watersupply for Cripple Creek and Victor needsto be addressed during the design process.Implementation PartnersThe Crags Trail route to the Summit would
involve U.S. Forest Service Pikes PeakRanger District, and the non-profitorganization. The City of ColoradoSprings should support the effort wherethe new alignment enters into the PikesPeak Highway area.tourist season. An opportunity exists toreconfigure parts of the existingcampground and extend the boundariesfor a limited number of additionalcampsites. The integration of an improvedCrags Trailhead should be consideredduring the redesign.The restoration areas defined in the PikesPeak Re g i o nal Vision Plan include theareas beneath the Pike Peak Highway, Ba r rTrail, and the Motorized Trail area in thesoutheast region of the planning area nearWye Campground. The nature of each ofImplementation PartnersThe U.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak RangerDistrict and the non-profit organizationshould be actively invo l ved in thep lanning and construction of thesei m p r ove m e n t s .these restoration areas will depend upo nthe specifics of each site. A comprehensiverestoration plan to meet the needs of eacharea must be proceeded by an existingd e g r a dation and desired restoredcondition analysis. All restoration effortsshould include na t i ve plant po p u la t i o n s .The origin of both these major entrypoints into the Pikes Peak region arelocated very close to each other. Thisprovides an opportunity to share facilitiesfrom a common staging area. Potentially,Implementation PartnersThe City of Colorado Springs, U.S. Fo r e s tService Pikes Peak Ranger District, trailusers, and the non-profit organizationshould have active roles in theserestoration efforts.parking, information signage, directionalsignage, public restrooms and servicescould be designed to minimize duplicatefacilities, while still controlling the totalnumber of users. It should be noted thatwhile the Barr Trail has been characterizedas over-used, the Cog Railroad is not, andparking should allow access to the railway,The existing facilities at the CragsCampground are often filled to capacityon weekends and during the summeryet provide some control for hikers.Implementation PartnersThe Cog Rail, City of Manitou Springs, U . S .
Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District,and the non-profit organization shouldparticipate in these improvements.the region, approximately where Old StageRoad meets the initial open segment ofGold Camp Road. Potential destinationsalong this primitive trail system includethe vast Wilderness Study Area managedThe planning process identified the needfor additional equestrian facilities locatedon the western slope of Pikes Peak. Aminor equestrian facility already exists onstate-owned lands at Mueller State Park.The expansion of these facilities andsuitable connections across State Highway67 into the trail system in the U.S. Fo r e s tService Pikes Peak Ranger District will bedifficult. Interest has been expressed bytrail planning efforts in the Cripple Creekand Victor area which would meet theneeds of equestrians.Implementation PartnersCripple Creek, Victor, equestrian userby the Bureau of Land Management justsouth of Pikes Peak region. A series ofbackcountry campsites should beconstructed and managed. Since most ofthe trail and campsites reside within theLimited Use Area, a permit system tomanage a single reservation service will berequired in order to coordinatebackcountry access.Implementation PartnersU.S. Forest Service Pikes Peak RangerD i s t r i c t, Bureau of Land Management,identified trail users, and the non-profitorganization should have a role indeveloping and managing this system.groups, Teller County, U.S. Forest ServicePikes Peak Ranger District and the nonprofitorganization should all have roles inthe design and implementation of theseimprovements.The motivation for identifying additionalaccess to the Pikes Peak region was thecurrent over-use at the existing accesspoints, in part due to the neighboringColorado Springs metropolitan areaThe backcountry has been defined in theRegional Vision Plan as an access point toconnect with some of the most remoteportions of the Pikes Peak region. Thisportal is located in the southeast corner ofpopulation. It may be determined thatmore than one alternative access point isappropriate. The Bear Creak Canyon Parkis very large with multiple access points atits boundary with Colorado Springs, andshould be used to access the Perimeter
Loop Trail at various locations.should play a major role in theadministration of this permit program forImplementation PartnersThe USFS Pikes Peak Ranger District andColorado Springs Parks should supportand implement this endeavor.a limited number of users, and reservationsystem for backcountry campsites. TheCity of Colorado Springs, USFS Pikes PeakRanger District, Teller and El Paso Countiesshould all have a role in establishing andmanaging this Limited Use Area.The Limited Use Area is a result of citizens’desires to protect the most critical resourcelands within the Pikes Peak region. Va l u e dhabitats, water resources and unique spe c i e sare all included in a zone identified on theRe g i o nal Vision Plan as Limited Use Areas.The primary owners managing lands in thisarea are USFS Pikes Peak Ranger Districtand Colorado Springs Utilities. The practicalimplementation of Limited Use Area may beIncreased recreational use will be inhibiteduntil access is improved and recreationa lo p portunities can be expanded. A systemwidetransportation framework based onthe implications of the recreationa lo p portunities, a visitor distribution strategy,a signage plan and accommoda t i o nl ocations should be deve l o ped.difficult since there are many remotel ocations. The designation reflects a need tomaintain control over sensitive areas ifdesired use increases significantly.Implementation PartnersColorado Department of Transportation,Teller and El Paso Counties, ColoradoSprings and USFS Pikes Peak RangerA system of permits should be establishedD i s t r i c tshould participate in the study.to allow a limited number of users accessto these areas. Seasonal closures of parts ofthe Limited Use Areas should be establishedand overnight camping limited to a numbe rof specific backcountry campsites. Signa g eand user education should be required todelineate Limited Use Area bo u n da r i e s .Implementation PartnersThe non-profit management organizationDesign of specific projects and almost alli m p r ovements would require spe c ia lattention to historic and archeologicalresources that may be present; how e ve r,the regional significance of cultural andhistoric resources is equally important. Astudy should focus on general cultural
and historic resources to develop ar e g i o nal framework for resourceprotection and define areas that requiremore specific surveys.Implementation PartnersState Historic Preservation Office, El PasoCounty, Teller County, USFS Pikes PeakRanger District and the non-profitmanagement organization should all havean active role in facilitating the culturalsurvey.The Spoke Diagram (see page 4) was used atpublic meetings and workshops throughoutthe planning process. The diagram depictsthe land managers for the entire region.These agencies and jurisdictions pa r t i c i pa t e din forming the Re g i o nal Vision Plan over at w o - year process. The intention of the Pla nis for each agency and jurisdiction to takeportions of the Re g i o nal Vision Plan tha tcoincides with their local mana g e m e n to b l i g a t i o n s .Themes for historic resource andrecreational interpretation have beenintroduced in the Regional Vision Plan.Additionally, specific objectives and actionsshould be developed to identify placeswithin the region where these stories couldbe told. Objectives and actions for eachcenter may include how the story is told,and materials and structures used tocommunicate the story.Implementation PartnersAll Managing Partners should support thedevelopment and implementation ofInterpretive and Recreation Use Centers.The government agencies that areinfluenced by this Regional Vision Planinclude: Bureau of Land Management,USFS Pikes Peak Ranger District, ColoradoSprings Utilities, Colorado State Parks,Division of Wildlife, and Department ofTransportation. These agencies typicallyhave a general management planapproach for administration andmanagement. A planning cycle isestablished where approximately every fiveyears the management plan is revised. It isvery important that the Multi-Use Planbecomes part of that update process, giventhe integrated planning process and highlevel of consensus developed with thisplanning process.
Both El Paso and Teller Counties haveindicated that they intend to amend theirCounty Comprehensive Plans to include amap representing the Pikes Peak RegionalVision Plan of the Multi-Use Plan and willreference this planning document whereappropriate. The Pikes Peak Multi-Usediscusses Colorado statutes that may beutilized for creating agreements betweenvarious partners. A possible role for thenon-profit organization of theManagement Model, would be to helpidentify and develop appropriateagreements between managing partners.Plan has clear implications for both theComprehensive Plan and any Trails,Recreation and Open Space Plan underconsideration at the County scale.Colorado Revised Statutes authorize loc a lg overnments and organizations toc oo perate with one another. To achieve thedesires articulated in the Pikes Peak Multi-Local communities have the sameopportunity to integrate this Multi-UsePlan into the Community ComprehensivePlans as well as Parks, Trails, Recreationand Open Space Plans that are developedUse Plan, agreements will need to be forgedbetween the various government agencies,agencies and municipalities and agenciesand organizations. A review of Colorado’sRevised Statutes reveal the follow i n g :or updated.Statutes 29-20-105 through 107 authorizesand encourages local governments tocooperate or contract with other units ofgovernment for the purpose of planningor regulating the development of land.Local governments may provide throughThe implementation of the Pikes PeakMulti-Use Plan requires cooperation frommany agencies, municipalities and privatelandowners. The goals and objectives ofthe Multi-Use Plan have been identified inthis document to aid Managing Partnersand individuals who want to realize thesegoals across jurisdictional and ownershipboundaries. To help achieve an agreement,defining roles and responsibilities will beappropriate. The following sectionintergovernmental agreements (IGAs) forthe joint adoption by the governingbodies, after notice and hearing, ofmutually binding and enforceablecomprehensive development plans forareas within their jurisdictions. The IGAmay contain a provision that the planmay be amended only by the mutualagreement of the governing bodies of thelocal governments who are parties of theplan. Each governing body has standing
in district court to enforce the terms of theagreement and the plan. Localgovernments may, pursuant to an IGA,provide for revenue sharing.• Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs)• Joint Management Agreements (JMAs)• Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs).The Appendix includes further informationStatute 29-1-203 allows local governmentsto cooperate or contract with one anotherto provide any function, service or facilitylawfully authorized to each of theon local government statutes andintergovernmental agreements provided bythe Colorado Department of Local Affairs.cooperating or contracting units. Thecontract may establish a separate legalentity to do so.Statute 20-28-105 enables municipalitiesand counties to form multi-county andjoint city/county planning commissions,known as regional planning commissions,to conduct studies and make and adoptregional plans for physical development ofthe region. 20-28-117(5) enables regionalA variety of tools exist for agencies at thefederal, state and local level as well as foragencies to implement the priorities andgoals identified in the Pikes Peak RegionalVision Plan.zoning boards of adjustment as well.Statute 32-7-101 authorizes at least twocounties (upon approval of the electors) toform a regional service authority toperform any of the nearly twenty servicefunctions (e.g. urban drainage and floodcontrol, land and soil preservation, publicsurface transportation, etc.)Agreements between local governments,agencies and organizations can be calledmany different things, depending upon thefull nature of the agreements beingprepared. The agreements themselves areoften called:Some policy and programs already existthat can be used by agencies andmunicipalities to achieve desired objectives.These programs and policies are in placeand available to be utilized when commonobjectives are identified.In spite of the increasing importance oflocal and state governments, the federalgovernment continues to play a criticalrole in resource protection. Since 1992,efforts to remove the federal governmentfrom wildlife and environmental issues
have met with mixed success, and severalkey pieces of federal legislation have beenre-authorized. Key areas of federalinvolvement may include:• Regulations, incentives, and land acquisitionand management programs for the protectionof endangered and threatened species• Preservation of wetland areas that serve asvaluable habitat for numerous• The Endangered Species Act• The National Biological Survey• The National Environmental Policy Act• Section 404: Wetlands Protection• Federal Land Preservation Incentives• USDA Environmental Quality IncentiveProgram• Federal Land Ownership and Management• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service• U.S. Forest Service• Bureau of Land Management• Conservation of land in general.While federal regulation in sensitiveresource areas is not expected to expandin the future, existing programs andregulations will continue to be important.The continued influence of the federalgovernment will be particularly importantin states like Colorado with vast tracts offederal land with prime habitat areas.The future of habitat protection willtherefore resemble an increasinglybalanced partnership, with local, state, andfederal governments each exercisingunique protection powers. It is importantthat Colorado’s local elected officials andresidents understand the range of federaltools and programs available tosupplement local habitat protection efforts.The following tools are available at thefederal level and summaries of their mostsignificant provisions are described in theAppendix.State government plays a role in resourceprotection that differs fundamentally fromthe role of local governments. The Loc a lG overnment Land Use Control Ena b l i n gAct (House Bill 1034) provides broadauthority to counties and municipalities tor e g u late the use of land within theirjurisdictions. This bill specifically recognizedthe importance of protecting habitat fromland uses that would threaten a wildlifes pecies. In addition, the Colorado Land Us eAct encourages local governments toidentify and regulate land uses in “Areas ofState Interest” including significant wildlifehabitat. Thus, the state has spe c i f i c a l l ydelegated responsibility and authority forprotecting wildlife habitat on private la n dto local governments.However, the state does support localgovernment in their efforts to protect
habitat by providing information andfinancial assistance. Eight state programsare listed below that offer these types ofsupport and summaries of their mostsignificant provisions are described in theAppendix.• Wildlife Resource Information System• System for Conservation Planning• Great Outdoors Colorado• Natural Areas Program• Protection of Instream Flows and NaturalLake Levels• State Wildlife Areas and ConservationEasements• Habitat Improvements Programs• State Trust Lands Fish and WildlifeEnhancement Projectsprogram are the purchase of key parcels ofland that are important to connect to thepublic open space, trail system or areaswith important natural resource values. Itis not the objective of the public entities toacquire all the private lands adjacent to thePikes Peak region for public use, but toencourage a healthy mix of public andprivate ownership. The highest priority isto establish a coo pe r a t i ve mana g e m e n tsystem between public and privatela n d owners to meet mutual objective s .Only those rela t i vely few parcels of la n dt hat are essential for public purposes, orare made av a i lable for purchase will beconsidered for acquisition.Criteria for AcquisitionThe following criteria may be used by thelocal governments with regard toLocal communities and countygovernments may find it advantageous toacquire connections that provide directaccess to the Pikes Peak region recreationalopportunities. Additional open space andrecreation adjacent to the Pikes Peakregion are consistent with the RegionalVision Plan presented in this document.The following land acquisition descriptionoutlines the objectives, criteria and alternatetechniques.acquisition of lands within andsurrounding the Pikes Peak region.• C ritical Public Values and Importance toResource Management in the Pikes Pe a kRegion. The objective is to acquire landswhich are essential to creation of the trailsystem and protection of the quality of thenatural resource systems. The factors whichdetermine 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 publicThe primary objectives for the acquisitionland, and water rights.
