‘Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan – the Technical Approach to Carrying Capacity Analysis’

By: Steven B. Mullen, Associate Design Workshop, Inc. Denver

It is not often that one is to protect a national treasure, but that is what the City of Colorado Springs Water Resources Department has done for eight decades. The department manages the south watershed of Pikes Peak, the mountain that forms the backdrop to the city of Colorado Springs. As the population of the region has grown, its guardianship has become ever more vigilant. At the end of the century the department has the task of keeping 600,000 eager outdoor enthusiasts at bay. The pressure to invade the watershed has become intense. What the Water Resources Department liked about Design Workshop's approach was their detailed community input strategy and a technical strategy that would safeguard critical resources. The technical approach reflected a healthy skepticism regarding the resource’s ability to absorb all of the recreation demands of 600,000 people living at the foot of the Pikes Peak. Products of this technical approach included an innovative carrying capacity analysis, and opportunity maps that defined locations for potential programmed activities. These maps were highly defensible products derived from a diverse group of local resource planners organized into a Technical Advisory Group (TAG).

The site sits in stunning Colorado mountain country. At 14,110 feet, Pikes Peak is not the tallest in the state, but only one of 54 peaks that exceed 14,000 feet in elevation. Its southern watershed contains many historic mines, Mueller State Park, rare species found nowhere else on earth, and fabulous views in all seasons. This 200-square-mile watershed is a pristine canvas waiting to be marked by anxious recreationists. It is not often that landscape architects get to work on a national treasure either, but Design Workshop got that opportunity in 1998. Pressure was mounting to open up the watershed, and the Water Resources Department knew they could not hold off that pressure forever. The department called for a sustainable land-use plan for the watershed that was widely supported by the community. What the Water Resources Department liked about Design Workshop’s approach was its detailed proposal to involve the community throughout the decision-making process, and its technical strategy to safeguard critical resources.

The Water Department initiated a coalition of fourteen partners: all governmental agencies with a stake in the watershed were involved. Here is a list of the Managing Partners.

Water Resources Department, City of Colorado Springs

National Forest Service (Pike and San Isabel National Forests)

Pikes Peak Division of Colorado State Highways

City of Green Mountain Falls

Native Americans (Ute Nation representatives)

Colorado Department of State Parks

Colorado Division of Wildlife

City of Cripple Creek

El Paso County

Bureau of Land Management

Town of Victor

City of Manitou Springs

City of Woodland Park

Teller County

PROJECT SITE

The site is stunning, Colorado, mountain country. At 14,110 feet, Pikes Peak is not the tallest in the state, but only one of 54 peaks that exceed 14,000 feet in elevation. The watershed contains many historic mines, Mueller State Park, rare species found no where else on earth, and fabulous views in all seasons. This 200 square mile study area is a pristine canvas waiting to be marked by anxious recreationists.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES There were three primary goals to be achieved through the design process:

1. produce a non-political solution, thus a clear multi-use vision based upon common community values

2. find common management strategies for the entire ecosystem, regardless of ownership, and

3. balance the use of the available resources.

Subordinate objectives included:

1. restore and maintain the health of the ecosystem,

2. match activity programs to the land carrying capacity,

3. clearly define resource management objectives,

4. develop a plan with a high level of public support,

5. develop effective public/private partnerships,

6. implement an affordable plan,

7. protect water quality,

8. conserve and perpetuate the quality of the areas resources,

9. teach sustainability issues to the public,

10. create a seamless, inter jurisdictional consistency, and

11. develop an environmentally based plan.

THE DESIGN TEAM Design Workshop led the team by developing the design methodology and the technical process. A separate inventory of the plant and animal communities of the watershed was conducted by a group of specialists from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, and The Nature Conservancy. This report, Biological Survey of the Pikes Peak Area 1999 Final Report, provided up-to-date baseline data for the study. Subconsultants to Design Workshop included another firm of landscape architects that focused on cultural resources (Thomas and Thomas), transportation specialists (Felsburg, Holt & Ulevig), water resources engineers (Montgomery Watson), and a tundra and wetland expert (Eric Olgerson).

THE PROCESS

The way in which the team brought the community and other experts into the process was very detailed and creative. In addition to large public meetings, and series of meetings with different user groups, the process began with a user survey distributed throughout the community. This allowed a great range of people to have input and it generated a wish list of 66 types of activities or facilities for the watershed, including activities as diverse as agriculture, backpacking, bird watching, back country skiing, bicycle racing, resorts, shore fishing and of course its primary, historic use, water storage. The list was not shortened during the process, but ranked based on the three-fold objectives of providing stewardship, recreation and economic opportunities. The list items were fitted to the appropriate landscape capacity zone using the technical advisory group.

A Technical Advisory Group, consisted of 14 local resource managers, provided criteria for both opportunities and constraints. A modified delphi process was used to achieve consensus on GIS weighting factors that were applied to GIS inventory maps to create defensible analysis mapping. The Carrying Capacity for the study area was established and the fit between potential program elements and those capacity zones was determined by this group.

A citizens advisory group was formed to provide input and continuity throughout the design process, and open forums were held in the surrounding communities as well. Alternative futures were established via a three day design charette involving the citizens advisory group, the heads of all the managing partner agencies, and the design team. A dot assignment technique was used on the Alternative Futures to structure a qualitative review of the lands use concepts. All the while, a newsletter called Peak News regularly updated the community on the progress, and a website provided a digital link to the design team.

