HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.06 Feasibility study & conceptual design for the Carbondale gateway river park.pdfAttachment "F" f I
) Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Final Report: Feasibility & Conceptual Design for the Carbondale Gateway River Park Prepared for : Town of Carbondal e; 5 11 Colorado Ave, Curbondalc.
CO 81623 Western S lope Cons tulting. Recrea tion Engineeri ng & Planning, DIIM IJcs ign
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: INTRODUCTION: ..................................................................................................................................
.... 3 METHODOLOGY: ..................................................................................................................................... 4 FINDINGS FROM STAKEHOLDER
INTERVIEWS & CITIZEN INPUT.: ...................................... 5 SITE ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY AREA: ..............................................................................................
7 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN DESCRIPTION: .............................................................................. 12 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: .....................................................
................................................... 20 PROJECT PHASING, COSTS & THRESHOLD ISSUES: ................................................................... 24 FUNDING OPTIONS:
............................................................................................................................... 27 CONCLUSION: ........................................................
................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX I. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY: ............................................................
29 APPENDIX 2. EVALUATION OF RIVER FLOWS ............................................................................. 42 APPENDIX 3. DESIGN OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES ..................................
................................ 45 APPENDIX 4. FISH HABIT AT REPORT ............................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX 5. MAPS:
............................................................................................................................... 61 2
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Carbondale Gateway Park Acknowledgments The Carbondale Gateway Park feasibility and conceptual design report was developed through a collaborative
effort and generous contributions of time from members of the public, Board of Trustees, the Gateway Park Task Force, Carbondale Parks and Recreation Commission, Carbondale Staff and
representatives of: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Roaring Fork Transit Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, Red Hill Council, Colorado Rocky Mountain
School, Colorado Department of Health, Garfield County and Bureau of Land Management. Carbondale Board of Trustees Michael Hassig, Mayor Susan Dan·ow, Mayor pro tern Fred Williams Russ
Criswell Andy Montoya Mark Whalen Scott Chaplin Carbondale Parks & Recreation Commission Carol Farris, Chair Stacey Bemot Richard Camp Nelson Oldham Lisa Nieslanik Brad Ziegel Tyler
Henderson Gateway Park Task Force Peter Benedict Michael Kennedy Mike He1mes John Hoffman Richard Camp Mike Shook Tony Fotoupolis Rick Lofaro Nelson Oldham Aiiie Rothman Carbondale Staff
John Hicr, Town Manager Jeff Jackel, Recreation Director Lany Ballenger, Public Works Director Consulting Team Western Slope Consulting DHM Design Inc. Recreation Engineering & Planning
3
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Introduction: The Town of Carbondale is investigating the feasibility and conceptual design of a linear river corridor park on the Roaring Fork River
adjacent to Carbondale. The study area includes approximately one mile of the Roaring Fork River from a location just upstream of the State Highway 133 Bridge to the confluence of the
Crystal River. The 11Gateway Park" is to serve a vatiety of functions for a multitude of users. Park uses could include trails, fishing, pedestrian/bicycle bridge, Highway 82 underpass,
informational waysides, whitewater features, bouldering/climbing area, and sitting areas. The park could also serve another important function as the Gateway to Carbondale and the West
Elk Scenic Byway with enhancements to the Highway 133 Bridge to better communicate a sense of entry and anival. As a part of the study, an investigation into the feasibility of a whitewater
park was considered. River based recreation is one of the fastest growing sectors of the outdoor sports industry in the country and whitewater parks are an emerging trend as a way of
providing river related recreation near a population center. This study looked at the viability of such a park in the Town as both a recreational amenity for local residents and an attraction
for visitors outside of this community. This report, funded by the Town of Carbondale, includes a feasibility study, conceptual master plan and preliminary cost estimate for the development
of the Carbondale Gateway Park. Detailed in this repmt are existing site advantages and challenges as well as proposed site improvements and phasing alternatives. The planning process
considered the gateway to Carbondale, physical characteristics of the river corridor, vehicular and pedestrian access, and the potential for shared use along the corridor and land ownership.
Threshold issues that will need to be addressed by the Town have been identified and prioritized in this report to serve as a guide to direct future discussion and study toward the realization
of the Gateway Park vision. This project offers an exciting opportunity for the Town of Carbondale and its residents. As in many other communities, realization of this project will require
a variety of private and public entities working together toward a shared vision. Leadership, vision, negotiation, community involvement and consensus building will all be important
to move the project forward. 4
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Methodology: The consulting team approached this project along several fronts. The Town of Carbondale fanned a Gateway Park Task Force prior to engaging
the services of the consulting team. The role of the Task Force was to serve as a sounding board for the project, provide general guidance throughout the process and to assist with public
infon11ation. Initial meetings were held with the Town staff and the Task Force to refine the scope of services, define the study area and establish project scheduling. The first task
for the consultant team was to collect data about the study area and assemble a series of maps showing property ownership, topography, study area physical features and other pertinent
information. The project area base map was built using GIS and AutoCAD software. This base map served as the foundation for an analysis of the existing conditions along with visual reconnaissance
of the study area. Several site visits, including boat trips through the corridor, were conducted to fully infom1 the consultant team. A series of one-on-one stakeholder interviews was
conducted with study area landowners and affected agencies. In some cases more than one interview was conducted with stakeholders based upon individual needs. Over thirty interviews
were conducted and included the following: Garfield County planning, County Engineering, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Division of Wildlife, private
landowners, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Red Hill Council, members of the angling community, Carbondale Wastewater, BLM, Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Colorado Department of Transportation,
Colorado Department of llealth, Roaring Fork Transit Agency, Carbondale Parks and Recreation Commission and the Carbondale Board of Trustees. Additionally, the community was invited
to a river corridor site tour and a series of public meetings were held at the Days Inn, Carbondale Town Ilall and Sopris Park. Information obtained from the stakeholder meetings was
analyzed and evaluated with the other project data. Project feasibility and design alternatives were produced ti·om the input and assembled infonnation. The design evolved during the
process in response to the public input. Preferred options and alternatives were developed as design concepts for both on-shore and in-stream improvements. These ideas were presented