• Willing Seller/Willing BuyerAcquisition transactions between sellers andbuyers will proceed on the basis of willingand motivated parties. Local governmentshave adopted the principle thatportion of his or her land or structureflexible terms for an installment purchasewill be more likely to be a higher prioritythan a seller that wants a cash purchasewith no flexibility in terms.condemnation will not be utilized to acquireproperties in the Pikes Peak region.• Flexible Ap p r o a chIn the purchase of properties, localgovernments will take a flexible approach toacquisition, considering the landownersfamily situation and objectives, tax andestate issues, and economic objectives. Tothe extent that it is possible to meet localgovernments and landowner objectives thestructure of the transaction should betailored to these issues.• Availability of FundingThe local governments ability to acquirelands is predicated on the availability offunds for acquisition. In the past, fundingavailability has fluctuated greatly and it isexpected that these fluctuations willcontinue in the future.• Leverage and Flexibility of TermsLand or interests in land can be acquiredusing a wide variety of techniques whichcan be tailored to the needs and wishes ofbuyers and sellers. Land can be thoughtof as a bundle of rights, such as the rightto develop houses or use the water orextract minerals, all of which can be used,sold or restricted as the owner wishes. Forexample, a landowner might sell waterrights or the right to develop houses to alocal government which severs thatparticular right from the full bundle ofownership rights and reduces the value ofthe remaining rights. The ability to sell,restrict or donate particular rights inproperty to achieve landowner or publicobjectives means that there are many waysto preserve or protect land and meet bothlandowner and public objectives.Since local governments have limitedresources, they should select those propertiesfor acquisition which not only meet itscriteria in terms of importance to naturalconnections, but in terms of the level ofcooperation of the landowner. For example,a landowner that is willing to donate aIn general, the greater the number of rightsthat are acquired or the higher thepercentage of fair market value that is paidfor a property, the greater the control thatthe purchaser will exercise. A buyer thatpays full price for a piece of land acquires
the full bundle of rights which means tha tthey have full control over the prope r t yand full management respo n s i b i l i t y. Ab u yer that acquires only the water rights toa property has only the use of those rightsand no use of any other property rights.relevant boards where many decisions aremade. Simultaneously every effort shouldbe made to design public outreachprograms and citizen participation effortsto ensure that community values arereflected in the program. This isparticularly true in considering newregulations and acquisition programs.Each Colorado community has its owntopography, ecology, political climate, andgoals for wildlife. It is therefore unlikelythat one community’s wildlife protectionprogram can simply be transplanted to anew location. In addition, the process ofdebating which alternative goals and toolsmay be appropriate for a municipality ora county makes it much more likely thatAlthough a variety of different tools areavailable to protect resource lands, all ofthem must conform to basic principles ofconstitutional law and to requirements ofColorado statutes. Regulatory approaches,incentive and acquisition programs, anddevelopment agreements are described inthe Appendix.the resulting program will be successful.Finally, it is important to remember thatwildlife does not respect jurisdictionalboundaries. The inter-jurisdictional natureof wildlife and natural resource projectsemphasize the importance of coordinationof activities between local governmentsbased on biological or geographicalboundaries.Within each community, a committee ortask force should be established to createworkable systems from the policydirectives created in ordinances andi n t e r g ove r n m e n t a l agreements. Localcommittees implementing habitatprotection programs should haverepresentation from the top levels of
Figure 5-4Funding Sources Legend for AcronymsGOCOCDPORCDOWCHSCDLACCAHVOCUSFSBLMBORNPSEDAEPANEARMYCGreat Outdoors ColoradoColorado Division of Parks & Outdoor RecreationColorado Division of WildlifeColorado Historical SocietyColorado Department of Local AffairsColorado Council of Arts and HumanitiesVolunteers for Outdoor ColoradoU.S. Forest ServiceBureau of Land ManagementBureau of ReclamationNational Park Service, Rivers & Trails Conservation AllianceEconomic Development AdministrationEnvironmental Protection AgencyNational Endowment for the ArtsRocky Mountain Youth Corps
Funding Source MatrixActivities: 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 Wildlifeequestrian) 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 ClubsXStudent GroupsXDOW/Fishing is funXLocal Irrigation Canal Co.XAmericans w/DisabilitiesXTrout Unlimited X XLocal Service ClubsXNPS/Rivers and TrailsXEDA/Public TourismXNEA/Design ArtsXCHS/Gaming Funds X X XBLM/Recreation DivisionXLocal LibraryXMuseum X X XCity X XCDOT/Enhance Funds X XLocal Corporations X XBusiness Groups X XBoettcher or Gates Found. X XPrivate LandownersXLocal Land TrustXTrust for Public LandsXCounty X XLocal MineXUtility CompanyXStockgrowers Assoc.XBoating GroupsXIrriation CompanyXWater BoardXNature ConservancyXDept. Health Stream Rehab.XCoors FoundationXLocal GroupsXEPSXEPA 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
Source: Colorado Springs Utilities - Water ResourcesGlossaryBibliographyProject ScheduleKey Informants InterviewsPublic Meeting CommentsNewslettersPikes Peak User Survey InstrumentPikes Peak User Survey ResultsModified Delphi Survey (MDS)- Instrument for Opportunity Maps- Instrument for Capacity Map- Results for Capacity MapConfidence Survey
Resource Impact EvaluationWildlife Resource Information System - Big Horn SheepWildlife Resource Information System - ElkM a nagement Structure Models & Case StudiesFederal Tools for Resource ProtectionState Tools for Resource ProtectionAcquisition Tools for Local GovernmentLocal Government Tools for Resource ProjectionFunding Sources by Recreation TypeLand Use Planning in ColoradoBest Practices Intergovernmental Agreements for LandUse and Growth Management
- A -ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act (Title II) regulation ensures that "individuals withdisabilities are not excluded from services, programs, and activities because the buildingor facility is inaccessible."Access PointsLocations usually representing a mode change (i.e. from car to hiking), where visitorgain access to trails and recreational activities.Actionable FireAny fire requiring suppression, especially a fire started or allowed to spread in violationof law, ordinance, or regulation.Allowable Burned AreaThe maximum average area burned over a specified period of years that is consideredan 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 recreationaland work-related activities. Note: All-terrain vehicles generally have high clearance,high traction, high maneuverability, and low speed.Alternative Routes to the PeakRepresents suggested trail alignments that connect the Perimeter Trail to the summit.Since only one trail presently makes this connections (Barr Trail), these alignments weredefined as “alternative” routes throughout the planning process.- B -Backcountry BywayA road segment designated as part of the National Scenic Byway System.
Backcountry CampsiteA campsite in a relatively unmodified backcountry area, usually accessible only by foot,horse, or watercraft, providing accommodation for those engaged in backcountryexperiences; may be within a designated backcountry campground.Base FlowRecharge water that makes its way through the subsurface into the river.Base MapA map showing planimetric, topographic, geologic, political, or cadastral informationthat may appear in many different types of maps. Note 1. The base map informationis drawn with other types of changing thematic information. Note 2. Base mapinformation 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 adesignated planning agency to be the most effective and practicable means (includingtechnological, economic, and institutional considerations) of controlling point andnonpoint source pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality goals.Note: BMP’s were conceptualized in the 1972 US Federal Water Pollution Control Act.BufferA vegetation strip or management zone of varying size, shape, and character maintainedalong a stream, lake, road, recreation site, or different vegetative zone to mitigate theimpacts of actions on adjacent lands, to enhance aesthetic values.Buffer ZoneAs used on the Regional Vision Plan, a buffer zone is an area in private ownership thatis presently operating under a management practice that is very complementary todesired management objectives with the planning area. Local and County governmentshould consider incentives to encourage the perpetuation of historic uses in these areas.
- C -CampfireA fire started for cooking, warmth, or light that has spread sufficiently to requirefirefighting activity.CampgroundAn aggregation of campsites providing such facilities as tent spaces (or pads), fireplaces,picnic tables, water, and sanitation for overnight use.CampsiteA unit of a campground providing overnight accommodation and generally developedto include tent or trailer space, parking spur, fireplace, table, garbage receptacle, andtoilet facility.Carrying CapacityAs determined by the Technical Advisory Group, the Carrying Capacity is representedby a range of capacity zones from one to seven. The capacity zones were created byweighting identified criteria derived from the GIS database and combining the criteriainto 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 usewas appropriate, and which capacity zones were inappropriate.Comprehensive PlanningA traditional planning approach relying on science and quantitative analysis to guideplanning activities. Synonym: Synoptic planning, rational comprehensive planning.Note: Comprehensive planning assumes impartiality and objectivity in the methodschosen for analysis and one correct answer and final solutions are often grossoversimplifications.ConcessionThe private management of a recreation area facility developed in part by privatecapital. Note: A concession may include transportation, lodging, or food service.
CorralAn enclosure for handling livestock, wild horses and burros, or wildlife.Corridor1. Management. A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location oftransportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries.2 . Wildlife. A defined tract of land connecting two or more areas of similar management orhabitat type that is reserved from substantial disturbance and through which a spe c i e scan travel to reach habitat suitable for reproduction and other life-sustaining needs.Cultural ResourcesHistoric and prehistoric remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor reflected indistricts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, andnatural features.- D -DatabaseA collection of data stored in a systematic manner such that the data can be readilyretrieved, modified, and manipulated to create information. Note 1. Most databases arecomputerized and consist of fields and records that are organized by data sets andgoverned by a scheme of organization, and can be linked to allow complex search-andcompareroutines. Note 2. Hierarchical and relational define two popular structuralschemes in use in a GIS, e.g., a GIS database includes data about the spatial location andshape of geographic entities as well as descriptions about those entities.DebrisMaterial 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 beleft if at all possible.Delphi MethodAn iterative technique designed to obtain a consensus among experts concerning the bestcourse 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, theresults are compiled and circulated, and another questionnaire or survey is administeredthat allows experts to revise their initial estimates in light of the information shared by theothers in the group.Delphi Process, ModifiedA survey is distributed to all participants that is filled out and returned to the surveyadministrator. Results of the survey are quantified. The participants review the groupaverages and respond again to the questions. The new responses are summarized. Thisprocess is repeated until the standard deviation of the responses is less than 1, indicatingconsensus amongst the participants. Usually only two or three iterations are required toreach 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 locationswhere z represents elevation.DisturbanceEcology. Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, orpopulation structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physicalenvironment.Drainage.1. The removal of excess surface water or groundwater from land by surface orsubsurface 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 -EasementThe public acquisition, by purchase or donation, of certain rights on private lands or, insome cases, restricting the private owner’s use of that land.EcosystemA spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the earth that includes all interactingorganisms and components of the abiotic environment within its boundaries. Note: Anecosystem can be of any size, e.g., a log, pond, field, forest, or the earth’s biospheres.Endangered SpeciesAny species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act of 1976 asbeing in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, andpublished in the Federal Register.EnvironmentEcology. The sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development, and survival ofan organism.Environmental and Amenity ValueA component of natural and cultural heritage that has worth or utility. Note: In aneconomic framework, environmental, and amenity values may include user values, as wellas non-use values such as existence values, bequest values, and option values.Environmental ImpactThe positive or negative effect of any action upon a given area or resource.Erosion1 . The wearing aw ay of the land surface by rain, running water, wind, ice, grav i t y, or othernatural 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 -FeasibilityThe relative advantage of managing or improving a unit considering its capability andsuitability for a specific use under the existing or projected socioeconomic climate.Fee Title AcquisitionLand bought for a fixed charge and directly owned by the buyer.FEMA MapsMaps of flood zone boundaries prepared and distributed by Federal EmergencyManagement Association.Fish HabitatThe aquatic environment and the immediately surrounding terrestrial environment thatafford the necessary biological, chemical, and physical support systems required by fishspecies during various life history stages.FloodplainThe level or nearly level land with alluvial soils on either or both sides of a stream or riverthat is subject to overflow flooding during periods of high water level. Note: An activefloodplain commonly has newly deposited fluvial sediments, recently rafted debrissuspended on trees or vegetation, or recent scarring of trees by material moved byfloodwaters.Forest PlanFederal Land Management. A document that guides all natural resource management andestablishes management standards and guidelines for a national forest, and that embodiesthe provisions of the National Forest Management Act of 1976.Fragile AreaRecreation. An identifiable area where the ecosystem is sensitive and vulnerable and couldbe destroyed, severely altered, or irreversibly changed by human acts.
- G -GatewaysCommunity Based Visitor Services that provide retail, accommodations, regionalorientation and access to the Pikes Peak planning area. These are major communities thathave developed at the foot of the Peak and should act as primary entry points for bothlocal 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, manipulate,analyze, report, and display the forms of geographically referenced information anddescriptive information. Note 1. A central component of information storage is thenecessity for topology to be maintained and coordinated by the software; otherwise,certain complex spatial operations are not possible or would be very difficult, timeconsuming,or impractical. Note 2. The major components of a GIS are the user interface,database management, data entry, product generation and spatial data manipulation andanalysis, which may be centralized or distributed across a network.GroundwaterThe subsurface water in both phreatic (saturated) and vadose (unsaturated) zone water ata pressure equal to or greater than atmospheric that is free to move under the influence ofgravity. Note: Groundwater is recharged by infiltration and enters streams throughseepage and springs.- H -Habitat1. A unit area of environment.2. The place, natural or otherwise (including climate, food, cover and water) where ananimal, plant, or population naturally or normally lives and develops.Habitat Conservation PlanA management plan for a specific habitat area, i.e. Bighorn Sheep on South Slope.
- I -ImpactThe effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.InholdingAn area of land belonging to one landowner that occurs within a block of land belongingto another. Note: Inholdings, such as small private parcels, often occur in federal orindustrial forest land ownerships.Intermittent StreamA stream, or portion of a stream, that does not flow year-round but only when it (a) receive sbase flow solely during wet pe r i ods, or (b) receives groundwater discharge or protractedcontributions from melting snow or other erratic surface and sha l l ow subsurface sources.InterpretationRecreation. An educational activity aimed at revealing meanings and relationships throughthe use of objects, first-hand experience, and illustrative media rather than throughrecitation of factual information to a passive audience.Interpretive CentersThese centers are sub-centers within the Pikes Peak Region that provide theme specificdetails about the resource or history of the area. Interpretive Centers include NativeAmericans, Mining History, Pikes Peak Highway, Railroads, Environmental Education,Agriculture, Water Resources, and Wildlife.- L -Landscape BufferA natural or planted perennial system in a position in the landscape to mitigate any of anumber of undesirable environmental impacts, e.g., runoff, wind, noise, dust, snow.LeaseContract 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 AreaAreas defined on the Regional Vision Plan that reflect landscape that is most valuable aswell as most sensitive to impacts from visitors. As a strategy to control access into thesesensitive area, they have been described as Limited Use Area. Once management for thisregion agrees upon a method of administering a program of “permitting,” a permit will berequired for a visitor to have access into these areas. Signage will play an important rolein defining the limits of these areas also.- M -Management AreaAn 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 presentsthe relationship between the entities for purposes of planning and management.MotorizedEquipped with or driven by a motor.Multiple UseFederal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The management of the public landsand their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that willbest meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicioususe of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas largeenough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform tochanging needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; acombination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-termneeds of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources including, but notlimed to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,scientific, and historic values; harmonious and coordinated management of the variousresources 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 greatesteconomic return or the greatest unit output.Multiple-Use TrailTrail that accommodates several uses within a single tread and shoulder cross-section suchas bicycling, hiking, equestrian, etc.Multi-UseA convergence of multiple recreational, environmental and economic uses within an area ofland. 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-makingprocesses.National ForestA federal reservation, generally forest, range, or other wildland, that is designated byExecutive Order or statue as a national forest or purchase unit, and other lands under theadministration of the USDA Forest Service, including experimental areas and Bankhead-Jones Title III lands. Note: The Forest Service administers national forests under aprogram of multiple use and sustained yield for timber, range, watershed, wildlife and fishand outdoor recreation.National Historical TrailA 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 designatedonly by Congress under the National Trail System Act of 1968.Native Species1. 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 AreaA physical and biological area in nearly natural condition that exemplifies an ecologicalcommunity and its associated vegetation and other biotic, soil, geologic, and aquaticfeatures. Note: A natural area is maintained in a natural condition by allowing physicaland biological processes to operate, usually without direct human intervention, buttreatments such as fire suppression or prescribed burning may be permitted.Non-motorizedDriven by means other than a motor.No-Trace CampingA philosophy related to backcountry camping that challenges users to leave camp sites ina condition that shows "no trace" of human use. This philosophy is usually instilled viaeducation materials provided to backcountry users when they apply for a backcountrycamping permit.- O -OutfallThe point at which water flows from a conduit, stream, or drain.- P -PartnershipA relationship between different components of the public and private sectors to achievemutually beneficial objectives.Perennial StreamA steam that has running water on a year-round basis under normal climatic conditions.Permit-Only SystemA management system that requires all users of an area to obtain a use permit from the managementagency of the area. Both quantities of user and their distribution can be mana g e d .