The Qualitative Analysis (Dot Tests) done by the Citizen’s Advisory Group was used to define two composite alternatives. These two alternatives represented the best concepts form the original three scenarios, while eliminating the weakest ideas. A Qualitative Analysis was conducted on the two refined alternatives using expert consultants. The two alternatives were evaluated for their impacts to water resources, environmental resources, cultural resources and transportation systems. The results of the impact analysis were used as decision support to synthesis the draft plan for the Pikes Peak Region.

The Draft Plan was presented to agencies, local municipalities and at public forums. The comments were taken and a plan refined to reflect public concerns. The final documentation included a multi-use physical plan as well as a detailed management and implementation strategy to make the vision a reality.

The process took full advantage of GIS operators available in ArcInfo to:

1. prepare detailed inventory of natural and cultural features,

2. apply locational models to identify the most suitable places for specific uses,

3. apply predictive models to evaluate the impacts of alternative proposals, and

4. set up an ongoing landscape management system for long term decision-making by the managing partners.

THE TECHNICAL PROCESS The project was designed so that the planning process advanced parallel to the community input process.

Step One While the survey was generating the needs assessment, the natural and cultural features were being assembled in the GIS environment with maps and databases.

Step Two While the program uses were being ranked, the GIS was creating interim maps such as fire hazard, erosion potential, visual analysis (based on 212 viewing points), potential wetlands and solar analysis.

Simultaneously, the Delphi Method was being used to generate the opportunity (locational) maps for the various uses.

Similarly, carrying capacity (predictive) models and maps gave an indication of the impacts of the various proposals.

Step Three The refinement of three alternative futures (combining the opportunity maps with the carrying capacity maps) took place during a three day charette, by study groups.

Step Four The GIS was used once more to evaluate impacts of the preferred alternative by applying the Land Use to Capacity Fit chart developed by the outside experts.

Step Five The final documentation of the project will include a master plan report, a management plan and a monitoring plan. All the models used to develop the project, as well as the databases, will be turned over to the Water Resources Department and other managing partners, so the plans can be updated as minor changes occur on the site, or with the recreation demand.

PROJECT EVALUATION

What were the advantages of using GIS on the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan? Some of the advantages are common to most site planning projects conducted in a GIS: it is efficient, comprehensive, graphically adept. The iterative power of GIS was especially useful on this project, as was the objectivity of ratings and weightings which came from the public and expert input process. Lastly, the dynamic nature of the GIS allows the decision-making process to continue as fine-tuning is needed. Exactly what do these terms mean?

GIS is efficient because all the files are neatly stored and accessed through the computer. All the operations take place inside the computer without rolls and rolls of tracing paper, or mylar overlays cluttering up the office. The designers do not need to limit themselves to one approach because the budget limits the time they can expend on analysis. With a GIS it is quite simple to run several variations on a single model, or entirely different sets of models. The greater value becomes the thinking and judgment that goes into the models design, not the execution of the model.

GIS is comprehensive because it allows all the design team members, as well as ad hoc committees, outside experts and reviewing agencies to work at the same scale and resolution. It allows the results of any exercise to be shared in a common format. GIS is comprehensive because it allows vast quantities of data to be analyzed in a short time, with little cost. Literally millions of pieces of data are processed with ease.

The graphic abilities of GIS have improved dramatically in recent years. Much of the richness of hand-drawn symbols is available in fill patterns and variable fonts. Graphic interfaces are also easier to use. GIS allows the maps produced by all the members on the team to look alike.

The iterative power of GIS allowed the designers to develop models based on three entirely different sets of objectives: one focused on environmental issues, one focused on maximum provision of recreation and a third focused on economic issues. The effort required to do three scenarios with manual methods would have prohibitive, but in a GIS the three scenarios served merely as the starting point of a much more elaborate review process.

One of the dangers in GIS is that poor judgments can be difficult to find in the vast number of operations. When a designers logic isnt sound, certain bad judgments can reinforce one another in a domino fashion. The Delphi Method is one way of avoiding flaws in the judgment of a single person. Because a group of people are making decisions, errors in judgment are less likely. The GIS makes it very easy to complete round after round of Delphi input.

Finally, the Pikes Peak watershed is a dynamic setting. As the agencies responsible for its management experience changes in policies and personnel, the day to day operations will change. As the nearby communities grow and change in character, recreation demands will change. At some point the changes may be so great that is would be prudent to begin again, with a design team making new judgments about the old models, or employing new models entirely. In the meantime, the agencies themselves are capable of making minor adjustments to the maps and management recommendations. Master plans are no longer static - they must live and breathe to be useful.

Author:

Steven B. Mullen, Associate

Design Workshop, Inc.

1390 Lawrence Street, Suite 200

Denver CO 80204

smullen@designworkshop.com

Phone 303-623-5186

Fax 303-62302260

Biography:

Steven B. Mullen is an Associate at Design Workshop, Inc. and has been with the firm for 10 years. Steve has specialized in applying computer technology to large scale planning projects. The range-of-project include: comprehensive community plans, recreation and open space, watershed, multi-resource plans, and visual analysis. Steve innovations involve the application of public values as weighting factors, and then include these weighting factors within GIS models to produce a spatial expression of community will.

Note:

The Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan was featured Oct. 1999 in Esri’s new book ‘GIS for Landscape Architects’. This project was chapter 6 in that publication and includes an overview of the project, while my presentation will focus on the detailed technical approach used to construct defensible analysis products.