to the Gateway Park Task Force, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Carbondale Tmstees during the process. Each meeting was open to the general public and presented opportunities
for public input. Feedback from these meetings was incorporated into the final revised feasibility report and design altematives. The final report was presented to the Carbondale Parks
and Recreation Commission at a public meeting on October 15111 and Board of Tmstees on October 28, 2003. The general public participated in both of these meetings. 5
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Findings from Stakeholder Interviews & Citizen Input: During the public process ideas and concerns for the project were discussed in detail. These
comments in combination with the physical characteristics of the study area served as the backbone for recommendations made in this master plan. Stakeholder comments varied considerably
based upon the particular interests of the interview parties. A detailed sununary of stakeholder responses is included in this report as Appendix 1. While it is risky to summarize input
from a variety of sources and perspectives, important recurring themes for the corridor were: )> Maintain the natural character of the river and riverbanks. >-Investigate opportunities
along the Crystal River to ensure that improvements on the Roaring Fork do not impact the Crystal in a negative manner. )> Evaluate availability of parking. )> Consider the importance
of points of access. );;> Protect the interests of private property owners. Y Allow for shared use of the river corridor while designing for minimum use conflicts. )> Provide for off-highway
(82) trail connections. Y Protect the riparian characteristics of the corridor and aquatic quality. Y Accommodate a variety of uses and sharing of the resource. Y Include trails along
the river. );;> Design drop struch1res to be navigable by a variety of watercraft and in a manner that does not adversely affect bridge abutrnents or floodplains. )> Offer a variety
of experiences for users of all age groups and abilities at Gateway Park. Y Maintain or enhance the fishety. );;> Understand that project costing and phasing are a major concern of the
local governments. During the public process seven primary groups of individuals/interests were identified as integral to the final outcome of this project. In an effort to share the
resource, any proposed design recommendations should respect and balance these diverse interests. Fishing: One of the most important concerns expressed during the process was the significance
of the existing fishing industty in the Roaring Fork River. Recreational and commercial fishing play an important role in the local economy. The Roaring Fork River's status as a Gold
Medal Fishery is both a source of pride and draws visiting sport fishem1en. Park designs should minimize negative affects on access, parking, accessibility, navigability or existing
habitat with respect to the fishermen or the commercial fishing indushy. Wade fishing is an important activity in this area and should be accommodated in fuh1re planning efforts. Additionally,
it was suggested that Carbondale investigate the Crystal River and develop a master plan for that corridor similar to the Gateway Plan. There is a strong interest in measures that could
increase flows in the Crystal River. It was suggested that the Town pursue these options as soon as possible. Community: A strong focus of interest for the Gateway Park is access and
improvements that will be available to local users of all ages and abilities. The park should provide the person of Carbondale with a place to experience the riparian corridor and the
unique environment and natural beauty that adorn them. It should be a place that resonates with Carbondale values of family, community, recreation and environment. Selective creative
play areas with bmildering sites, accessible riverside beach areas and trails should be fun for families with small children. The area could be popular for walkers, joggers. picnickers,
and for just spending time next to the river. The park can offer opporhmities for elderly and handicapped visitors. The park can serve as a field classroom for students of all ages.
The park offers an opportunity for student boating and adventure programs or for a great summer inner-tube ride. Similar to Red II ill, the Gateway Park could have an on-going task force
responsible for coordination of volunteer efforts to maintain and mange the park. This type of effort could supplement on-going maintenance operations for this newly proposed park. Volunteer
opportunities provide the community with 6
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report an added sense of ownership and can help support operational needs that might be stretched in a tight budgetary environment. This is similar to volunteer
maintenance eff011s in Golden, Salida, and Steamboat, Colorado. In these communities volunteers perform the majority of the maintenance thereby alleviating that burden for the communities.
Youth: It is often difficult to engage youth in the community particularly in a mral environment. The proposed Gateway Park improvements could provide Carbondale youth another positive
outlet for recreational opportunities. Ownership of the park for the youth could be enhanced through kayak or fishing events sponsored at the river conidor and through volunteerism (joint
programs between the schools and the Town). The park provides an excellent setting as a field classroom for study ofriparian environments. Many youth oriented paddling programs have
spnmg up around the development of whitewater parks as a way to provide healthy, accessible recreation for young people. Carbondale is home to Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS),
one of the top programs for young paddlers. CRMS has a long history of producing top-level whitewater paddlers. Carbondale has a substantial foundation for involving a wide and diverse
cross section of young people. Interest has been expressed in bouldering oppmiunities along the river corridor. Like kayaking, bouldering is a quickly growing sport and is another way
to engage Carbondale's young climbers in a positive activity. Kayaking: The Task Force, the public and stakeholders expressed interest in two kinds of kayaking in-stream improvements.
The first is a drop-stmcture designed for freestyle kayaking. This type of stmcture is similar in appearance to the many drop stmctures in the Roaring Fork between Basalt and Carbondale.
Freestyle kayaking and whitewater parks have become a major force in river tourism and kayaking competitions. Some communities have constmcted whitewater parks for the primary purpose
of attracting tourists and kayaking competitions for the economic development benefits. Freestyle kayaking or "Park and Play" boating is the most popular segment of whitewater kayaking
today. This type of boating is different from traditional river running because it takes place in one or two locations in a water feature that consists of a natural or man-made standing
wave or "hole". Kayakers practice maneuvers and tricks in the water feature. Playboating parks attract many users for daily, weekend, and competitive use. Construction of a drop structure
suitable for National level freestyle events was cited as a "need" in Gateway Park. The second recommended in-stream kayaking improvement is a slalom course. The Town of Carbondale is
home to the Colorado Rocky Mountain School's junior kayak team. The school has used the Roaring Fork and Crystal Rivers for slalom competitions including National events since the mid-1950s.
The CRMS program has produced several national and international level slalom and freestyle competitors (including world champions). A key element of the CRMS program is slalom training
at the confluence of the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers. The configuration of the two rivers and merging flows provides a unique course design opportunity that does not exist in other
slalom courses. Scott Shipley, a three time Olympian, former Junior World Champion and World Cup Champion in slalom kayaking, has suggested that a slalom course at this location could
provide a world-class facility. It has been suggested that the CRMS campus might serve as an ideal venue for a kayak training facility for both slalom and freestyle disciplines. An adjacent
freestyle park and slalom course would be an ideal an·angement for the school. The realization of a kayaking academy at CRMS could draw boaters from across the country and around the
world. This could be an economic development option for both Carbondale and CRMS. Local paddling enthusiasts have also expressed interest in an enhanced slalom course in Gateway Park.