Planning AreaA geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are developedand maintained.PortalThe Regional Vision Plan depicts a series of Portal locations. These Portals indicate accesspoints to the regional recreation facilities and usually involve a mode shift from cars totrail uses. They are points where facilities such as parking areas, orientation signage andservices are provided as users park and begin a hiking experience.Primitive TrailA non-paved trail for hiking, mountain biking and equestrian use that is narrower than amulti-use trail and may not meet AASHTO standards for bike trails.Program ElementsRecreational uses appropriate and recommended for projects in the Pikes Peak Region.- R -RecreationAn 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 FacilityThe improvements within a developed recreation site offered for visitors’ enjoyment.Recreation SiteA land or water area having characteristics that make it suitable for development forpublic enjoyment, such as camping, picnicking, and water sports.Recreation Use CenterSub-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 ConceptsLand use ideas suggested for the study area, whose influence affected the entire study area,thus a regional influence.Resources1. 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 forassignment to fire-fighting tasks on which status is maintained.Restoration ZoneAreas identified as degraded and in need of an active program to improve theenvironmental health. Restoration plans should be developed for similar landscape units,and an implementation program developed to carry out the remediation.RevegetationThe re-establishment and development of vegetation.RiparianRelated to, living, or located in conjunction with a wetland, on the bank of a river orstream but also at the edge of a lake or tidewater. Note: The riparian communitysignificantly influences, and is significantly influenced by, the neighboring body of water.RoadsVehicle routes which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensurerelatively regular and continuous use. (A route maintained strictly by the passage ofvehicles does not constitute a road.)- S -Scenic LoopA 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 systemfrom an automobile. The loop begins in the Ute Pass area on State Highway 24 andcontinues 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 thetouring visitor to Colorado Springs across the southern part of the planning area.Scenic QualityThe visual significance given to a landscape determined by cultural values and thelandscape’s intrinsic physical properties.Scoping ProcessAn early and open public participation process for determining particular issues to beaddressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.Site Scale DesignThe design, planning, organization and disposition of objects and activities at a given loc a t i o n .Social TrailA trail that occurs within Forest Service land but has not been planned, programmed, ordesigned by the Forest Service. Soc ial trails often evo l ve informally from local communities.StandAn aggregation of forested vegetation occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform inspecies composition, age arrangement, and condition, as to be distinguishable fromadjoining stands.Structured FacilitiesRecreation support elements, such as parking areas, buildings, trail heads, bridges and trails.System TrailA trail recognized as part of the Forest Service trail system.- T -TrailA marked or established path or route. In this plan, the term "trail" refers to a recreationaltransportation route including paved and unpaved trails, boardwalks, road shoulders, fourwheel drive routes, separated paved bicycle trails, and primitive hiking trails. (See also
Multi-Use Trail and Primitive Trail).TrailheadDeveloped recreation sites with parking, signage, and other facilities designated to providea take-off point for trail users at a major access point and terminus of a trail.- V -ViewshedThe la n d s c a pe that can be directly seen from a viewpoint or along a transportation corridor.Visitor-DayRecreation. The presence of one or more persons (other than staff) on lands and watersgenerally recognized as providing outdoor recreation for continuous, intermittent, orsimultaneous periods totaling 12 hours.Visual ResourceThe composite of basic terrain, geologic features, vegetation patterns, and land use effectsthat typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal of the unit.- W -Water Quality StandardThe minimum requirement of purity of water for the intended use with respect to thephysical, chemical, and biological characteristics.WatershedA region or land area drained by a single stream, river, or drainage network.Water Table1. The upper surface of groundwater.2. That level or elevation, measured from a datum, where the water is a atmosphericpressure and below which the soil is saturated with water.
Wetland.1. A transitional area between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that is inundated orsaturated for periods long enough to produce hydric soils and support hydrophyticvegetation. Note: State or federal regulations may require the use of specific agencydefinitions of wetlands.2. A seasonally flooded basin or flat. Note: The period of inundation is such that theland can usually be used for agricultural purposes.Wilderness1. Wilderness Act of 1964 “a wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and hisworks dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and itscommunity of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who doesnot remain.”2. Roadless land legally classified as a component area of the National WildernessPreservation System and managed to protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude, andopportunity for primitive types of recreation. Note: Wilderness is usually of sufficientsize to make its maintenance in such a state feasible and to provide opportunities forsolitude and self-reliant recreation.WildfireAny non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, occurring on wildland.Wildlife1. All non-domesticated animal life.2. Non-domesticated vertebrates, especially mammals, birds, and fish and some of thehigher invertebrates, e.g. many Arthropods.Wildlife ManagementThe practical application of scientific and technical principles to wildlife populations andhabitats so as to maintain or manipulate such populations (particularly mammals, birdsand fish), essentially for recreational or scientific purposes. Note: Wildlife managementincludes the narrower concept of game management, in which an additional purpose maybe commercial, i.e., the controlled harvesting of wild game.
- Z -Zoning1. Management. The demarcation of a planning area by designation, ordinance, or lawinto zones and the establishment of regulations to govern the use of the land andstructures 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 competinguses or to reduce deterioration of fragile resources.
Source: Colorado Springs UtilitiesGETINVOLVEDAugust, 1998: Volume 1The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan will be developed through a public process designedto gather your ideas about Pikes Peak and its future. You are invited to participatewith the Peak’s managing partners to create a sound and caring vision for themountain in our backyard.The next public forums will be held in early September to provide an overview of thework that has been completed to date and to gather public thinking on theopportunities, 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 SpringsMeeting location will be advertisedSeptember 12, 9:00 a.m., VictorMeeting location will be advertisedThe next issue of Peak Views will be mailed following the September public forums.E’VE GOTA LOT TOTALKABOUT...Source: Design Workshop, Inc.The pressure for increased use and development onand near Pikes Peak is increasing daily. The ColoradoSprings Water Resources Department and the U.S.Forest Service, as co-stewards of Pikes Peak, are facedwith balancing demand for increased recreational activitywith their responsibility to prevent further loss anddegradation of the mountain's natural resources. ThePikes Peak Multi-Use Plan will shape preservation,development, and management decisions into the nextcentury.
WHATYOUTOLDUS...What Should the Pike's Peak Multi-Use Plan Accomplish? The input and directionprovided during the public meetings, in May and June 1998, gave clear direction to theplanning team for objectives for the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan. In July, the CitizensAdvisory Group helped organize these ideas into the following five goals that will be usedto guide the planning process:Everyone's voice isvalued in this process.The Managing PartnersCity of Colorado Springs ParksColorado Division of WildlifeBureau of Land ManagementThe Town of Manitou SpringsThe Town of Woodland ParkThe Town of Cripple CreekAmerican Indian NationsColorado State ParksThe Town of VictorGreen Mountain FallsTeller CountyEl Paso CountyPikes Peak Highway1 Determine how the growth of the surrounding communities will impact Pikes Peak.2 Develop an environmentally-based plan that establishes the preservation of waterquality as its highest priority.3 Develop strategies for balancing the preservation of the Peak with public access andcommercial use.4 Identify and protect critical wildlife habitat.5 Describe stewardship programs that encourage the public to behave in ways that willhelp preserve existing resources.VOICESOFCOLORADOThe Pikes Peak Citizen's AdvisoryGroup is made up of citizens like youwho cared about the mountain andvolunteered their time to work on theWhat do People Want to Do on the Peak? In the Spring of1998, we distributed a questionnaire to help the teamunderstand the profiles and use patterns of people who visitthe area surrounding Pikes Peak for recreational purposes.The responses told us that:Source: Colorado Springs Utilitiesplan. Approximately 75 people havebeen meeting every two weeks sincemid-June to learn more about themountain, review the results of theinformation gathering process, andwork with the professional stewards in1 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 arehiking, mountain biking, picnicking, cross-country skiing, and scenic driving.creating the Pikes Peak Multi-UsePlan.3 Most visitors share their experience with family and friends. Over 62 percent of thepeople 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 thepreservation of the mountain environment for the enjoyment of future generations.For information on meetings of theCitizens Advisory Group, call VicEklund at 719-448-8700.5 When asked to identify the most appropriate uses and activities for the Pikes Peakarea, the most common responses were hiking, bird watching, backpacking, cross-The photographs at right show Citizenscountry skiing, and fishing.Source: Design Workshop, Inc.Advisory Group members beingSource: Black and VeatchPanoramic drawing of the Pikes Peak area taken from historic Hayden Atlas
FORPURPLEMOUNTAIN MAJESTIES ...thOn July , 41993, Senator HankBrown dedicated this memorialthplaque to commemorate the 100anniversary of the inspiration of“America the Beautiful” by KatharineLee Bates.June 1999: Volume 2Bates, a visiting professor fromWellesley College in Massachusetts,was teaching at Colorado Collegewhen she had the opportunity tovisit Pikes Peak.She penned the words to thisfamous song after an inspirationalride to the summit of Pikes Peakndon July 22 , 1893.WHAT’SNEXT?The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan will be developed through a public processdesigned to gather your ideas about Pikes Peak and its future. You areinvited to participate with the Peak's managing partners to create a soundand caring vision for the mountain in our backyard.The next round of public meetings will provide an overview of the work thathas been completed to date and gather the public’s thoughts - on the opportunities, issues, and concerns identified by the planning process.The next public meeting will be held in CripplethCreek on Tuesday, June at the 15Henry (June)Hack Community Center (128 East BennettAvenue). Manitou Springs will host another publicthmeeting on Wednesday, at June Memorial 16Hall (606 Manitou Avenue). Please check your local newspaper or our websitefor updated information regarding the time, dates and locations - of these meetings.ERE’S WHATWE’VE BEENUP TO...This newsletter is an update on theplanning process for the Pikes PeaMulti-Use Plan, and an invitation foyou to join the discussion about the future of Pikes PSince last Spring, the Colorado Springs Water ResDepartment, the U.S. Forest Service, and the PikesCitizen Advisory Group have been working -togetherate a plan that will direct the preservation, development,management of Pikes Peak into the next century.
WHATCOULDTHEFUTUREBE?The future of Pikes Peak will be a balance of recreational activity and preservation ofnatural and cultural resources of the mountain. This vision and the - plan have been developed through a planning process that began in the Spring of 1998. A thorough cultural andenvironmental inventory of the site was assembled in order to clearly describe the existingconditions on the Peak. This effort included over 60 days of on-site field work by theColorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), a non-profit research arm of the University ofColorado. The CNHP identified rare plants and wildlife species within the study area.VOICESOFCOLORADOThe managing partners of the project believe that the plan must be created wilevel of public ownership. In addition to the planning team, managing partnersTechnical Advisory Committee, the public voice has been heard throughout theA Citizen Advisory Group, website, public meetings and newsletters such as this oserve as conduit a for the voices of Pikes Peak. For additional information, you caour website at www.csu.org/water/ppplan/ppplan.html.Concurrent with the inventory effort, the planning team worked closely with the managingpartners and Citizen Advisory Group to understand how preservation and recreationdevelopment might be accommodated on the Peak. A Technical Advisory Committee wasformed to develop an analysis process that would address the site’s capacity toaccommodate potential uses. Members of the committee provided expertise in the areasof water resources, forestry, soils, wildlife, and land management. - The analysis maps produced through the committee's efforts identify areas of the site most sensitive to change aswell as those most capable of accommodating future use.Technical Advisory Committee CharretteCitizen Advisory Group MeetingIn January of this year, a 3-day worksession was held to develop alternative futures for thestudy area. The effort included participation by the managing partners, Citizen AdvisoryGroup, and the planning team. Teams of participants were asked to develop possibleELEVATIONscenarios for the Peak by imagining the "best" way to manage environmental, recreation,and economic issues. At the end of the worksession, each team presented theirrecommendations to the Citizen Advisory Group who was asked to critique the effort. Thecombined recommendations and findings were organized into a preliminary frameworkplan that will be presented at the next series of public meetings.PIKES PEAK MULTI-USE PLANCOLORADO SPRINGS TO CRIPPLE CREEKDesign Workshop, Inc. 1390 Lawrence Street, Suite 200,Denver, Colorado 80204 (303) 623-5186 Consultants:Thomas & Thomas; Felsburg Holt & Ullevig; MontgomeryWatson; Eric Olgeirson, PhD., Consulting Ecologist; andColorado Natural Heritage ProgramThe Elevation Map shown at left was created as a part of the Technical ACommittee’s process to determine areas sensitive to change and areas that acapable of accommodating future use.This spectacular panoramic view (below) of the foothills and plains of Coloradoshows the original and still unchanged road to the summit of Pikes Peak. In 1first automobile scaled the Peak under steam power. The first Pikes Peak Hill Crace was held in 1916.Source: From the collection of Paul Gilbert, Sr., Colorado Division of Wildlife, Retired
The attached matrix addresses thedeveloped recreation.• Retaining the existing road surface,additional access to the Peak• Development of motorized trails• Development of lodging (high impacts)f o l l owing natural resource categories:R i pa r ian Areas, We t lands, Habitat Areas,Alpine Tundra and Threatened andE n dangered Species. Two matrices wereapplied to 23 sites in the Pikes Pe a kr e c r e a t i o nal area, as shown on the attachedmatrix. The first matrix (AB Scena r i o )addressed Steward/Recreation issues. Th esecond matrix (BC Scenario) addressedRe c r e a t i o n /Economic issues. Details of theresults are provided in the follow i n gna r r a t i ve and in the attached matrices.The proposed economic developmentscenario (BC) allows for virtuallyunlimited access to the park. Theproposed developments will haverelatively minor impacts on the naturalresources of the park. It is the increase invehicular traffic and recreational usersassociated with this scenario that willhave the greatest impact on the naturalresources in this area. The proposed roadimprovements and the addition ofmotorized campsites and lodging in theA summary of the information includescomparisons of the two scenarios,categories of low impacts and categoriesof high impacts.southern region of the park are of specialconcern. While this scenario may notalter current uses significantly, it doeslittle to preserve and protect valuablenatural areas.The AB Scenario scored a one, or lowenvironmental impact, while the BCScenario scored a 2.4, or moderateenvironmental impact.While the impacts of infrastructureassociated with the stewardship scenariomay not appear significantly different onthe surface, the restricted access to theThe differences between the scenarios are:• Limited uses• Restoration areas• Protected recreation biological connectionsand pavement of the road (low impact) vs.park has a major influence on the level ofenvironmental impact and the ability toconserve the resources of the park overthe long term.• Regional Visitor Center
B a rr Trail and Cog Rail access:Wetland and ri p a rian impacts should belimited depending on expansion. This is aclass four wildlife habitat, with no naturalh e ritage value. The Town of ManitouS p rings has no serious impacts with eithers c e n a ri o .• Local Access PortalBC Scenario only. This portal would benear wetlands and riparian areas. Impactsmay occur due to access. This site hasaccess to 16 core loop trails (currently forestservice roads). This area is a class fourwildlife habitat, with natural heritagevalue – very high significance (VHS).is a class four wildlife habitat, with nonatural heritage value.• Equestrian CenterPotential for wetland and riparian impactsmay occur in both scenarios. Wildlifehabitat is low except for riparian areas inscenario BC. This area has no naturalheritage value.• Crags CampThe AB scenario will not create impacts.Potential for riparian impacts may occur inthe BC scenario. Scenario BC may causeimpacts if further development occurs.There is no natural heritage value.• Catamount Ranch Open Space PortalThe portal is located near the main road inthe AB scenario and will not create wetlandriparian impacts. In the BC scenariothe portal is on the loop road. There arepotential future wetland or riparianimpacts. This is a class three wildlife habitat,with no natural heritage value.• Crystal Lake LodgeThis area is lake front with wetland orri p a rian systems and has no recent impactsin the AB scenario. Scenario BC haspotential to impact wetlands, ri p a rian areas,habitat and t&e species. This is a class fourwildlife habitat, with no natural heri t a g ev a l u e .• South Slope PortalBoth scenarios have potential to createimpacts. The development of motorizedtrails will create significant impacts. Thisis a class four wildlife habitat, with nonatural heritage value.• Back Country PortalMinimal potential impacts to wetlands,riparian and threatened and endangeredspecies may occur in both scenarios. This• Barr Trail and Cog RailExisting facilities will not create impacts.• Summit HouseScenario AB may create ongoingdegradation due to automobile and foottraffic, aggravated by hard surfacing of theroad to the summit. New facilities in scenarioBC may create temporary impactsthat are planned for restoration.
