Outdoor Pikes Peak Initiative · Article 8 of 24
Reading old plans was not enough. The team asked land managers five questions and received feedback representing 32 plans. The consensus, in the chapter’s words: the existing plans are good. Staffing, funding, and future growth are what keep them from being carried out.
Role, relevance, and the real hurdle
Asked for their role, managers described strategy, guidance, project priority, education, and acting as the catalyst that pulls partners together. North Cheyenne Cañon Park’s master plan is quoted: the Parks Department’s responsibility is to implement the plan, coordinate with stakeholders, and seek funding. Asked if plans were still relevant, respondents overwhelmingly said yes. Several were being updated. Many said the update was now urgent because of population growth and resource change. The Monument Creek Watershed Landscape Assessment is the sharp example: the plan is “somewhat relevant, but the significant development and population growth that has occurred within the watershed since 2002 has drastically changed much of the analysis.”
The number-one hurdle to implementation was funding. There is rarely a dedicated pipeline for the project list, and many organizations are straining to maintain what they already manage. Staffing was second: hard to hire, hard to keep, and existing staff unable to cover the geography. Landowner coordination was third, from HOAs unwilling to invest to a patchwork of owners inside one maintenance area. Growth and development were fourth, adding use and also pushing housing costs that make staffing harder. Hiring contractors, supply chains, and workforce after the pandemic were fifth.
What they asked this process to carry
On operations, the City of Colorado Springs Park System Master Plan is quoted: “Funding and staffing required to implement the plan remains consistent challenges to implementation.” Grants are not a fix by themselves. Match requirements are hard to meet, grants are not a durable source, and many organizations lack the staff time to write them well. Fountain Creek partners asked for something more basic: “increased communications among all who are working in this space.”
What still excites managers is concrete. Completion of the non-motorized Ring the Peak Trail. One organization that had seen $2.5 million in parks projects funded since a 2018 adoption. Neighborhood plans actually being folded in. What worries them is longevity under climate change, large acreage, and development, and the risk of adding projects to a workload they already cannot keep. The chapter closes on two actions: coordinated effort, and a sustainable funding model.
Source: Outdoor Pikes Peak Initiative Vision Plan 2025, prepared through the Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance as the local Colorado Outdoor Regional Partnership, with support from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Great Outdoors Colorado. Project team: PPORA, Trails and Open Space Coalition, N.E.S. Inc., Bachman PR, and the University of Colorado Colorado Springs Geography Department. The plan was written across a four-year process and released in 2025; some statistics reflect a point in time before publication. Land Manager Needs Assessment, pages 48–51.