Tourists: Gateway Park will attract valley visitors who might otherwise drive by Carbondale headed to better-known destinations. The park can serve several objectives with respect to
tourism. As the "Gateway" to the town, the park could communicate to visitors Carbondale values of community, environment, and active lifestyle. There also is an important opportunity
to construct directional and informational signage about activities in Carbondale and along the West Elk Scenic Byway to inform tourists. The nah1ral beauty of the river 7
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report corridor park, in combination with fishing, whitewater improvements, adjacent mountain biking/hiking and other local amenities serve as an important
attraction in and of themselves. Private Property Owuers: There are a number of private property owners adjacent to the river throughout the study area. Park development must recognize
the private rights of the landowners in the corridor. Property owners expressed concern about trespassing and increased use along 106 Road. This dead end roadway is limited by topography,
receives limited County maintenance and has poor turnaround facilities. Park concepts should minimize additional vehicular traffic along 106 Road. Trail U.vers: Trails are an important
asset to the community and are used by a wide cross-section of the population. This project could help to 1ink existing and fbture trails, including in-town trails, the Red Hill trails,
the Roaring Fork Railroad trail system and a possible C1ystal Valley trail system. 8
) Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Site Analysis of the Study Area: The primary entry to Carbondale is undeveloped and lacks a gateway experience that is cons istent with the values
of the community. The Gateway Park project presents an opportunity to incorporate conmmnity suggestions and design ideas about improving Carbondale's "front door". The focus of this
study was on the Roaring Fork River corridor. The river corridor in the study area is generally confined with steep banks and limited pedestrian or vehicular access. The most obvious
use in this section of the Roaring Fork River is by anglers. Private and commercial fishing trips pass through the site from upstream locations and s tart from the boat ramp downstream
of the 133 bridge. Wade fishing is also popular in this area. There is some inf01mal use of the area by residents hiking the river banks and interacting with the river. This use could
be further developed and enhanced with better fac ili ties and access. Pedestrian access to the river corridor is limited even though there are three bridges that cross the river in
the study area. A lack of fonn al trails with defined access points and the grade separation of the bridges above the water do not invite interaction at the river level. Vehicle access
to the river exists along a deteriorating stretch of County Road l 06. Adjoining landowners have said that this access can be unsa fe and is a nuisance because of littering, a lack of
parking and an absence of restroom fac ili ties. Farther upstream on the lower be nch of the Sopris RV Park parking is undefi ned and ine fficient. Any parking areas developed in associa
tion with Gateway Park (north or south of the river) must be managed for park/recreation use so it remains available. A parking lot with 45 spaces was constmcted at the base of Red I
!ill to serve recreational use at that location. This lot has potential for expansion and could serve river recreation on the Roaring Fork. llowever, the lot is not managed and space
is largely unavailable during weekday work hours because of the informal "park and ride" use that has evolved to serve "up valley" commuters. Red Hill parking is available in the evenings,
on weekends and would be availab le during the week if it were managed. An off-highway connection through the existing box culvert under llighway 82 could serve as an important interim
direct river connection from the parking lot until an undeqJass designed to cmTent pedestrian specifications could be built in association with a new llighway 82/133 interchange. The
Roaring Fork River drops approximately I 00 feet within the study area and the gradient is relatively evenly distributed. For the most part, the banks are high and heavily armored. Ripari
an vegetation is generally healthy with selective human intmsion along the reach; for example the two road crossing bridges and the rail crossing. Vegeta tion on the south shore is healthier
than along the north shore. There are sections of the river corridor that have been impacted by a number of non-native species and noxious weeds that are included on the State of Colorado
noxious weed list. There is an isolated section of Tamarisk, a highly invasive riparian species. Most of the locations impacted by noxious weeds or invasive species are adjacent to or
within disturbed areas. Tamarisk Adjacent to Sopris R V Park 9
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report The gradient along the entire study area is well suited to drop-structures appropriate for "park and play" freestyle boating, a kayak slalom course,
fish habitat enhancement, eddy structures to augment fishing and improved access. The confluence with the Crystal River is a particularly unique feature of the project area that should
be highlighted in the conceptual piau. Improvements along the Roaring Fork should be completed in conjunction with efforts to increase water quantity and improved quality in the Crystal
River. The Carbondale community expressed strong sentiments that opportunities along the Crystal should be investigated in an approach similar to this study of the Roaring Fork. There
are two existing inigation intakes that serve ditches within the study area. Gateway Park improvements should not adversely impact legal or physical diversion rights of these ditches
in accordance with Colorado State Law. The one remaining bridge abutment at the original historic Highway 133 road alignment appears suitable for re-use with a pedestrian bridge. A second
south river bank pedestrian bridge abutment would have to be constructed. In stream drop-structure designs should not adversely impact existing bridge supports. Properly designed drop-stmctures
can provide scour protection and erosion control around bridge abutments. Drop stmcture design and engineering within the COOT right-of-way will be subject to review and approval by
the Department of Transportation. Floodplain Impacts: In-stream features proposed will be designed so they will not adversely impact the Roaring Fork River floodplain. The elevation
of surrounding banks and other upstream features will be analyzed and existing water surface elevations will be maintained. Proposed drop-structures will be subject to the Army Corps
of Engineers 404 pennitting process. Fisheries anti Riparian Habitat: All design features should maintain or improve aquatic habitat by creating deep holding pools, velocity shelters,
and maintaining spawning areas. Riparian vegetation and shading appear healthy along the south riverbank in the majority of the project area. However, human intrusions have impacted
riverside vegetation along the north riverbank in select areas. Re-vegetation and bank stabilization should be included, whenever possible, for impacted areas. Public input was obtained
from local fishermen, the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the Colorado Division of Wildlife on these topics. The Division of Wildlife expressed concern about installation of whitewater
features within the Roaring Fork River portion of the study area. Their comments are included in the stakeholder interview documentation. Continued input from the Division and independent
fishery experts will be critical in identifying areas where in-stream stmctures would improve recreational fishing opportunities by enhancing habitat through the project area. Over thirty
whitewater park projects have been constmcted nationally with 12 successful parks in Colorado. These parks have generated positive responses from both the angling and boating communities.
The Gateway Park Final Report includes a "Biological Opinion on Potential Effects of the Carbondale Whitewater Park on Trout in the Roaring Fork River" developed by Ms. Claire McGrath
Fisheries Biologist (Appendix 4). Ms. McGrath's report notes that the stream channel near the Highway 133 bridge abutments "displays little habitat heterogeneity, fast flow, and almost
no cover or resting areas for fish." In stream stmctures similar to those proposed for Gateway Park "are commonly used to improve fish habitat in streams."" Whitewater park in stream
structures produce hydraulic effects similar to stmctures built for stream restoration." "Overall, Whitewater parks tend to increase habitat complexity, thereby improving Trout habitat."
The biological opinion concludes, "In the Roaring Fork River, a project the scale of the proposed Carbondale whitewater park is not expected to significantly affect density of Trout,
either positively or negatively."1 1 Biological Opinion on Potential Effects of the Carbondale Whitewater Park on Trout in the Roaring Fork River. Claire C. McGrath-Fisheries Biologist.
September 15,2003. 10
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Anglers Using Roaring Fork River Drop Structure at /looks Bridge -Basalt, Colorado Sediment Tnmsport: Sediment transport is another issue that was
raised during this investigation. The sediment transport concem was identified as a result of in-stream work completed in the Roaring Fork River approximately 15 miles upstream from
Carbondale near Basalt, CO. This stuuy made inquiries about the Basalt project to answer the question about sediment transport. An examination of the Basalt project revealed that the
makeup of the Roaring Fork River adjacent to Basalt is geologically different from Carbondale because of accumulations of finer glacially deposited sands and gravels than exist in the
Roaring Fork River cham1el within the study area. Apparently, designs for the highway bridge and other stream channel alterations did not adequately address these geologic conditions
and resulted in sediment transport problems. All structures that are designed for, and constructed in, a river cotTidor must address sediment transport. llowever, the sediment transport
issues that arose in Basalt are much less of an issue in Carbondale. Field observation indicates that the study area of the Roaring Fork is very stable. The riverbed in this area is
composed of medium to large cobble and the banks, particularly in the regions of interest, are stable and contain all of the flow. The Recreation Engineering & Planning has nearly thitiy
years of field observation in the proposed reach of stream and has not identified a major change in sedimentation patterns or structural shifting in the streambed. All structnres will
be designed to mimic natural transport and deposition pattems. Structures, which reach from bank to bank, will be designed to maintain self-scouring plunge pools below. Specific design
functionality with respect to sediment transport is di scussed in Appendix 3. Proposed in-stream improvements will be designed to move sediment through and maintain deep eddies and pools.