• South Slope Recreation ProgramScenario AB is a protected area. ScenarioBC will potentially impact riparian area,wetlands and habitat due to constructionand high use.• Cheyenne Canyon Visitor Education CenterMajor highway may create impacts to wetlandand riparian areas in both scenariosdue to development of the Center. This is aClass Four wildlife habitat – close to classfive, with a natural heritage value – veryhigh significance (VHS).outstanding and very high significance.• Alternate Route to SummitPotential tundra and t&e species impactsmay occur in the BC scenario due to newtrail construction. Potential wetland andriparian impacts.• Auto Touring LoopNo new impacts in either scenario AB orBC. Both scenarios have potential toimpact natural areas due to roadmodifications.• HighwayScenario BC will cause siltation-erosionproblems for wetlands, tundra and generalhabitat. Scenario AB will protect adjacentgeneral habitat. Current sedimentationwill be controlled by road improvement.• Lower Gold Camp RoadIn scenario AB existing forest serviceroads, gravel treatment should not causemajor impacts. The BC scenario has apotential to impact natural areas due toroad modifications.• Limited Use Areas AB onlyThe limited use is not sufficient to controlrecreational use.• Biological ConnectednessScenario AB will benefit biological connections.Scenario BC does not apply.• Restoration Zones AB onlyThe partial restoration is not sufficient tocontrol recreational use.• Perimeter Loop TrailThe trail was built on existing forest serviceroads. The trail should cause little impactto wetlands or riparian zones and crossesall habitat areas in both AB and BC.Significant portions are in class fourwildlife habitat. Significant portions alsooccur in natural heritage areas – values are• Motorized Vehicle AreaScenario AB does not apply. Scenario BChas potential for significant impacts towetland riparian areas. This is a class fourwildlife habitat, near an area with naturalheritage value – very high significance(VHS). In scenario BC impacts will occurdue to motorized road development.• Lodging on Public LandsScenario AB does not apply. Developmentof lodging in scenario BC may impact
significant areas of wetlands and riparianareas.• Agriculture Buffer AreasScenario AB does not apply. In scenarioBC there is a strong potential for wetlandand riparian impacts. These areas aremoderate wildlife habitat, with no naturalheritage value.
The Origins of the ESAThe Endangered Species Act (ESA) wasoriginally designed to curb poaching andsmuggling of rare animals. It has evolvedconsiderably since its first enactment in1966 and was thoroughly rewritten in1973 1 . Section 7 of the act requires themapping of critical habitat areas that aspecies needs to survive and theestablishment of recovery plans for eachlisted species. Although priority is to begiven to species that may be in conflictwith economic development, federal agencieshave been largely unable to fulfillthese directives in pace with the demandsof the development community. While theabsence of designated critical habitat or arecovery plan does not defeat the protectionof a species, the enforcement of theAct has resulted in severe penalties beingplaced on developers who had no way ofknowing in advance that developmentactivity would be determined to be a "taking"of a species. Section 9 of the Actprohibits the “taking” of an endangeredspecies. This term is defined broadly toinclude hunting, killing, and other actionsthat indirectly affect a species, such asharming or harassing the animals. The Acthas a broad scope and prohibits "takings"by private citizens or by state and localgovernments. It also authorizes citizensuits to enforce the Act.Natural Communities ConservationPlanning ProgramA Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)addresses the habitat needs of the subjectthreatened or endangered species, but isnot required to analyze the larger biologicalpatterns or effects on an entire ecosystem.This may result in incomplete studiesand inadequate conservation measures,even after considerable sums have beenspent on the development of the plan.A multi-species approach to habitatconservation would magnify all theproblems associated with environmentalregulation and would essentially bebeyond the scope of the Act.California has addressed this situation byinitiating its own Natural CommunitiesConservation Planning Program (NCCP)that identifies and resolves issues beforethe Endangered Species Act is applicable.In essence, the NCCP uses local planningresources to protect substantial assemblagesof habitat land before the areabecomes so fragmented or compromisedby development that the listing of individualspecies is likely under ESA.Federal Tools forResource Protection• The Endangered Species Act• The National Biological Survey• The National EnvironmentalPolicy Act• Section 404: WetlandsProtection• Federal Land PreservationIncentives• USDA EnvironmentalQuality Incentive Program• Federal Land Ownership andManagement• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service• U.S. Forest Service• Bureau of Land Management
Because of its species-specific approach,the ESA often attempts to protect small,disconnected parcels of land wheresignificant numbers of the threatenedspecies exist, but not the larger tracts thatwould allow the continued health of thecraft unique solutions within Colorado,local governments may reap the benefit ofbeing able to plan for habitat protectionwithout having to work around the rigidfederal requirements and remedies of theESA in some cases.entire ecosystem of which the threatenedspecies is a part. NCCP takes the broaderview. Partners in the program, that includeseveral agencies of state government anddevelopers, enroll in the program andagree to set aside critical habitat areas andto monitor the ecosystems within them.Case Study: Colorado’sMemorandum of UnderstandingColorado has recently become the firststate in the United States. to execute anagreement with the U.S. Department of theInterior designed to give the state a greaterrole in the application of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA). This agreement mayhave implications for the design of localhabitat protection. In particular, as theColorado Division of Wildlife acts proactivelyto prevent some species populationsfrom declining, it may need the assistanceand cooperation of Colorado’s localgovernments. In some cases, the Divisionof Wildlife may need to request that localprograms be initiated or expanded tofocus on habitat that is necessary to avoidapplication of the Endangered Species Act.On the positive side, if the state is successfulin working with local governments toFor almost a century, there have been callsfor the federal government to create acomprehensive biological inventory for thecountry. Concerns over the loss of species,wildlife habitat, and other naturalresources has created a myriad of environmentalregulations at the local, state,and federal government levels. Across thecountry, these regulations have led to seriousconflicts between environmental protectionand economic growth. TheSecretary of the Interior has termed thesesituations “economic and environmentaltrain wrecks,” because they sometimes leadto the derailing of major constructionprojects at the last minute due to anendangered species, wetlands, or lateemergingenvironmental issue. Theincreasing complexity of environmentalregulations and the desire to minimize thenumber of future “train wrecks” has led torenewed calls for a comprehensive biologicalsurvey.Although recent federal legislation hasredefined National Biologic Survey as theBiologic Division of the U.S. Geological
Survey instead of a free-standing agency(effective September 1, 1996), its chargeand role as a center for research sciencehas not been altered.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 3 isrelevant to wildlife habitat protectionwhenever desired habitat involves wetlandareas. This federal act is administeredjointly by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and the EnvironmentalThe National Environmental Policy Ac t( NEPA ) 2 applies to actions undertaken,s ponsored, and in some cases permitted bythe federal government. The act is primarilya procedural mandate that requires allfederal agencies to conduct an evaluationof 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 le n v i r o n m e n t .” While judicial interpretationsof this threshold definition vary with thecircumstances, NEPA generally imposes arequirement that the agency at leastconsider all environmental impacts of ag i ven action, as well as the alterna t i veactions and measures that may mitigatesuch impacts. Although NEPA does noteffect an outright prohibition even onthose federal projects that do invo l vea d verse environmental impacts, it doe so perate to provide more information abo u tthe po t e n t ial adverse impacts of such projectsand opens them to public scrutiny.Among those factors that must be consideredis the effect of the proposed projecton wildlife po p u lations.Protection Agency, and provides significantopportunities for comment andinvolvement by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Section 404 creates a permit systemthat regulates disturbances of wetlandswhen that disturbance will affectmore than one acre of the wetlands.Permits can be denied if a proposed activity,including any dredging, channelization,or development in a wetland will result ina “significant degradation” of wetlands.Significant degradation can include diminishedrecreational or aesthetic values aswell as damage to aquatic systems. Inaddition, permits can be issued with conditionsrequiring mitigation of wetlandsloss by restoring existing wetlands or creatingnew wetland areas.Colorado’s local governments should beaware that the need for a Section 404permit may discourage development inwetlands and make it easier to steerdevelopment away from wetland habitats.If the existence of wetlands is documentedas part of a local wildlife habitat inventory,that information should be passed on toboth the Division of Wildlife and to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so that it canbe considered in future 404 permittingactivities. In addition, when a developerproposes to build in a wetlands and thenmitigate the impacts off-site, the developerthose located in California and Florida.Oregon, Minnesota, New Jersey, Colorado,and other states have specifically endorsedthe creation and operation of wetlandsmitigation banks 4 .may be looking for an existing wetlands torestore as part of the mitigation process.Colorado’s local governments shouldtherefore be prepared to suggest wildlifehabitat areas where restoration orexpansion of an existing wetland wouldpromote the quality of the habitat itself.In order to accommodate the need tomitigate wetlands off-site, some states haverecently begun creating wetlands mitigationbanks. The mitigation bank idea arosefrom criticism that builders were sometimesmitigating their impacts on largewetlands by expanding small ones thatwere not sustainable or not large enoughto achieve the goals of aquifer recharge,water quality improvements, or wildlifehabitat protection. The intent of the banksystem is to designate large and healthywetland areas — often those that support awide variety of wildlife species — andencourage developers to expand andimprove those areas. In some cases, privateinvestors have actually purchased significanthealthy wetland areas and then soldthe rights to improve and restore the buyerson an acre-by-acre basis. To date,more than 46 wetlands mitigation banksare operating in the U.S., with most ofSome federal laws offer financial incentivesfor land protection or impose disincentivesby withholding government subsidies foradverse land uses. In many instances, thetypes of land protected may have importantwildlife habitat value. While the scopeand funding of these programs is underincreasing pressure in Washington,programs such as the Wetlands ReserveProgram and the Conservation ReserveProgram still exist. In general, federalincentive programs are based on a simpleand compelling argument that thegovernment should not subsidize landuses that are harmful and contradict otherestablished laws or policies. Suchprograms have been very effective in thecontext of agricultural and wetlands protection.Wetlands Reserve ProgramThe federal Food Security Act of 1985 andthe Food, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade Act of 1990, known as the “farmbills,” established a number of programsdesigned to provide incentives for retain-
ing wetlands. Perhaps the most significantsuch program was provided in the“Swampbuster” provisions of the FoodSecurity Act. These established a WetlandsReserve Program 5 , which offers incentivesfor preservation of up to 1 million acres ofwetlands as well as disincentives for conversion.Bills are programs establishing aConservation Reserve Program 6 . Underthis program, the federal governmentoffers payments and executes voluntary10-year agreements with farmers who electto remove highly erosive cropland fromproduction, thereby reducing environmentaldamage from runoff and preservingwildlife habitat. About 36.4 million acresUnder this program, participating farmersprepare and implement wetlandsconservation plans and the federalgovernment pays the farmer for the valueof the use of the conserved lands as wellas a portion of the costs of restoration andconservation. In addition, if the farmerchooses to convert wetlands to agriculturaluse, the farmer becomes ineligible forfederal agricultural price supports, cropinsurance, or any other federal agriculturalsubsidy programs. By maintaining apreservation incentive while eliminatingcompeting incentives to convert wetlands,the federal government has provided aprogram that promotes the retention ofhave been removed from production forat least 10 years under the program so farand have been planted with tame ornative grasses. One important additionalbenefit to wildlife has been to reduce pressureon 32 million acres of grass interspersedwith lands remaining inproduction 7 . Almost two million acres ofagricultural land within Colorado isincluded in the program — or approximatelyone-sixth of all the tilled land inthe state. The Conservation ReserveProgram has been continued because ithas been shown to be a very cost-effectiveway of reducing pollution that would otherwisehave to be abated after the fact.wetlands and related habitat withoutcausing financial harm to farmers. The1996 reauthorization of the Farms Billscontinued the Wetlands Reserve Program,but its scope is still modest. The programnow authorizes the inclusion of 12,000 to18,000 acres of land within Colorado.Forest StewardshipIncentives ProgramThe 1990 Farm Bill recognized thei m portance of stewardship of private forestland and land suitable for growing trees asa vital element in the conservation of thenation’s natural resources. The bill createdConservation Reserve ProgramAlso included in the 1985 and 1990 Farmthe Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) andthe Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP ) ,
which are administered na t i o nally andr e g i o nally by the United States Fo r e s tService and at the state level by theColorado State Forest Service. The FSPp r ovides education and technical assistanceto private la n d owners. The SIP assists privatela n d owners to implement the la n dstewardship activities recommended in theirlong-range forest plans and to manage theirp r o perty for a variety of environmentalbenefits, including wildlife habitat. Th eprogram applies to la n d owners ow n i n gbetween two and 1,000 acres of la n dsuitable for growing trees, provided theymeet eligibility requirements and implementtheir plans according to applicabler e g u lations for a minimum of 10 ye a r s .Under the SIP, cost sharing can be used topromote the development of foreststewardship programs, reforestation,a g r o f o r e s t r y, forest improvement, ripa r ia nand wetland protection, and thecombines the functions of several existingUSDA cost-sharing programs, includingthe Great Plains Conservation Programand the Colorado River Basin SalinityControl Program. The overall benefit of thecombined program is the collaborativeefforts between the various agencies toensure that the program runs successfully.The Natural Resources ConservationService is responsible for policies, priorities,and guidelines. The Farm ServicesAgency is responsible for administeringthe program at the state and local levels.Under EQIP, five- to ten-year contractswill be available to landowners to providecost-share and incentive payments for upto 75 percent of the cost of installing conservationpractices. EQIP is intended tomake the administration of programs andfunds more efficient. Payments to any personare limited to $10,000 annually and$50,000 for the life of the contract.e n hancement of fisheries and wildlifehabitat. From 1990 to 1995, $1 million wasdistributed in Colorado to support theimplementation costs of nearly 1,000stewardship programs.A bout 50 percent of all threatened ande n dangered species listed under theE n dangered Species Act occur at least onceon federal land. In addition, about 36percent of the more than 24,000USDA Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP) is a new cost-shareprogram under the federal AgricultureImprovement and Reform Act 8 thatoccurrences of federally listed species arefound on federal lands. In some cases,more than 50 percent of the po p u lation ofa threatened or endangered species lives on