Sediment within a river channel, as a general rule, deposits when the water slows to a rate at which the culTent can no longer cany the material downstream. Generally. the structures
planned for this project should be designed to concentrate flow and create resulting calm eddies where sedimentation can occur. When there are design constrai nts that dictate that sediment
not be deposited in certain areas, structures should be designed to move sediment through the area through the channelization of swift currents. Discussions with the Division of Wildlife
and other experts should be undertaken to identify specific design concems that must be addressed to prevent accumulation of sediments conducive to Whirling Disease. The experience of
the Division of Wildlife with the constmction of the drop stmctures II
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report in the Roaring Fork River between Basalt and Carbondale will be useful to the design of drop structures in Gateway Park with regard to sediment accumulation
and Whirling Disease concems. In-stream Features: In response to concems about the potential impact of in-stream features on boat traffic, the consultant team studied the tiver corridor
from Basalt to Carbondale. In that area, over eighteen in-stream features can be found. Though those features were constmcted to manage erosion and for bank st<1bilization, the basic
design of those features is similar to any proposed in-stream constmction for this project. Boating traffic has not been impeded as a result of those features and it is reasonable to
assume that the same could be said for improvements proposed in this project. Kayak Park "U" Drop Structure in the Yampa River, Steamboat, Colorado 12
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Roaring Fork River Drop Structure near Basalt, Colorado Roaring Fork Rirer Drop Structure near Basalt, Colorado 13
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Conceptual Master Plan Description: The conceptual master plan portrays an integrated river park with a variety of in-stream and bank improvements
for shared use by locals and visitors alike. Trails, a pedestrian bridge, educational and interpretive s i g~1age , close-in parking, improved access, connections to the river corridor,
whitewater park features, and fishing were all identified as important components of the plan. The character of the master plan focuses on improvements that blend with the natural environment.
A more urban, manicured look is not considered appropriate for this location. Several objectives were envis ioned during the creation of the overall Gateway Park conceptual design: ~
Enhance the physical and visual environment at the 133 Bridge as the entrance into Carbondale. ~ Offer Carbondale a beautiful natural park where local citizens could stroll along the
river's banks, play in the water, exercise, or sit in the shade beside the river's edge. ~ Create a Park that communicates the Town's values, commitment to communi ty, the environment
and active, healthy outdoor lifestyles. ~ Develop trail connections to the river corridor, Carbondale's trail system, Red Hill and points beyond. ~ Establish access to the river corridor
for a larger cross-section of the Town's population including an off highway connection to the north side ofllighway 82. ~ Provide a destination with amenities that would attract outdoor
enthusiasts to Carbondale so they can enjoy the Town's unique hospitality and contribute to the Town's economy that is fueled appreciably by outdoor lifestyles. ~ Build a Park that could
support competition level freestyle & slalom kayaking events and will attract guests from all over to vis it Carbondale. White\l'ater Parks across Colorado provide recreation opportunities.for
a variety r?fuser groups. 14 (
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Segmented ownership in the river cmridor and the absence of locations with common ownership on both river banks was identified early in the project
investigation as an issue for implementing design proposals. Most of the study area lies outside of Carbondale municipal limits. These two factors add an element of complexity to the
sh1dy. Negotiation, easement acquisition and/or possible property acquisition are prerequisites to some aspects of this project. Carbondale is fortunate to have private landowners (Michael
& Julie Kennedy) within the corridor with common ownership on both river banks that are interested participants. Colorado Rocky Mountain School may also be an interested project participant.
They own major sections of land within the study area and along both banks of the Crystal River. A detailed description of potential land acquisitions can be found in the phasing section
of the report. The project can be completed without property/easement acquisitions, but preferred designed elements of the plan might be diluted. Maintenance and management of improvements
along the river conidor will be another important consideration in subsequent phases of the project. In-stream improvements are generally low maintenance unless there is a failure due
to a major flooding event. Inspections and maintenance/modification after the first full year of use are recommended. Maintenance of new park improvements will require typical park maintenance
for parking areas, trails and restrooms. Golden and Salida, Colorado successfully use volunteers for their whitewater park maintenance and have little financial outlay for maintenance
and management of their waterparks. Another concern that was identified was enforcement and management of parking and public use areas to minimize impact on adjacent private landowners.
This conceptual master plan focuses on three zones: Zone 1 from the area just upstream from the 133 bridge to the RFTA Railroad Bridge; Zone 2 from the Railroad Bridge to the confluence;
and Zone 3 at the confluence of the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers. Zone 1 is envisioned as the higher activity area; Zone 2 consists of only limited modifications; and Zone 3 includes
a variety of recommended improvements. A conceptual plan for the improvements is included in the report. Zone 1 -133 Bridge: This area is the Gateway portion of the project and is envisioned
as the most active use zone. With access to Town trails, parking and roads, this is the most likely location for heavier concentrations of use. Improvements in this zone include a looped
trail, a pedestrian bridge, connections to Red Hill and other Town trails, parking, fishing, bouldering and whitewater playboating features. Gateway: As the gateway to Carbondale, this
Zone plays an important role in setting the first impression of the community. Currently, the intersection ofllighway 82 and 133 lies outside of the Town limits. The Town should consider
annexation of the Highway 82 Interchange to have land use authority at the Gateway. Presently, these decisions are made by Garfield County and may not reflect the goals and directions
of Carbondale. For example, the Sopris RV Park is for sale and the use of the property may change thereby requiring a new land use application. Other properties at the interchange remain
undeveloped and future development could have a large impact at Carbondale's front door. As the Town moves fmward with 133 bridge improvements, consideration should be given to the aesthetic
design of the bridge. To the degree that funding permits, entry monuments, flags, lighting, materials, and bridge design should all be considered as opporhmities to express the Town's
identity. Fishing: The area identified as Zone I is a popular area for commercial and recreational fishing. During the course of the project several meetings have been held with the
fishing community to ensure that their concerns are addressed in fuhtre design proposals. Whitewater feahtres will be designed to accommodate downstream boat traffic. This design has
been used successfully in many other communities. Opporhmities for wade fishing in other locations should be investigated. Suggestions from the anglers included improved fishing habitat
along the Crystal and creation of eddies to improve habitat between the 133 and RFTA bridges. Improvements to or relocation of the existing boat ramp could help to alleviate potential
conflicts between different user groups, though other venues have proven that fishing and whitewater parks can exist simultaneously with success. 15
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Trails: The looped trail design in Zone I serves multiple functions, providing easy access to the existing Town trails, movement along both the north
and south shores of the river corridor, and connections to the future RFTA trail system. A trail underpass is proposed beneath the 133 Bridge to allow for continued access at river grade.
A boardwalk along the south shore would be constructed in the area between the 133 Bridge and the RFT A Railroad Bridge to minimize disturbance to the existing banks. The trail along
this stretch would include educational and interpretive opportunities adjacent to the wastewater treatment facili ty. Trailunde1pass in Salida, Colorado Pedestrian Bridge: The abandoned
bridge abutments and long gone bridge upstream of llighway 133 originally served as the primary access to Carbondale. This historic site is a logical location for a new pedestrian bridge
linking the town dedicated Cowan Center PUD open space to the recently closed llighway 82 box culvert underpass and the Red II ill trail system. The location of a pedestrian bridge in
relationship to the proposed in-stream water features will offer a natural viewing point to pedestrians on the bridge. During competitions and other events, the pedestrian bridge will
provide an excellent access and viewing point for spectators. Reuse of the historic abutments and bridge location also commemorates Carbondale's original entry. Placement of the bridge
at this site requires land or easement acquisition from the Gianinetti Famil y, and the Soderbergs as well as negotiations with the DOW. The COOT Highway 133 right-of-way offers a functional
alternative location for a pedestrian bridge and eliminates the need for property or easement acquisition. llowever, this location is not the preferred option for the pedestrian bridge
from a design standpoint. Red Hill Connection: The task force and community members identified an off-highway connection to the Red Ilill trail system as highly desirable. The at-grade
crossing at Ilighway 82, though functional, creates a real and perceived banier between the Town of Carbondale and Red I Jill from a safety standpoint and is not pedestrian friendly.
Re-opening the box culvert under Ilighway 82 on a tempormy basis until a new intersection is designed and constmcted would provide safe direct pedestrian access that is separated from
dangerous llighway 82 traffic. This connection will require negotiations with COOT. Terraced Bank Restoration ami Seating Areas: Bank terracing and the creation of planting terraces
are relatively limited in the conceptual plan to minimize impacts to the largely undisturbed healthy riparian vegetation along the stream banks. The Division of Wildlife and Roaring
Fork Conservancy both supported the concept of limited di sturbance to 16 (
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report the existing river banks. Where proposed, the banks could be terraced to create attractive and creative access, seating, bank stabili zation, and
to preserve vegetation. Boulders anchored into the banks would provide the added benefit of bank stabilization and erosion protection. The focus area for bank tenacing would be adjacent
to whitewater drop stmctures to merge the river corridor with shore based uses. Terracing could also be used to improve and offer additional river access points. Bank terracing and planting
terraces in Salida, Colorado. Whitewater Feature: Discussions with local stakeholders have indicated that there is an interest in two types of in-stTeam improvements. The first category,
which has been the primary force behind "boating tourism" in Colorado and in other parts of the United Stales, is recreational and freestyle improvements. Freestyle kayaking or "Park
and Play" kayaking is the most popular segment of Whitewater kayaking today; driving everything from boat designs to the culture of the sport. Freesty le kayaking takes place in one
accessible standing wave or "hole" where participants practice maneuvers and tricks in the wave. Freestyle's popularity stems from its accessibility and logistical simplicity. Whitewater
parks have helped boost the popularity of this type of whitewater kayaking. Playboating features attract many users for daily and weekend use as well as for regional and national competitions.
The economic impact created by whitewater parks such as those in Golden and Steamboat, Colorado as well as others, have been driven primarily by recreational and freesty le playboating.
The construction of a freestyle features suitable for hosting national level and freestyle events has been cited as "a need" in Gateway Park. The second category of improvements identified
by stakeholders in this project is slalom course improvements. The Colorado Rocky Mountain School kayak program has produced many top-level national and international competitors in
both the slalom and freestyle discipl ines. A key part of this program centers on slalom training at the junction of the Crystal and Roaring Fork rivers. Many local paddling enthusiasts
have expressed a desire for an enhanced slalom course to be included in this project. 17
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report The area SUITOtmding the Highway I 33 Bridge has several advantages with respect to playboating. The location of the venue, upstream of the existing
boat access ramp, allows for separation of uses and the creation of playboating features. The important attributes of access and shade are available on the south river bank on land dedicated
to Carbondale as public open space. This shaded area is home to a healthy growth of Cottonwood and Evergreen trees. All streamside improvements should be completed with maximum effort
to preserve existing vegetation. Department of Transportation right of way and bridge foundations afford public access to the riverbanks. These improvements also offer stable and cost
effective footings for properly engineered river drop structures. The reach of riverbed between the abandoned bridge abutments and the Highway 133 Bridge is an ideal site for two U-drop
stmctures. The existing bridge abutments, both at the abandoned bridge site and the current bridge site, could act as anchors for U-drop structures. It will be important to design the
drop structures to prevent scouring of the bridge footers. These existing foundations and the natural constriction of the river in this reach provide an ideal location for cost effective
in-stream improvements. The drop structures can act symbiotically with the bridge footings and offer erosion protection to the Highway 133 Bridge. This river section has between two
and three feet of gradie nt and is ideal for the proposed whitewater park improvements. Whitewater features designed for freestyle boating are often utilized for a variety of non-kayak
f1mctions. Drop structures create downstream plunge pools, the reby, creating attractive calm pools for wading, swimming and fishing. In this context, drop stmctures are a key design
feature to maximize interaction between the stream environment and shore-based users. The non-boating public will enjoy the pools below the drop structures for swimming and wading, while
all types of watercraft from dories to inner tubes can easily navigate the structure. The pool formed below the upper "U" drop will create an attractive amenity for anglers and various
river users accessing from south or north banks. The existing trail grade could be improved through re-alignment and resurfacing to facilitate better access for elderly and physically
handicapped users. Some attractive natural stone terracing on the bank at the tem1inus of this trail grade could edge the pool, permit seating and provide bank stabilization. A freestyle
kayaker competing during the 2003 Clear Creek Whitewater Festiral held am111al~v on the Clear Creek White11·ater Park in Golden. Colorado 18
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report The primary design challenge of the lower drop stn1cture, proposed under the Highway 133 Bridge will be to enlarge the existing eddy to enhance access
for fishing craft that use boat launch downstream of the bridge. Proper water feature design will enhance this eddy to positively impact the current float fishing and recreational boat
use. By offsetting the center of the "low flow" opening, a larger eddy can be created on the north bank to enhance access for the boat ramp. Suggestions were made during the public seeping
process to move the existing boat ramp downstream to separate kayak and fishing boat use to minimize conflicts. Both of these structures will be designed as "at grade" "U"-Drops and