federal lands. As a result, the federalg overnment can have a dramatic impact onthe preservation of certain species simplythrough its actions as a la n d owner — andalso attempt to set an example to encourageresponsible stewardship for the environmentand promote citizen involvementin wildlife issues.a part from its role in land regulation. Th i sis pa r t i c u larly true in a state like Colorado,where the federal government owns moret han one-third of all the land in the state.The federal agency with the la r g e s to p portunity to protect endangered spe c i e sis the U.S. Forest Service, because 16 pe r-cent of all occurrences of listed spe c i e soccur on lands that it manages. Landsm a naged by the Bureau of LandM a nagement house eight percent of theoccurrences. Lands controlled by theDe partment of Defense account for fourpercent of occurrences, and lands mana g e dby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andIt is important to recognize that stategovernments have a much different role inprotecting wildlife habitat based on theirvarious responsibilities to fulfill broadpublic interests, and local governmentshave a different role because of urbancharacteristics and interests. Becauserelatively little federal land is located inurban areas, the scope of USFWS activitiesin urban areas is limited. One notableexception is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal,whose 27 square miles represent a hugeurban wildlife reserve of great importanceto the state and the region.the National Park Service each account forthree percent of oc c u r r e n c e s 9 .The Forest Service, which is a division of theU.S. De partment of Agriculture, promotesThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) plays a key role in many wildlifehabitat protection issues, but it is notresponsible for all federal wildlifeconcerns 10 . USFWS activities are primarilyconcerned with public lands and land setaside specifically to protect critical wildlifehabitat. In addition to its primary charge,the USFWS also provides the public withopportunities for non-consumptivewildlife habitat protection through its la n dm a nagement practices on the land that itcontrols. All Forest Service lands arem a naged under the multiple-use philosophy,which attempts to ba lance wildlife ha b i t a tprotection goals with public recreation goals.Many aspects of habitat mana g e m e n tpractices of the U.S. Forest Service prov i d eexcellent models for developing loc a lprograms and philosophies.wildlife activities. Most USFWS programs
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) isa division of the Department of theInterior that operates under a multiple-usemandate contained in the Federal LandPolicy Management Act. A recent strategicplan for the BLM listed fish and wildlifeprotection as a top priority for theagency 11 . The plan represents a new ideologyfor the BLM and a very progressiveattitude towards wildlife habitat protection.The new policies bring fish and wildlifeissues, riparian restoration, and recreationalpriorities more in line with traditionalBLM functions of mineral resource andrangeland management.The implementation policies of BLM’s Fishand Wildlife 2000 plan contain some keyinnovations. For example, the plan targetsworking cooperatively with state, local,and private interests to achieve commongoals and promotes a cost-sharing programto help fund multi-jurisdictionalprojects. The plan represents a positivechange from the BLM’s historical tendencyto be driven by issues and events andhopes to establish a pro-active attitude toinfluence and shape the proper managementof valuable natural resources. Asurbanizing areas continue to encroach onmore and more natural resources, thisnew philosophy could become a valuableasset for future habitat planning efforts.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife initiatedthe Wildlife Resource Information System(WRIS) to support implementation of theColorado State House Bill 1041. The objectiveof WRIS is the systematic collectionand communication of data to supportnatural resource planning, particularlyplanning by local governments. WRIS usesa species mapping process to identify anddelineate habitat for species that are economicallyimportant (e.g., deer, elk), as wellas for species that are threatened, endangered,or are valuable as indicators ofhabitat health. Once these species havebeen identified, their known patterns ofhabitat use are digitized into geographicinformation systems and are used to compilecomposite maps of sensitivity toimpact. Composite maps show areas withina county that have high, moderate, andlow sensitivity to impact from development.These maps are used by planners todecide which development proposalsshould be reviewed by field personnelfrom the Division of Wildlife. Local governmentscan contact the local Division ofWildlife office to find out about how toobtain help from the WRIS program.The System for Conservation Planning(SCoP) is a Division of Wildlife projectdesigned to help local communities setgoals for conservation of wildlife diversityand to inform those communities of theeconomic and regulatory mechanismsavailable to achieve those goals. The SCoPsproject objectives are as follows:• Develop a collaborative process to helpdecision-makers, planners, and citizenswork together to set conservation priorities.• Produce accessible information systems thatwill help citizens and large-scale decisionmakersrealize that cumulative effects ofchanges in land use on wildlife diversity.In 1992, the Colorado State constitutionwas amended to create the Great OutdoorsColorado Trust Fund (GOCO) and phaseout the capital construction fund by1998 12 . The constitutional amendmentcreating GOCO directs the board of thetrust fund to make investments that aresubstantially equal over the long term for:• Wildlife programs through the ColoradoDivision of Wildlife,• Outdoor recreation through the Coloradodivision of parks and outdoor recreation,State Tools forResource Protection• Wildlife Resource InformationSystem• System for ConservationPlanning• Great Outdoors Colorado• Natural Areas Program• Protection of Instream Flowsand Natural Lake Levels• State Wildlife Areas andConservation Easements• Habitat ImprovementsPrograms• State Trust Lands Fish andWildlife Enhancement Projects
• Competitive grants to the state parksdivision, counties, municipalities, otherpolitical subdivisions, and non-profit andconservation organizations for the purposeof acquiring and managing open space andnatural areas of statewide significance, and• Acquisition and maintenance of trails andriver greenways; and• Identification, acquisition, and managementof unique open space and naturalareas.• Competitive matching grants to localgovernments to acquire, develop, or manageopen lands and parks.The mission of the GOCO program is tohelp the people of Colorado preserve ,e n hance, appreciate, and enjoy the state’sparks, wildlife, trails, rivers, open spa c e ,and views. These goals are to be accomplishedby making strategic inve s t m e n t s ,fostering partnerships among dive r s einterests, and supporting education abo u tthe outdoor environment. One of the specificprograms currently being deve l o pe dis non-game habitat protection grants.These grants could become an invaluablet ool in Colorado for protection of wildlifehabitat in urban areas. GOCO receive sfunding from state lottery proceeds anduses them to accomplish a variety ofo b j e c t i ves for preserving, protecting andThe establishment of GOCO has created an u m ber of opportunities for loc a lg overnments and state agencies. The GOCOboard of directors has deve l o ped a fundingp r ocess with the Division of Wildlife andthe Division of Parks and Outdoo rRecreation to annually review fundingrequests from these agencies. The fundingrequests provide a base level of monies toprojects that meet the objectives of GOCOand the Divisions. In addition, funding ofgrants in the areas of Open Space, Loc a lG overnment, Trails, and Capa c i t yB u i l d i n g /P lanning are awarded annually ormore frequently. Fina l l y, GOCO has deve l-o ped the Legacy Projects program to providegrants of between $2 to $10 million fora few projects that integrate two or more ofthe funding areas to projects of statewide orr e g i o nal significance.e n hancing the state’s wildlife, parks, rive r s ,trails and open space. Grants from GOCOs u p port habitat protection through:• Acquisition, leases, or easements of criticalwildlife habitat;• Development of state parks and recreationareas;The goal of the Colorado Natural AreasProgram (CNAP) is to help privatelandowners and public land agenciesidentify and conserve areas of land thatcontain special values habitat for animalsand plants, or paleontological, geological,
or other natural features. Natural areas areprotected by voluntary cooperativeagreements; landowners keep all rights andmanagement responsibilities. Since 1977,when the program began, it has developedvoluntary cooperative agreements forprotecting natural areas at 81 sites aroundaquatic habitats. Unused water rights canbe donated to the CWCB to assure adequatewater levels in streams and lakes.For example, the city of Boulder gave itsrights to water in Boulder Creek andNorth Boulder Creek to protect instreamflows there.the state. The CNAP staff is available tohelp identify natural areas and to adviseon managing them to persevere their specialvalue. The program offers some smallgrants to encourage research on naturalareas.The Colorado Division of Wildlife holdsp r o perties for habitat protection andwildlife recreation. There are 307,000 acresheld in fee title across the state; abo u t30,000 acres are held through leases; and70,000 additional acres are held underOne of the most important characteristicsdetermining the quality of aquatic habitatsis the amount of water in streams (theeasements. These lands contain impo r t a n thabitat for a broad range of terrestrial andaquatic species.instream flow) and lakes (the natural lakelevel). In 1973, Senate Bill 97 created amechanism for protecting thesecharacteristics. Unlike all other private andgovernment entities, the Colorado WaterConservation Board (CWCB) wasempowered to hold rights to water thatremained in streams or lakes. All otherparties must divert and use water tomaintain their beneficial use rights. TheCWCB can obtain rights to water bypurchase, donation, lease or contract. fromprivate parties or local governments. Thisoffers an important opportunity to countiesand municipalities seeking to protectThe Colorado Division of Wildlife sponsorsor collaborates in four programs toimprove habitat for wildlife in Colorado 13 .These programs include:Cooperative HabitatImprovement ProgramThe Cooperative Habitat ImprovementProgram (CHIP) offers funds to share costsof habitat improvement for wildlife onprivate land. The program is flexible andintended to improve wildlife habitat with-
out affecting agricultural production.Landowners determine the types of projectsand where they will be implementedand are not obligated to allow publicaccess to their land. Since 1993, theCooperative Habitat ImprovementProgram has contributed over $80,000 tohelp share the cost of establishing 1,325acres of wildlife habitat.Colorado Waterfowl StampProgram and Partners for WildlifeThe Colorado Waterfowl Stamp Programwas initiated in 1990 by establishing a$5.00 stamp requirement for waterfowlhunters and by initiating the sale of artprints with the stamp image. Funds fromstamp sales have cooperatively funded thecreation and enhancement of over 27,000wetland and upland acres on 300 projects,Habitat Partnership ProgramThe Habitat Partnership Program (HPP)develops partnerships between landowners,land managers, sportsmen, the public,and the Colorado Division of Wildlife toreduce forage and fence conflicts betweenbig game animals (primarily deer, elk, andantelope) and livestock on both publicand private lands. The program includesimproving big game habitat to attract animalsaway from conflict areas, improvingforage conditions to reduce competitionbetween big game and livestock, redistributionof concentrations of big game, fenceimprovement or repair, leasing privateland for winter range, monitoring vegetationand animals, and occasional directpayment if conflicts cannot be managed inincluding high-altitude ponds, easternplains reservoirs, and western slope riverbottoms. To date, funds from print saleshave been spent outside the state in a designatedNorth American WaterfowlManagement Plan. A multi-agency projectreview committee serves as the technicaladvisory group for the selection of habitatprojects on both public and private lands.Funding partnerships involving other governmentagencies, nonprofit organizations,private individuals, and industry are usedto leverage the stamp funds for maximumeffectiveness. When projects areimplemented on private land, landownersretain complete control of their property,and there is no obligation to allow publicaccess.other ways and the party is eligible fordamage payments. There are 14 local HPPcommittees throughout the state thatdevelop management plans within theirregions, including landowner surveys,community meetings, and coordinationwith other resource agencies.The Colorado State Land Board mana g e sa bout 3 million acres of land in Colorado.Recently the State Land Board and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife entered intoa memorandum of agreement to alloww i l d l i f e - r e lated activities on some of thestate trust lands. Lands are identified tha thave the highest values for wildlife watching,hunting, fishing, and other wildlifere lated recreational uses. The programincludes 74 properties totaling over 150,000acres. Another 350,000 acres are currentlytargeted for enrollment in the program. Th eState Land Board has adopted a multipleusepolicy for the use of the opened areas.The Division of Wildlife contributes fundsfor the program. A portion of the fundsare used for property restoration and na t-ural resource enhancement projects. Th e s eprojects consist of water-rela t e dd e velopments, fencing ripa r ian corridorsand other sensitive wildlife areas,r e p lacement of fenced gates with cattleguards, wildlife habitat plantings, control ofn oxious weeds, repair of property da m a g ecaused by recreationalists, and removal oftrash and other clean-up activities.State Program Contacts• Colorado Division of Wildlife - Wildlife Resource Information System - Denver303-291-7277303-297-1192• 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 303-236-2886303-491-1968• 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
Local GovernmentRegulatory Tools forResource Protection• Regulatory Approaches• Incentives• Acquisition Programs• Development AgreementsZoning Texts and MapsThe Colorado General Assembly hasprovided broad enabling authority allowingcounties and cities to zone theircommunities, but zoning is not mandatory.According to the Department of LocalGovernment survey noted above, 26percent of municipalities in Colorado and14 percent of counties had no zoning in1992. Enacting new zoning regulations orrevising existing regulations is often one ofthe most effective ways of using localpowers to protect important habitat. Thosecommunities that have not yet enactedzoning controls are forfeiting a highlyeffective and versatile method of protectingwildlife habitat 14 . Because each ordinance istailored to the circumstances of the localgovernment, zoning can address extremelylocalized issues that may be important forwildlife habitat protection.In general, zoning ordinances areimplemented through the use of bo t hr e g u latory text and maps. Zo n i n gr e g u lations can therefore often be upda t e dor amended by addressing the spe c i f i crequirements in the ordinance text, or byadopting new maps that apply regula t i o n sto new areas, or a combination of both. Fo re xample, if a Colorado community wantedto protect existing trees because of theirwildlife value, four options are possible:• Enact a new subsection of text addressingtree protection making the requirementsapplicable to all zone districts.• Draft similar protection language, but addthe new requirements only to specific zonedistricts through amendments to chapters ofthe code.• Create a new chapter or subsection thatestablishes a “habitat protection zone” andamend the zoning map to apply the zonewhere appropriate.• Draft the protections into the text of an“overlay zone” and then amend the zoningmaps to add the overlay district on top ofthe existing zoning districts.Map amendments and broad textamendments are landscape level tools,while text amendments relating to only afew districts or small areas are consideredto be site level tools. As the fourth optionsuggests, many of the protectionsdescribed in this section as “specializedzoning controls” could also be imposedthrough the use of the “special overlaydistricts” described in subsection 3, andvice versa. In each case, the key questionis whether the regulation is intended to
apply across an area that does not conformto existing zone district boundaries.If it does, then an overlay map districtshould probably be used.Density RestrictionsAnother effective way to reduce impactson wildlife is to control the density ofdevelopment in and around habitat areas.At the landscape level, minimum lot sizeRegardless of whether a text, map, oroverlay district approach is used, it isusually wise to consider whether variancesor exceptions should be available wherestrict application of the regulations wouldcreate an unusual hardship or whereunique circumstances make it unlikely thatthe regulation will in fact produce habitatprotection benefits.requirements or maximum residentialdensities can be amended to reduce thenumber of people on sensitive land andthe frequency of human-animal interaction.At the site level, projects can bedesigned with a gradient of density awayfrom the habitat sites. Areas near the habitatcould have very low densities, anddevelopment further back could have correspondinglyhigher densities. Through theUse RestrictionsOften, the most dramatic way to protectwildlife habitat is to control the permitteduses on habitat lands and surroundingareas. Through its listing of uses-by-right,use of gradients and clustering of developmentaway from prime habitat, wildlifeimpacts can be dramatically reduced whilemaintaining the overall number of residentialunits on the land.conditional uses, and the criteria forapproval of conditional uses, a zoningordinance can prevent traffic-intensive orpeople-intensive activities from occurringclose to prime habitat areas, migrationcorridors, calving areas, and similar lands.In some cases, it may be wise to amendexisting zoning ordinances to convertcurrent uses-by-right into conditional usessubject to criteria designed to measure theimpact of the activity on wildlife. Thisapproach would allow applicants for thoseuses to move forward with their projects ifthey could design the site and managetheir operations in wildlife-sensitive ways.Tree Protection andVegetation ManagementProtection of wildlife habitat may beachieved by regulating the tree orvegetation cutting that the target speciesuse for cover or food. The use of this toolhas been increasing dramatically. In 1984,a national study published by theUniversity of Pennsylvania identified lessthan 100 tree protection ordinances in usein the U.S., most of the ordinances inFlorida or California 15 . By 1989, however, asurvey of all incorporated cities inCalifornia showed 159 city tree ordinances,