the drop stmctures would not raise the stream profile at any cross-section. This is possible because of the ideal river gradient in the area. Neither structure is designed to have any
adverse effect on the 1 00-year floodplain and will be designed to contain high flows associated with normal spring nmoff. Localized flooding does not appear to be an issue at this site
due to the high banks and channel width irrunediately above the abandoned bridge abutments. The width of the "low-flow" and "high-flow" openings will allow ice, downed trees and other
normal debris to pass through the stmchtres with no impact on the stmctures or the creation of abnormal hazardous conditions. It should be noted that the Colorado Division of Wildlife
owns a perpetual easement on the Gianinetti property on the north bank of the river east of the Highway 133 right-of-way. Any constmction on this property will require authorization
from the landowner and must not adversely affect the rights of the easement holder. In the event that negotiations with the land and easement holder's are not successfitl, constmction
of a drop stmcture within the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way for Highway 133 is a feasible option. Communication has been made with CDOT about use of their right-ofway
under the bridge for this purpose. Their response to date has been positive as long as the water feature is properly engineered, is subject to their review and does not result in scouring
of the bridge abutments. The in-stream structures as well as bank improvements will be constmcted using native, large stone boulders. All stmctures are intended to be stmcturally stable
for both the normal range of seasonal flows as well as larger flood events. This stability is achieved through vertical anchoring, keying into the adjoining banks and through the structure's
inherent strength due to their shape and positioning. All Gateway Park improvements are to be open to the public at no charge. Whitewater improvements will be designed for a wide range
of kayaking enthusiasts of all skill levels, including novice level boaters. However, design of the feahtres will provide for elite level whitewater competitions during average and higher
flows. Annual boating events (i.e. rodeo, down river and slalom) could also be held at this location. All stmchtres are designed to be navigable for all types of watercraft at a wide
range of normal flows. Parking: Adequate and accessible parking is a critical component for the success of this project. Through better management and expansion of the existing Red II
ill parking lot, the provision of parking along the CDOT right-of-way northwest of the Highway 82 I 133 intersection, and parallel parking along Cowan Drive, a significant amount of
parking could be generated for this project without new property acquisitions. Overflow parking for larger events could be handled at off-site locations with a shuttle system to park
access points. The Carbondale community and Board of Tmstees have voiced a desire for close in parking at a site dedicated for Gateway Park. To meet this need, two privately held lots
have been identified as potential locations for fuhue parking: the Fatter property and the lot between the Days Inn and the Comfort Inn. Negotiations with landowners will be required
to move either of these proposals forward. Both properties are adjacent to the project site, could accommodate forty tO fifty cars and easily tie into proposed trail improvements. Zone
2-Site Improvements from the RFTA Bridge to the Confluence: Improvements in this portion of the study area are limited in nature. Much of the property is in private ownership and vegetation,
particularly along the south bank, creates ideal fish habitat. The Gateway project will benefit from pedestrian access and trail constmction that are proposed by RFTA along the railroad
corridor through the river corridor. The trail is not proposed at the river's edge, but it will cross over the Gateway Park corridor and access can easily be provided down by the river.
Connections from the RFTA Bridge to the trail system proposed for Zone I will allow pedestrians to move fi:om the regional trail system to the river corridor. 19
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Vegetation along the north bank is degraded in some areas and weed management and revegetation are advised to improve the quality and conditions
of these banks. This is especially tme of the areas where Tamarisk has taken hold. Prompt action should be initiated to eradicate this invasive species before it overtakes the river
corridor. Zone 3 ~ Site Improvements at the Confluence of the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers: Parking & Access: Parking and access to Zone 3 must be addressed as a first step to other
proposed improvements to the river corridor. County Road 106 does not offer sufficient access to the confluence and neighbors have expressed reservations about increased traffic on this
road. The ideal scenario would be to obtain a dedicated easement from CRMS through their property on the top of the south river bank for a road from the Pink Bridge to a proposed parking
lot just above the confluence of the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers. Slalom Course: Local slalom boaters in the area have traditionally used the existing slalom course at the confluence
of the Crystal and Roaring Fork rivers. The confluence has several advantages. In terms of flow, gradient, depth and depth of flow. and variety this site is ideal for development as
a slalom-training course. Existing features could be enhanced to provide a slalom course that would be ideal for local racing and training. The site has common ownership on both riverbanks
and permission has been generously granted for gates and wires for suspending the gates. The Kennedy family has expressed strong interest in allowing public access to the confluence
area of the rivers as well as suppmt and interest in whitewater features and a slalom course. The Kennedy property encompasses both riverbanks, crosses the railroad right-of-way and
has approximately 40ft. of frontage on County Rd. 106. This important characteristic offers an opportunity for in-stream improvements that contact both riverbanks and the connections
to the two public rights-of-way offer access opportunities. The steep terrain and irrigation ditches near the county road present some engineering challenges at this location. It has
been suggested that slalom improvements and a whitewater feah1re be extended upstream into the Crystal River. Such a design has the advantage of not impacting existing traffic on the
Roaring Fork and that it provides balance to the improvements with respect to the separate drainages. A whitewater feature in the Crystal River channel would serve as a "flow and control
feature" that would allow the Town to pursue a recreation water right on the Crystal as well as the Roaring Fork River. Simultaneous pursuit of a recreation water right on both rivers
may minimize competing water interests in these two corridors that are linked by irrigation water flows. The disadvantage of placing a kayak park on the Crystal River is the short flow
period suitable for playboating use. Improvements at this site are designed to accentuate the features that are natural to this reach. The intention of these improvements is to provide
a better training and racing facility without creating difficulties for passing fishing traffic to navigate this section. Improvements include flow control U-drops that direct less agile
craft down an unimpeded central chute while accelerating and focusing the water. Also included are deeper and more defined eddies as well as features designed to direct and focus the
flow throughout this reach. Advantages such as the river junction and the significant amount of drop feahtred at the top of the course will make this slalom venue unique. These improvements
will provide an ideal training and racing facility for slalom boaters. Stakeholders from the angling community and the Division of Wildlife have offered feedback on the slalom course
gate design. They have suggested that the gates be removable and wires upon which the gates are hung be installed high enough so that they do not interfere with casting by fishennen.
Design of slalom gates support stmctures should incorporate removable poles held by permanent in-ground sleeves. This would allow removal of the gate support stmctures during periods
of nonuse. 20
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Salida Whitewater Park slalom course during the annual FJBArk Whitewater Festival 2 1
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Economic Impact Analysis Introduction: The primary benefit of Gateway Park should be considered from the perspective of a connection to the river
conidor, preservation of open space, trail access connections and a park setting unique in the Carbondale community. Determining the economic benefit of such improvements is more art
than science. That said, economic benefit to the Town would come in two forms. First, enhancements to Carbondale's entrance are intended to draw visitors off of Highway 82 into the heart
of Carbondale. A survey of tourist related businesses on other scenic byways in Colorado have estimated community sales increase as much as 10% as a result of the associated vehicular
traffic.2 Secondly, the addition of whitewater drop stmctures at selected locations within Gateway Park will add to the diversity of uses in this section of the river corridor. Whitewater
drop stmctures are most frequently used by 11park and play'' freestyle kayakers but are also used by swimmers and fishennen during petiods of lower river flows. Whitewater drop stmctures
will draw kayakers to Gateway Park for recreational boating and present an oppmtunity for freestyle kayaking competitions. Recreational and competitive freestyle kayaking has been shown
to generate a direct economic benefit to those communities with whitewater parks. This section of the report will analyze the economic benefits associated with whitewater kayak features
in Gateway Park. This analysis is based upon a review of infom1ation available on kayaking in Colorado and more specifically in the Colorado and Roaring Fork River drainages as well
as projections of data where detailed information does not exist. The infom1ation provided focuses on the additional economic benefit derived from introducing a new use on the river
corridor, namely kayaking. Carbondale already enjoys direct economic benefits from commercial and recreational fishing on the river. Data specific to annual angler visitor days on the
Roaring Fork River are not avai1able but an estimate of 34,248 visitor days was made for the Ftyingpan River in 2002. 86% of these visitors were anglers and the remaining 14% participated
in activities including: picnicking, playing with dogs, walking, sitting next to the river and watching fishem1en. It is estimated that direct expenditures made by visitors to the Fryingpan
Valley equal $2,755,532 annually.3 The Red Hill trail system has also been an important draw for the Town with a current annual user-day count of over 25,0004. Approximately 75% of the
users are from the Carbondale area and 25% are from other locations in the Roaring Fork Valley and points beyond.5 With a direct off-highway connection to the Red Hill trail system as
proposed in the conceptual plan for Gateway Park, this number should be expected to rise as a result of improved access. Metltodo/ogy: This analysis was prepared utilizing information
from similar studies completed in the State of Colorado, a search of literature sources on the Intemet, interviews with area expetts including river outfitters and equipment retailers
and user data collected by the US Forest Service in Glenwood Canyon on the Colorado River. Kayak user day data collected from the US Forest Service for the months of June and July and
August was adjusted and projected for the remainder of the year to establish monthly and annual user-days. Three categories of kayakers were established: local day users, non-local day
users and non-local ovemight users. Each classification was assigned a daily value of expenditures in the following categories. as they were applicable: lodging, meals, fuel and miscellaneous.
Each of the user categories was allocated as a percentage of all users. For example, 60% of users were considered local day users, 20% were non-local day users and the remaining 20%
were non-local ovemight users. The breakdown of these categories was 2 Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways, Economic Impact Study Interim Report. (1996). John Sem, Patrick. 3 Ftyingpan
Valley Economic Study. June I, 2002. Kristine Crandall-Roaring Fork Conservancy. -t Red I I ill Council trail counts-June 2003. 'Red II ill User Survey-1997. 22
) Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report verified for accuracy through discussions with area kayakers and local reta ilers. The US Forest Se1vice and other data collection agencies do
not collect infonnation about the origination of kayakers. All estimates of use and resulting revenues for the Carbondale facility were intentionally conservative to avoid inflated and
overly optimistic results. It was also assumed that the Carbondale whitewater park use would increase over a period of five years as kayakers became more familiar with the faci lities.
It is probable with the use of the Intemet and instant availability of river flow conditions from kayak web sites that the number of user days will increase rapidly in the fi rst year
or two as information is available about the quality of the water park. Estimates of use: Table I is a summary of kayak user days obtained form the Shoshone Powerplant put in at Glenwood
Canyon, Colorado. US Forest Service employees collect this data dai ly on site during the months of July and August. In 2003, information was collected in June. Table 1 Daily Count -Actual
Use Rep orts-2001 to 2003 Data Source: The U.S. Forest Service Count at Shoshone Powerplant Date July 2001 August 2001 July 2002 August 2002 June 2003 # of Days Kayakers in Count per
Day 31 59 31 31 31 13 50 52 38 73 Kayakers per Month 1,828 1,546 1,620 1,164 947 Table 2 is a projection of average user days per month for Shoshone, Colorado based upon data collected
between July 2001 and June 2003. User days for months outside of the data collection period were projected based upon a correlation between boaters per day and river flows and communications
with kayakers famil iar with this section of river.6 Table 2 A ''K· Kay:ak/M o . S hoshone. Colora do I.XOO l.MIO 1.4(10 1.!00 g I.I'IMI < 3 l "' !<CHI ,.o ... ~0 (1 6 The 13eneficial
Value of Waters Diverted in the Blue River for the Breckenridge Whitewater Park and in Gore Creek for the Vail Whitewater Park. January 30, 2003. 13y Robe11 Raucher. John Wittcomb, Tom
Ottem. Communications with Mike I Iarvey and river experts. 23
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Table 3 depicts monthly kayak use at the Carbondale Gateway Park and increases over a five-year timeframe. The usage graph cmTelates with numbers
for Shoshone, Colorado with the exception that September and October user days do not decline as rapidly as the figures for the same months in Shoshone. Lower September and October water
levels in Shoshone do not offer good play boat conditions. Water levels during the same months in the Roaring Fork River in a properly designed water feature will continue to offer excellent
play boating opportunities. Therefore, it is assumed that user days will drop more slowly during these months when daytime temperatures provide favorable boating conditions. 1,600 -1,400
!,200 ~ l ,000 , ~ ~· >00 0 • 600 ~ 400 Tnblc 3 Projected Carbondale Waterpark Use Per Month With 5 Year Increase Month Economic Benefits from Kayak Pal'k: --+--Carbondak/Kayuk/Momh((t:so%
-• · Carbondalc/KayaktMonth(a,60"·· · · *--Carbondalc/Kayak/Month(i!:-70% --+-Carbomlalc:Kayak!Month(!~RO% -ll-Ca~bonda_lcfK~y~k/Mon~h~90~ Table 4 details the anticipated daily expenditures
by kayakers in each of the three major categories. The percent distribution of each user category was estimated from communications with the local kayak retailer and a river outfitter.
7 Capture of expenditures by kayakers will be largely dependent upon convenience and marketing by local merchants. The proximity of lodging to the Gateway Park is a distinct advantage
for the ovemight user. Local motels can offer packages and other incentives such as meal discount certificates and other promotions to capture the disposable dollars from the park users.
Choice of location for fuel purchases will also be largely dependent upon convenience. The Carbondale Economic Development Council and Chamber of Commerce should develop a strategy to
capitalize on the kayak user base to optimize the economic benefits to the community. Proximity of the whitewater park to downtown Carbondale when compared to the facilities in Salida,
Colorado or Vail, Colorado is less advantageous for miscellaneous purchases. The Whitewater Park in Golden, Colorado draws in excess of 15,000 kayakers a year and generates an economic
benefit between $1 and $2 million per year.' The FlBARK Whitewater Festival in Salida, Colorado is the oldest and bestknown kayak Festival in Colorado. Other Colorado whitewater parks
have been constructed in Steamboat Springs, Gunnison, Durango, Vail, Boulder, and Breckenridge to name but a few. These communities have embraced the benefits of the parks from an economic
as well as community enhancement perspective. 7 Colorado Canoe and Kayak and Rock Gardens Rafting. x The Christian Science Monitor. June 23, 2003. 24
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report While this park is not in the downtown of Carbondale, the Town has the benefit of the three motels, restaurants, convenience food and fuel sales
immediately adjacent to Gateway Park. This anangement presents a number of opportunities for economic retum to the community. This is particularly tme with convenient overnight lodging.