and more than 50 percent of those containedprotections against removal of trees.More importantly, tree protection laws areCounty, Virginia, require that a certainpercentage of tree or vegetation coverremain on a site.no longer confined to densely populatedand rapidly growing states like Florida andCalifornia, they are being adopted everywhere.Some communities, such as Austin,Texas, and Thousand Oaks, California,prohibit the removal of any trees largerthan a specified size.Wh e n e ver tree preservation or ve g e t a t i o nprotection management ordinances areadopted, regulations should also cla r i f yt hat trees and vegetation adequately protectedby the deve l o per will count tow a r d sthe satisfaction of applicable minimumlandscaping requirements in the zoningc ode. The effectiveness of ve g e t a t i o nprotection programs often depends on theidentification of what specific species oftrees or vegetation will actually benefit ag i ven species of wildlife in a given location.Another important form of specialregulation is vegetation management.Controlling the types of vegetation plantedin, or removed from, an area is an effectiveway to attract desired species or discourageunwanted ones. Many approaches areavailable, but the more comprehensiveand integrated ones will be more effective.For example, local regulations can specifythe types of vegetation that must be maintainedin designated greenways andwildlife corridors. Often, the vegetationrequirements will differ from those instandard landscaping ordinances.Vegetation management can also be usedto create a transition from undevelopedland to developed areas. In general, woodlandand riparian areas are criticallyimportant for wildlife habitat, and suchvegetation should be protected. Wetlandsshould also be preserved to add biologicaldiversity, filter runoff, and rechargegroundwater systems 16 . Some communitieslike Lake County, Illinois, and FairfaxRiver Corridor ProtectionStandardsZoning can also promote healthy wildlifepopulations by protecting river corridors.Several good examples of river corridorprotection are available. Park City, Utah,and several other communities haveadopted standards requiring thatdevelopment be set back at least 100 feetfrom rivers and streams and be bufferedfrom view. Fulton County, Georgia haspassed the Chattahoochee River CorridorTributary Act that creates a 35-foot bufferzone along all banks of tributaries of theChattahoochee, a National Wild andScenic River. Similar regulations wereupheld by the Montana Supreme Court ina recent case. In the Denver Gateway area,
development must be set back from FirstCreek a minimum of 200 feet, and otherbuffering controls apply.the code might put a limit on the heightsof fencing to ensure that the fences arepassable to wildlife. In still other cases, thegoal may be to make sure that wildlife seeVegetative Barriers or Buffer AreasVegetative barriers can be used to increasethe perceived separation between developedand natural areas. They can also beused to either attract or repel differentspecies of wildlife. For example, in areaswhere big game is not wanted, zoning andlandscaping standards can require thethe fences as they approach them, so thatthey can avoid entanglement. In general,fences lower than 40 inches tall will not bea barrier or a source of entanglement tolarge game animals. Fencing controls areusually site level tools, because their effectivenessoften depends on the specificlocation and layout of the land.planting of vegetation that large gameanimals dislike. On the other hand, thesame code might require the planting ofspecies that attract songbirds. Similarly,buffer zones can be used to decrease “lineof site” distances for wildlife and humans,reduce noise disturbances of wildlife, protectcritical habitat, and protect bodies ofwater. In many cases, careful research willbe required to determine exactly howmuch buffer will be required in order toadequately protect the target species 17 .Barrier and buffer requirements are usuallysite level tools.Controls on Public orVehicular AccessAnother important category of zoningcontrol is access. In Colorado’s cities,towns, and counties, the issue of access isoften an area of shared responsibilitybetween the planning department and thepublic works or transportation department,and effective controls will requirethe joint efforts of both groups. In orderto protect wildlife, it is often necessary torestrict human or vehicular access to areasthat wildlife use or routes along whichanimals migrate. Access restrictions couldFencing ControlsWhere local wildlife goals call for keepinghumans and large animals apart, zoningregulations might require perimeter fencingthat is impassable to certain species. Onthe other hand, if a new developmentthreatens to cut off a historic migrationroute or to separate related feeding areas,include permanent road closures, lockedor manned gates, or signs. In some cases,merely requiring that the point of accessbe hidden from the public may be adequate,and may still leave a road or trailopen for use by emergency vehicles andothers. Where vehicular access is the problemand pedestrian access is acceptable,
the zoning code or public works standardsmight require that minor roads beconverted into trails 18 . Again, because theappropriate level of access depends on thelocation and layout of development, it isusually a site level tool.Noise standards can be adopted as aperformance standard, by limiting noise toa specific decibel, or by explicitly prohibitingthe activities that create unacceptablelevels of noise, such as all-terrain vehicleuse, hunting, or wood cutting.Other Development StandardsIn addition, specialized zoning regulationscan be drafted to address numerous otherdevelopment factors that affect wildlife. Forexample, window well covers might berequired at ground level in order to preventsmall animals from falling into areasfrom which they cannot escape.Phasing of DevelopmentIn some cases significant wildlife benefitscan be gained by requiring newdevelopment to be constructed in specificphases. If the species to be protected canadjust to the presence of humans nearby, aphasing strategy might require that thefirst stages of development occur far fromthe prime habitat area, so that the animalsDe velopment in rural areas may be requiredto implement garbage mana g e m e n ts t a n dards so that the introduction of pe o p l einto an area does not result in addedo p portunities for wildlife to scavenge for thef ood that humans throw aw ay. Examples ofg a r bage management techniques includerequirements that no garbage be placed inan outside primary or accessory structure,or that all garbage be disposed of in asingle, well secured and od o r - p r oof buildingserving an entire development and loc a t e dare not presented with a dramatic disruptionof their habitat. Instead, constructioncan begin far away and proceed towardsthe habitat area, with development densitiesdeclining as construction gets nearer tothe buffer area or habitat. If the species tobe protected is unable to adjust to nearbydevelopment, it may still make sense torequire construction to begin far awayfrom the prime habitat and corridor areasto allow the animals time to find alternativehabitat areas on their own.far from habitat areas.Controls on Construction ActivityFinally, it may be necessary to adopt specialstandards restrictive in sensitive habitatareas. Sage grouse, which are periodicallyconsidered for listing as a threatenedspecies, are particularly sensitive to noise.Any zoning regulation that invo l ves theneed to treat sensitive areas carefullyshould address not only the desired outcome,but also the rules that must be followed during construction activity. Eve n
when carefully crafted standards are be i n gimplemented by a coo pe r a t i ve la n d ow n e ror deve l o pe r, a few careless activities duringthe construction phase can destroy all thehabitat that was intended to be protected.Construction controls may need to address:• Prevention of accidental cutting of trees orvegetation,• Restrictions on excavation near roots or rootmasses,• Limitations on severe grade changes nearthe vegetation or in mating or calvingareas,• Restrictions on dumping of constructionmaterials or toxic materials near importantvegetation or other cover,• Limitations on the use of fires to clearvegetation prior to construction,• Limitations on the duration or hours ofconstruction,• Limitations on timing of construction toavoid critical times for the wildlife, such ascalving periods,Integrated ApproachesWhen considering a zoning approach toresource issues an integrated approach isuseful to ensure that other regula t i o n sreinforce the new zoning provisions. Fo re xample, design standards for deve l o p m e n tneed to be modified to include wildlifeconsiderations. Stormwater mana g e m e n to r d i nances may need to reflect waterquality controls in natural areas tha ts u p port wildlife. Other sensitive la n dr e g u lations may be needed to implement orreinforce a wildlife protection plan, such asscenic highway controls, river corridorprotection, and steep slope protection.In addition, when drafting new zoningregulations, it is always important to keepin mind the community's ability to enforcethe regulation. A sophisticated ordinancecarefully targeted to achieve subtle goals ismeaningless if the city or county does nothave personnel who can and will enforceit or the budget to pay for the extra effortinvolved. Often, a simple zoningrequirement can be as effective as acomplicated clause with much less effort.• Limitations on the number of projectpersonnel or construction vehicles on site atany one time, through the use oftransportation pools or staggered shifts,• Restrictions on construction personnel accessto wildlife areas, and/or speed restrictionson access roads 19 .Overlay zones are specialized zone districtsthat supplement but do not replacethe basic zoning regulations applicable toa property. They are a useful tool when anarea containing hazards, sensitive lands, orunique opportunities crosses severaldifferent standard zoning districts. Overlay
zones are becoming a popular and effectivemethod of protecting wildlife habitatand natural resource features for largerareas that include several underlying zoningdistricts. An overlay zone effectivelyeliminates the need to revise the regulationsfor each zoning district. Instead, itsuperimposes additional regulationsspecifically targeted to protect importantphysical characteristics of the land.Sensitive LandsAn increasing number of cities and countiesin the Rocky Mountain West areadopting special overlay regulations toprotect sensitive environmental areas. Forexample, Park City, Utah, recently adoptedoverlay regulations to protect a broadrange of environmentally sensitive featuresincluding wetlands, stream corridors, steepslopes, ridge lines, and view corridors. In1994, Summit County, Colorado, adopted aAs a resource protection tool, overlaydistricts have several advantages. Theyallow local governments to tailor regulationsto specific issues that are relevant toa discrete, mapable area. Since they do notaffect the underlying zoning governingpermissible densities and uses, they avoidthe need to reopen old debates in thoseareas. They can also be drafted to reflect abalance of different goals, such as environmentallycompatible development andopen space protection. At the same time,overlay zoning has some draw backs. If theterms of the zone are complicated, then itm ay require skilled staff to implement andenforce them. Some residents will see themas adding a layer of complexity to deve l-special overlay district and regulationsstating that the county “seeks to fullyprotect wildlife habitats within the wildlifeoverlay zone from the significant adverseeffects of development”. The ordinanceincludes detailed definitions of whatconstitutes “significant adverse effects” ofdevelopment and contains detailedprovisions allowing the county to requirea wildlife impact report from the developereither at the start of the applicationprocess or later if available information isnot adequate to make a decision. TheSummit County ordinance is comprehensive,flexible, and relatively short, all ofwhich increase its usability and understandability.opment approval processes. In general,ove r lay zones are used to address la n dc haracteristics that extend across a widearea or a variety of properties, and theyare therefore often considered a la n d s c a pel e vel tool.Wildlife CorridorsA second popular use of overlay districtsis to designate and protect corridors thatserve as migration routes and providecontinuous strips of habitat. They can alsoprovide important aesthetic and recre-
ational benefits to the community 20 .Because of this important overlap ofpositive results may also encourage localofficials to pursue additional protectionmeasures.wildlife and human benefits, the communitymay be able to support wildlife corridorswithout understanding the full ecologicalimportance of open space preservation.Care should be taken not to plan forrecreational access or trails, however, inareas where that will compromise wildlifegoals. Not every corridor needs to be ahiking or biking trail. Because wildlife corridorsneed to be relatively continuousbetween patches of habitat in order to beOften, the overlay zone requires minimumsetbacks from known wildlife movementareas or riparian areas. Wildlife corridorscan also be accomplished in conjunctionwith other projects. For example, a utilitycorridor through a forest area could be cutto provide a transition ecosystem and bemore aesthetically pleasing than thetraditional clear-cut swath.effective, they are a good landscape scaleprotection tool.Flood and drainage control projects canutilize existing vegetation instead ofVoters often think of greenways andcorridors as parks and trails, but forwildlife a corridor can also be an undevelopedparcel, a drainageway, or a utilityright-of-way. A carefully designed overlaycan protect existing and natural featuresthat promote species richness and diversity.They can also facilitate cooperativeplanning with other local governmentreplacing it with concrete. Stormwatermanagement can be planned to supportwetlands and riparian vegetation. Manyother overlapping objectives exist withinany local government system, and can bedeveloped through interagencycommunication. In addition, certain usescan be prohibited or converted intoconditional uses in an overlay area.functions such as designing drainage andflood control systems. The importantunderlying objective is to minimize habitatfragmentation by creating or enhancingecological connections between largerwildlife habitat areas. The protection ofwildlife corridors and greenways can producemeasurable results in a short timewith a minimum of inventory and otherstaff-intensive procedures. Those initialAgricultural and Open SpaceZoningZoning and subdivision ordinancescommonly require minimum lot sizes. Insuburban single-family residential areas,minimum lot sizes typically range fromone-quarter to two acres. To preserveagricultural areas, forests, wetlands,floodplains, and other types of wildlife
habitat, Colorado communities haveadopted a variety of special agriculturalfarms, and is used extensively in the ruralareas around Minneapolis/St. Paul.land and large-lot zoning programs thatrequire larger minimum lot sizes. Inaddition, many of these ordinancesincrease the requirement that a specificpercentage of each parcel must remain inopen space. Lot size controls are generallyconsidered to be site level controls.In contrast, sliding-scale zoning decreasesthe number of residences allowed per acreas the parcel size increases: a ten-acre parcelmay be allowed one residence, a 40acre-parcel only two, and a 160-acre tractonly three units. Sliding-scale zoning hasshown to be effective in agricultural areasA few communities have adopted exclusiveagricultural zoning, which has proven to bequite effective in protecting farmland. To thedegree that the community wants to protectt y pes of wildlife habitat that are found inand around farming operations, this can bethat are under development pressure. Itallows some development to occur, butstill preserves some farmland, particularlylarger parcels. Adequate buffers must beestablished between agricultural and residentialuses.an effective wildlife tool. Generally, suchzoning includes a large minimum pa r c e lsize, often 160 acres or greater, the exclusionof all non-farm land uses, and otherrestrictions such as limits on the number ofbuilding permits in the zone. Again,because they are usually aimed at la r g eareas of farm or ranchland, agriculturalzoning is a la n d s c a pe-scale tool.Large lot zoning has several features thatwork well to protect habitat. It preventsthe development of large tracts of openspaces and agricultural areas. In addition,it may reduce inflationary land speculationby reducing the prospects for easyconversions to higher intensity, non-agriculturaluses. It is also simple to administerand involves little cost to government. OnLarge-lot zoning provisions may come ina variety of forms. So-called “quarterquarter”zoning allows each landownerone buildable lot per 40 acres of farmland.Once the allowable number of lots havebeen developed anywhere on the property,no more construction is allowed. Thisapproach works best in rural areas withonly moderate growth pressure and largerthe other hand, large lot zoning can beharmful to wildlife habitat protection if itencourages valley floors or watersheds tobe broken up into checkerboards of individuallots that ignore habitat values.Communities that use large lot zoningtechniques to reduce overall densitiesshould generally offer the alternative ofclustering the same number of homesites
in portions of the area without high habitatvalue and offer a density bonus forsuch clustering. It will often be more economicaland marketable for a largelandowner to create ten smaller homesitesnear existing roads and utility systemsthan to create ten large lots scatteredacross a valley and have less impact onwildlife. In addition, communities thatpursue large lot zoning should ensure thatthe standards they adopt allow for someeconomic use of each parcel of land.Performance standards may be expressedin terms of minimum open space ratios,maximum vegetation disturbance limits,maximum noise or glare limits, minimumcontiguous landscaping standards, orsimilar standards. Since habitat protectionfocuses on the impact of development oncritical areas, performance zoning isbasically well suited to wildlife protection.Sophisticated performance zoningordinances targeting multiple impacts mayincorporate point systems. Developmentproposals are assigned point values forPerformance ZoningPerformance zoning regulates developmentprimarily by limiting development impactstheir ability to minimize a variety ofimpacts, and all development proposalsmust achieve specified minimum scores.rather than densities or uses. Suchordinances may target either a single typeof impact or a broad range of impacts,such as traffic generation, pollutant emissions,storm water runoff, and open spacepreservation. Developments that meetthese standards are allowed regardless ofwhether they are residential, commercial,industrial, or institutional, but even lowdensitydevelopments that fail to meet thestandards are prohibited. While performancezoning regulations have been usedsince the 1950s, they have become increasinglypopular as local governments haverealized that the impacts of developmentBreckenridge and Boulder, Colorado, areexamples of communities that haveembraced point systems, with emphasis onprotection of environmentally sensitiveareas and promotion of high-qualitydevelopment. Performance zoning mayeither supplement or replace traditionalzoning regulations. Thus, an overlay zonedistrict might incorporate performancestandards rather than specific developmentrequirements. Communities that chose theperformance approach should make acommitment to careful measurement ofindividual impacts of development.are relatively unrelated to the category ofland use.Performance standards have several distinctadvantages over traditional zoning insome circumstances. They provide oppor-
tunities for developers to design innovativedevelopment layouts that can accommodatedevelopment while attainingwildlife goals. It does not presume that thesolution contained in a set of physicalzoning regulations is the only way toachieve the community’s goal.In order to protect wildlife habitat, forexample, subdivision standards couldrequire the use of large lots to limit thenumber of people living in the area, orcould prohibit the creation of lots insensitive areas. In addition, many modernsubdivision ordinances impose strictbuffering requirements in an attempt toSubdivision Review StandardsIn contrast to zoning regulations,subdivision approval standards addressprimarily the size and shape of lots thatcan be made available for developmentand the amount of infrastructure thatmust be installed before development canproceed. Although originally designed toprotect consumers from the sale of substandardor undevelopable lots and toprotect the public from low quality development,subdivision standards haveexpanded to include many restrictionsprotect undeveloped areas. Subdivisionregulations could also include standardsrequiring that storm drainage be managedto promote riparian vegetation wheredesirable or to avoid disturbing desertvegetation important to a species.Similarly, lot size and shape regulationscould be structured so as to minimize thenumber of different lots that are laid outalong an important drainage or migrationcorridor, because human activity is oftenproportionate to the number of houses inthe area.aimed at controlling the impacts of development.Under Colorado law, many controlsthat could be included in zoning regulationscan also be addressed insubdivision controls, and vice versa. WhileColorado cities and towns may appoint aplanning commission and adoptsubdivision regulations if they wish,Colorado counties are required to do both.Counties do not currently have the powerto directly regulate the subdivision of landinto parcels larger than 35 acres.Land Dedication RequirementsColorado statutes explicitly authorizecounty governments to require landownersto dedicate a portion of their land asfuture s c h ool and park sites as a conditionof development. The Colorado and U.S.Supreme Courts have required that therequired dedications be roughlyp r o po r t i o nal to the impacts of the proposeddevelopment. Local gove r n m e n t shave considerable latitude to designa t ewhich land should be designated for futureparks, and to decide whether the appropri-
ate park for that area should be an activeor pa s s i ve area.against nuisance claims by specifying thatan agricultural operation cannot bedefined as a nuisance. More specifically,Sanctuary RegulationsLegislatively adopted “sanctuaries” is anincreasingly popular tool for existing typesof land use. Many agricultural areasencounter difficulties when newdevelopment locates nearby. The problemsbegin when relatively low land valuesattract residential or commercial“an agricultural operation is not, nor shallit become, a private or public nuisance byany changed conditions in or about thelocality of such operation after it has beenin operation for more than one year.”Local ordinances that define agriculturaloperations a nuisance or provide for theirabatement as a nuisance are void 24 .development. After construction, newresidents find that the pre-existingagricultural uses emit odors and stir updust. These issues lead to conflict, ofteninvolving expensive litigation, and inmany cases the initial users leave the areato seek new locations to avoid such conflictsand expenses. When the originalagricultural area served as wildlife habitat,this leaves the habitat open to development.Where local governments wish toretain agricultural and wildlife uses, theycan create sanctuaries that prevent theencroachment of incompatible uses. “Rightto operate” provisions in such sanctuaryzones immunize local farmers or ranchersagainst nuisance claims, rezonings, orother pressures to require changes inoperations that would be detrimental tothe farm or ranch and might lead it tostop operations.The Colorado General Assembly hasadopted a variation of this protectionAn Overall GrowthManagement SystemProtections for wildlife habitat can also beintegrated into overall growth managementsystems through the use of urban growthboundaries, targeted growth strategies, andcapital improvement programs. Again,because these tools generally addressgrowth patterns in an entire jurisdiction,they are good examples of landscape-scaleprotection tools.• Urban Growth BoundariesThe use of growth boundaries allow cities toguide new development patterns by directingurban services to such areas andwithholding them from others. In particular,communities with urban growthboundaries can ensure that those boundariesdo not include sensitive habitat areas.If they do, then the city or town may wantto re-think where it wants to installinfrastructure so as to avoid habitat areasthat it wants to protect.
The regional government for the Portland,Oregon, Metropolitan Area has delineatedan urban growth boundary administeredby local governments in compliance withstate legislation. This program has provengenerally successful in confining growth tothe areas within the boundary. Within theboundary, development has often bypassedpreviously “urbanized” areas and located inoutlying “urbanizable areas”, but theprogram has been generally successful atcontaining leapfrog development, preservingmore outlying areas for agricultural andother less intensive uses, and maintainingorder in metropolitan growth patterns.Some communities have established urbangrowth boundaries even without astatewide mandate. Boulder, Colorado delineatedboundaries for the extension of urbanservices and has worked with the County tochannel growth to areas adjacent to alreadydeveloped areas. This method precludesdevelopment and costly service extensions inthe mountainous areas bordering the city.years, the MetroVision 2020 Task Force hasrecommended consideration of developmentof satellite cities where growth would bechanneled. These satellite cities that could beexisting communities or new plannedcommunities would be physically separatedfrom the central urban area by open spaceor undeveloped land. Other urban growthwould be limited to existing cities andalready approved master plannedcommunities. In some cases, this wouldtend to preserve contiguous areas of habitatand/or wildlife corridors between thesettlement centers.In general, targeted growth arrangementscannot be effective as habitat protectiontools unless they involve the cooperation ofat least the county government or a regionalplanning area. Although individualcities and towns can protect limited areaswithin their borders, efforts to protect nearbyareas will always be subject to developmentpermitted by the county or an adjacentcity or town.• Targeted Growth StrategiesAnother similar approach is that ofdesignating development areas to whichnew growth is targeted within a region. Atargeted growth system could reducedevelopment in large areas of a county orregion where sensitive habitat areas exist.One recent example comes out of theMetroVision 2020 Task Force of the DenverRegional Council of Governments. As analternative to dispersed development patternsthat may result as the region adds apredicted 900,000 people over the next 25• Capital Improvements ProgrammingIn addition to urban growth boundariesand targeted growth schemes, Colorado’slocal governments can incorporate wildlifeprotection goals into their capitalimprovements programs and budgets. Inmany jurisdictions around the country, astrong relationship has been shown betweenthe presence of infrastructure anddevelopment of the land. Local governmentscan effectively discourage the development ofhabitat areas by not planning for orbudgeting for water or sewer lines or roads
in the area, and by discouraging the creationof special districts to finance those elementsof infrastructure. Since the creation ofall water, wastewater, and metropolitan districtsis subject to the approval of either thecounty or city government in which it islocated, local governments can prevent thecreation of infrastructure financing districtsby withholding that approval.Coordination with Other LandDevelopment CodesWildlife habitat protection does not existin a vacuum. It must be consistent with,and reflected in, the other local governmentland use control systems. In additionto the types of zoning, subdivision, andgrowth management controls describedabove, wildlife protection standards mustbe coordinated with street and accesscodes, annexation policies, and environmentalcontrol systems. Street design codesshould be drafted to allow smaller and lessdisruptive streets near wildlife areas, andto allow alternative access patterns directingtraffic movements to less sensitiveareas. Local annexation policies shouldreinforce habitat protection by providingthat annexation or development agreementsmust be consistent with wildlifeprotection plans and regulations, and todiscourage the extension of utilities intosensitive areas. Unless all of a city’s orcounty’s land use controls work togetherto treat habitat areas in a consistent way,they will probably not be effective.A second important category of tools forimplementing habitat protection isi n c e n t i ves. Many local governments tha tare reluctant to adopt land use regula t i o n s ,are willing to adopt incentives. With carefulattention, incentives can sometimes be ase f f e c t i ve, or even more effective tha nr e g u lations. When crafting an incentiveapproach to wildlife habitat, how e ve r, it isi m portant to ensure that the incentive soffered to enhance wildlife do notundermine other important communitygoals. Once again, habitat protection doe snot exist in a vacuum, and loc a lg overnment incentive programs need to beintegrated as carefully as its regula t o r yprograms.Density BonusesPerhaps the most common form ofincentive is development density bonuses.In these programs, the local governmentoffers landowners a chance to constructmore residential or commercialdevelopment on their land if they will takecertain actions to promote wildlife. Therequired actions can include locatingdevelopment outside of prime habitatareas, implementing groundwater runoffcontrols to avoid erosion into streamsused by wildlife, planting specific types ofvegetative cover that attract (or repel)wildlife, or avoiding glare and trafficmovements near wildlife areas or corri-
dors. The amount of additional developmentdensity allowed should varydepending on the importance and difficultyof the landowner’s actions to promotewildlife, but are commonly in the range ofa 25 to 50 percent bonus. Larger bonusesmay create fairly significant developmentimpacts and may raise questions about therationale behind the base zoning density.Care should be taken to avoid grantingincentives that result in additional wildlifeimpacts that are greater than the benefitgained by the landowner’s habitat protectionmeasures.of a conservation easement or deedrestriction. In other cases, the governmentreserves site plan review authority overthe clustered d e velopment to ensure tha tthe layout, visibility, and design do not createnegative impacts on the area. Clusterzoning concepts are widely used to pe r m i td e velopment while setting aside areas forthe preservation of sensitive areas, such asforested areas, wildlife habitat, wetla n d s ,agricultural areas, and other suchresources. While some cities and countiesa l l ow clustering throughout their jurisdiction,others target the tool where it is pa r-t i c u larly important to protect sensitive la n dClusteringor habitat.A second form of incentive is clusterzoning, which provides flexibility fordevelopers to construct buildings in clusterswhile remaining within the constraintsof overall average density restrictions.Under cluster zoning, maximum densitiesare calculated not for individual lots, butfor overall development areas. Rather thanrequiring uniform intervals betweenbuilding sites, such ordinances often waiveminimum lot size and dimensionrequirements to allow tight clusters ofbuildings in some areas, with other portionsof the parcel set aside for open spaceor habitat uses. Often, the local governmentimposes a requirement that clusteringcannot occur unless most or all of theland that is left undeveloped is protectedfrom future development through the useTransferable Development RightsA third form of development incentive forhabitat protection is density transfers,which are usually implemented through aTransferable Development Rights (TDR)program. Density transfers involve theshifting of permissible development densitiesfrom unsuitable development areas tomore appropriate sites; in this case fromimportant habitat areas to less importantareas. Under this concept, the localgovernment studies and designatesappropriate “sending” and “receiving” areason a map. A participating landowner in asending area transfers development rightsto another landowner in a receiving area,who increases his or her developmentrights in that area beyond what would
otherwise be possible. In general, the priceof development rights being transferred isleft to the private market, and the localgovernment does not try to affect thatprice one way or another.The success of the program in protectingwildlife habitat will depend in large part inthe careful ba lancing of opportunities insending and receiving areas, so tha te x c e s s i ve sending areas do not flood themarket and restrictive receiving areas donot limit the usability of the credits for sa l e .Importantly, TDR programs seldom workif the underlying zoning is too generouswith development density, because neitherpotential buyers nor potential buyers oftransferable rights have any incentive toparticipate.Grants and LoansLocal governments can make grants orloans to support the acquisition ormanagement of important wildlife areas, topromote wildlife education, and completewildlife inventories. In the alternative, thelocal government can apply to the stateand federal governments or to non-profitfoundations and associations for moneyto fund such grants.In addition, grant and loan programs cansometimes be used to supplementregulatory tools. At the same time theycan change their regulations regardingland development, and some communitiesmake financial resources available to helplandowners cover the added cost ofcomplying with those regulations.Grants and loans have several advantagesas a habitat protection tool. Their effectcan be direct and immediate. Developmentproposals can be changed, informationcan be collected, and education efforts canbegin. In addition, public loans and grantscan often be used as matching funds toobtain additional private investment orfinancing. A little seed money can go along way towards a long-term financingsolution. They can also make the adoptionof new regulations more politicallyacceptable by giving the public an easymeans to comply with them. Revolvingloan funds can go further by allowing afixed amount of government seed moneyto be used over and over again as therecipients repay the loans.Preferential Tax TreatmentA fifth form of incentives to preservehabitat is preferential tax treatment.Although Colorado’s system of prope r t yassessment and taxation is regulated bythe General Assembly and by constituti o nal provisions such as the TA BOR andG a l lagher amendments, there are stillsome opportunities for local gove r n m e n t sto craft incentives for preservation ofi m portant lands.
• Use AssessmentsWhere potential profits motivate landownersto convert low-density land uses to higherintensities, or to convert important habitatareas into intensive development areas,preferential tax programs can counter thesemotives by providing incentives to maintainexisting low intensity uses. One of the mostimportant forms of preferential taxation iscurrent use assessments. Local governmentslevy real property taxes against the assessedvalue of property. Under standard practice,tax assessors determine value based uponthe “highest and best use” of a property,which reflects the highest potential use ofsuch property. Current use assessments alterassessment practices by requiringassessments to reflect actual current usesrather than prospective potential uses.Where development pressures create higherproperty values and tax burdens, currentuse assessments provide tax relief tolandowners who choose to continue agricultural,forestry, rangeland, or other low-densityuses that are consistent with continuedhabitat value. The Colorado Constitutionprovides a preferential tax system to encouragecontinued agricultural land uses.Another application of the current useassessment concept allows pri v a t elandowners to contract with govern m e n tagencies to restrict the use of their properties.S u ch agreements limit the range of potentialhighest and best uses, thereby decreasing theassessed value of the properties andproviding tax relief to landowners who agreeto such restrictions. Often, this can be donethrough a conservation easement or deedr e s t riction as well as through a developmentagreement. Because use assessments aregranted based on the use of a specific parcelof land, they work as a site level habitatprotection.• Tax CreditsAnother tax incentive approach that hasproven to be successful in preserving openspace involves offering income tax credits forthe value of approved conservationeasements. Federal tax deductions areavailable for donations of qualifying openspace or open space easements to non-profitorganizations. This tool is frequently usedby private land trusts and is discussed inmore detail below. In general, preferentialtax systems present an equitable way toencourage open space or low density uses byrequiring tax assessments to reflect currentrather than prospective values. They alsohelp accomplish land conservation goalswithout the use of regulations. Conversely,most preferential tax systems cannot delaydevelopment pressure indefinitely. Potentialprofits from the development of habitatland can easily outweigh the benefits of aproperty tax break. Where there is norecapture provision, as in Colorado,preferential taxes may reward landspeculators and developers by loweringholding costs until the development marketcreates sufficient profit incentives forconversion to nonagricultural uses. Finally,such tax systems do create indirect publiccosts in the form of foregone tax revenues.Since tax credits for easements depend onthe specific parcel of land involved, they areprimarily a site level tool.
that may be available to induce theOne of the most effective ways ofpreserving wildlife habitat is to purchase it.L ocal ownership often simplifiesm a nagement decisions and provides ar e la t i vely permanent way to protect thehabitat. Government acquisition strategiescan be used effectively as a supplement tor e g u lations, espe c ially where control of theland is necessary to prohibit essentially alld e velopment in sensitive environmentalareas or to prohibit general public accessfor recreational and other purposes. Wh i l er e g u latory protection programs must leavean economic use of the land for the ow n e r,g overnment ownership removes tha tobstacle, because the government ise s s e n t ially agreeing to use the land fornon-economic purposes. Thus, whencommunities be l i e ve that the only way toprotect habitat is to prevent virtually alluse of the area, they should consider fee ord e velopment rights acquisition programs.Ownership programs generally fall intotwo categories. First, some programs seekto buy the land itself, which are oftencalled “fee ownership” programs. The secondtype of program seeks to buy therights to develop the land into uses inconsistentwith its role as wildlife habitat, andare often called “sellback”, “leaseback”, or“development rights” programs. Localcommunities interested in obtaining landor development rights for habitat preservationshould also think about incentiveslandowner to donate the land to the communityor to a third party who will manageit. Often, such donations can be a wayfor wealthy landowners to obtain a valuabletax deduction. The local governmentcan also agree to name the protected habitatarea in honor of the landowner makingthe donation.Because acquisition programs focus on theneed to acquire specific areas of land andthe value of that land, they are oftenthought of as site level tools. However, ifthe community pursues a consistent strategyto acquire lots of land or developmentrights in a defined habitat area, the resultcan be a very effective landscape levelprotection.• Fee Simple PurchaseOwnership of land includes rights ofpossession, access, exclusion, disposition,and rights to specified uses such as mining,hunting, or development. Where one partyowns the entire bundle of these rights, thatparty owns the land “in fee simple.”Acquisition of land in fee simple gives thepurchaser full title to and possession of allrights associated with the purchasedproperty, subject only to the constraintsimposed by nuisance laws and valid publicregulations including zoning andsubdivision. Fee simple ownership providesthe simplest and most effective means ofimplementing habitat control: thegovernment owns the land, controls itsdevelopment, redevelopment, preservation,
and access. Once the government entityassumes fee simple ownership, it has abroad range of options: The governmentmay reconvey selected interests in the land,restrict future uses of the land, lease theland, or otherwise control the bundle ofproperty rights in a manner consistent withits habitat objectives.• Integration into Park and Open SpacePurchase ProgramsMany Colorado communities already havea program in place for the acquisition ofopen space for parks and trails. Most often,such programs are included in the city,town, or county’s regular capitalimprovements programming, where theymust compete with other pressing needs forpublic investment. In other cases such asBoulder, Jefferson, and Douglas Counties,the voters of the county have approved aseparate tax to fund a free-standing openspace acquisition program that does notneed to compete for scarce public monies.Where such programs exist, it may bepossible to expand them to include theacquisition of important habitat landsmerely by amending the list of eligible typesof land and criteria for the selection of habitatlands. In many cases, this expansionwould be consistent with the intent of theexisting program, and would not requirethe creation and funding of an open spaceprogram specifically designed for wildlife. Incases where open space purchase programshave been approved through voterreferendums, however, great care should betaken to ensure that an expansion of theprogram is clearly consistent with thereferendum approved by the voters.• Sellbacks and LeasebacksOnce the government owns the land,however, it does not need to retainownership of all of the bundle of sticks inorder to protect wildlife habitat. It can useits position as the owner of the land to facilitatethe rezoning of the land or to imposenegative easements, deed restrictions, ordevelopment agreements, and then resell theland to a third party. This is known as a“purchase and sellback” transaction.Alternatively, a city or county governmentcould purchase the property and then leaseit to a third party subject to conditions andrestrictions as provided in the lease. This isknown as a “purchase and leaseback”.• Purchase “Triggers”: Options and Rights ofFirst RefusalJust as the local government may not needto keep ownership of the entire fee interestin land to achieve its goals, it may not needto purchase the property at all until analternative use or sale of the land iscontemplated. Purchase “triggers” apply thebasic concept of purchase options in realestate transactions — they provide a meansfor a potential purchaser to “tie up” aproperty without actually buying it. Bypurchasing an option on property, apotential purchaser reserves the exclusiveright to purchase the property within a specifiedtime period, or in the event that certainevents happen. A related tool is a “right offirst refusal”, under which the local governmententity pays for a first right to purchasea property if the property is to be sold.The buyer of a right of first refusal oftendoes not need to negotiate a price inadvance, but is obligated to match a bone
fide offer submitted by another potentialpurchaser. This avoids the difficulty ofvaluing habitat land now, but does protectthe seller against having to sell at a bargainprice when there is a better offer fromanother potential buyer. Because right offirst refusal programs leave the potentialpurchase price for the land to be determinedby a third party, they may create problemsfor local governments that need predictablecosts in order to meet their budget constraintsand funding cycles. To avoid thisproblem, local governments that want to tiedown the price of a future purchase nowshould instead buy an option or execute aright of first refusal with a clear statementof the agreed upon price• Life EstatesIn some cases, a Colorado town, city, orcounty may be able to achieve its wildlifehabitat goals through the acquisition of lifeestates in important lands. Not infrequently,the owners of agricultural or ranch landswould prefer not to develop their lands andwould like to see the farm or ranch remainintact as long as possible. However, manyof these same owners would like to be ableto pass their land on to their children forthem to do with as they wish. For that reason,they are unwilling to grant easementsor impose deed restrictions or covenants thatwould bind their children in their use anddisposition of the land. In thosecircumstances, and if prime habitat areas orcorridors are involved, the local governmentmay want to purchase a life estate in theland and lease the property back to the currentowner at roughly the same cost. Theterms of the transaction allow thegovernment to control the use of the landduring the owner’s lifetime, but terminatethat control at the time of the owner’sdeath. Even though the land could be put toincompatible uses some time in the future,the purchase of a life estate can buy time forthe local community to consider follow-upsteps and/or to raise money for the eventualpurchase of the property. Again, since lifeestates are negotiated for specific parcels ofland, the purchase of a life estate is considereda site level protection tool.• Easements and Purchases of DevelopmentRightsEasements can be viewed as just a few ofthe bundle of rights that are included in feesimple ownership. They constitute severableinterests in land. The severable nature ofeasements allows a landowner to convey orreserve specific rights associated with aproperty apart from the right to poses anduse the land in general. By applying thelaw of easements, local governments cancontrol land development without buyingthe fee simple interest in the habitat landitself. Easements and development rightsprograms are essentially programs enablingthe local governments to pay landowners toforgo certain land development rights, anddocumenting the transfer of thosedevelopment rights to the government.• Land Dedications and Impact FeesLand dedications are conveyances of landfrom a private owner to a local governmenteither voluntarily, or to offset the anticipatedimpacts of a proposed development. An
increasing number of Colorado localgovernments are imposing land dedicationrequirements or fees-in-lieu of dedication asconditions for permit approvals. Statestatutes explicitly authorize Colorado’scounty governments to impose landdedication requirements or fees-in-lieu forparks and schools, and a large number ofhome rule municipalities impose similarrequirements.• Land TradesLocal governments should always considerwhether the most cost-effective way toacquire habitat lands may be to trade otherlands owned by the government and nolonger needed for their original purposes. Inthe course of time, many towns andcounties discover that they have aninventory of land parcels in or neardeveloped areas that the government nolonger needs. Instead of selling those parcelson the open market, the government maywant to consider a trade for habitat landsfurther away. In cases where the currentowner of the habitat lands is holding it forfuture development, a potential trade forland nearer to water and sewer lines andmarket demands may be very attractive.Colorado statutes specifically allow citiesand counties within the state to enter intod e velopment agreements obligating bo t hthe government and the la n d owner tocarry out certain actions in order to “ve s t ”a preferred development plan for a designatedpe r i od of time. De velopment agreementscan give the la n d owner more certaintythat the government will not act tod e lay or deny the development activity fora pe r i od longer than the statutory pe r i odof three years. In return, the local gove r n-ment can ask the la n d owner to design ando perate the proposed development in way st hat will protect or even enhance the existingwildlife habitat on the prope r t y.Because they are negotiated on a projectby-projectbasis, development agreementscan be an effective site scale tool for ha b i-tat protection.Often, Colorado’s local governments mayfind opportunities to protect qualitywildlife habitat through negotiations withindividual la n d owners at the time whens pecific development propo sals are broughtforward. The most flexible technique fordoing so is a development agreement.
1 See Christopher J. Duerksen and Richard J. Roddewig, Taking Law in Plain English, TheAmerican 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 theInterior, 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 LivingResources, 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 andWildlife 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 WildlifeConservation 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 1996.14 See Steven J. Bissell et. al., The Use of Zoning Ordinances in the Protection and De ve l o p m e n tof 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 PublicInterest: Programs for Protecting and Planting Trees in Metropolitan Areas, ResearchReport Series No. 10, University of Pennsylvania Department of City and RegionalPlanning (1984).16 See Michael A. Aurelia, The Role of Wetland Regulation in Preserving Wildlife Habitat inSuburban Environments, in Integrating Man and Nature in the MetropolitanEnvironment 213, (Lowell W. Adams and Daniel L. Leedy, eds., Nat. Inst. for UrbanWildlife 1986).17 Linda Sikorowski, Steven J. Bissell, and Jim Jones, "Conservation Techniques in Land
Conversions" in County Government and Wildlife Management" A Guide to CooperativeHabitat Development, Linda Sikorowski and Steven J. Bissell, ed., Colorado Division ofWildlife (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 SouthernCalifornia, in Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments 105, (Lowell W. Adamsand Daniel L. Leedy, eds., Nat. Inst. for Urban Wildlife 1990).