Every additional day a park user stays in Carbondale generates a multiplier economic benefit. It should also be noted that the variety of opporhmities in Gateway Park for visitors is
an additional draw and can result in extra revenues. It is very likely that there are substantial crossovers in recreational activities by park users. For example, many anglers are also
kayakers and/or mountain bikers. The proximity to 3,000 acres of excellent hiking/biking trails on Red Hill or excellent fishing in the Roaring Fork River expands the opportunities for
visitors and therefore the economic benefit potential to Carbondale. Table 4 Visitor Re1•enue Calculations %of Use Lodg;,1g Meals Fuel Misc. Totals 300 +round-trip mileage (overnight
stay) 20% 590 $40 $27 $20 $177 100 -<300 round-trip mileage (daytrip) 20% $0 $28 $9 SIO S47 < I 00 Mile Round-trip (local user) 60% $0 $10 $5 $5 $20 Table 5 shows the potential annual
gross revenue generation available from water park users based upon the daily expenditure total shown in Table 4 and the user days from Table 3. These figures reflect the increase in
user days over time as a percentage of user days per month projected from the figures in Table 3. This table does not include benefits derived from promoted events or kayak competitions,
events on Red II ill or angling events. Table 5 Annual Gross Generated Revenues OJ'ernight Daytrip Local User Totals Year I $161,739 $42,948 $54,827 $259,514 Year 2 $194,087 $51,537
$65,792 $311,416 Year 3 $226,435 $60,127 $76,758 $363,319 Year 4 $258,783 $68,716 $87,723 $415,222 Year 5 $291,131 $77,306 $98,688 $467,125 Eco1wmic opportunities: Other economic opportunities
are created as a result of the constmction of Gateway Park. Easy access to fishing will encourage families to stay in hotels; signage will draw people downtown from the Gateway Park.
Colorado Rocky Mountain School hosts their annual kayak races on the Ciystal River. In 2003, the freestyle competition was held in Glenwood Canyon on the Shoshone rapid as a result of
low flows on the Crystal River. A whitewater park at the entrance to Carbondale provides an opportunity for a large group of competitors and spectators to stay in Carbondale. A world-class
whitewater park and slalom course on the Roaring Fork and Crystal Rivers would establish a venue that could support statewide or national level competitions. The annual FIBARK Festival
in Salida, Colorado draws thousands of visitors to that community with an event that rivals the Carbondale Mountain Fair. The combination of activities available in Gateway Park could
also generate demand for new or expanded existing retail businesses providing kayak and accessory sales, tubing rentals, bike sales and rentals, fishing equipment sales and similar opportunities.
Shoulder season events in the spring and fall could help provide economic activity in Carbondale during traditionally slow periods. In the spring during runoff, high water clouds the
river with sediment that results in poor fishing conditions. This would be an excellent time to host kayak events or competitions and would minimize conflicts with the angling community.
Similarly, a fall event could be held in conjunction with Carbondale Potato Day in October. 25
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Conclusions: Carbondale Gateway Park is an opportunity to connect Carbondale with their rivers. A variety of activities offered by the park provide
locals and visitors with a greater diversity of activities. This diversity of use will serve to draw and retain visitors to Carbondale and can result in benefits to the local economy.
Although the Gateway Park is not immediately adjacent to Carbondale's downtown, the park design will serve to benefit Carbondale's lodging industry and business community that exists
immediately adjacent to the site. The existing commercial and recreation fishing activities and the immediate proximity of hiking and biking trails systems on Red Hill already benefit
the Town's economy. The potential for economic benefits derived from recreational and competitive kayaking at Gateway Park will add to the economic benefits of the site. Most importantly,
Gateway Park offers a unique and creative park setting for Carbondale residents that is in keeping with identified community values. The community benefits provided by parks and open
space are often difficult to quantify but they serve to improve the quality of life for Carbondale residents and visitors alike. The added benefits of economic return from Gateway Park
serve to increase the incentives to complete the project. 26
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Project Phasing I Threshold Issues I Costs: Purpose of Phasing: Because of the size and potential costs of buildout of the entire Gateway Park project,
it is necessary to develop realistic phasing. Phasing will allow the Town to break the improvements down into more manageable portions, and to take action to see physical results in
the short-tenn. For the project to be successful, it is important that the Town maintain the momentum generated during the feasibility study portion of the project. Connecting the community
to the river in Phase I will generate additional excitement for completing subsequent phases, and moving the project to completion. A map of the proposed phasing is located in Appendix
4. Cost Estimating: Conceptual level costs have been provided. As the project design is refined, the costs should be revisited. Costs assume that all materials and labor are provided
at standard conshl.!Ction costs. Partnering, donations, and volunteer efforts could significantly reduce some portions of the constmction costs. In addition to the costs for project
implementation, design, engineering, survey, geotechnical, pennitting, and construction management fees will need to be considered; generally, these fees could run from 7%-12% of the
consh1.1ction budget. All costs have been calculated based on 2003 standards. As phasing of the project is implemented, an inflation factor should be included. Property acquisition costs
are particularly difficult to detennine as there are a wide range of considerations during any land negotiations. ZONE! PHASE I Phase I threshold issues: The completion of the proposed
Phase I improvements requires successful land and/or easement negotiations in order to move forward. The full build-out of the prefetTed alternative requires the purchase/long tenn lease
of the lot between the Days Inn & the Comfort Inn or the Fatter property to provide appropriate, close in parking. Also required are successful negotiations with the DOW, the Gianinetti
family, the Soderberg family, and COOT. The minimum required property negotiations involve one of the two parking parcels and use of the COOT right-of-way; this would allow for river
level improvements in the highway right-of-way and parking access on one of the privately owned lots. Phase I improvements: •Acquire lot between Days and Comfort Inns or Fatter Property
•Acquire abutment parcel ofGianinetti property •Acquire Soderberg property Opinion of cost ofproper01 acquisiNons: $500.000-700.000 •Asphalt parking lot • Restroom facility •New trails
•Two trailhead signs •Improve existing trail • Pedestrian bridge •Two whitewater features •Bank stabilization and terracing • Landscaping Opinion of cost o(proposed Phase I improrements:
$350.000-$500,000 Phase I alternatives/substitutions: •Welcome kiosk •Uncover box culvert under I lwy 82 •Improve Red II ill lot •Construct new lot north of 82 •Parallel parking on Cowen
Drive (line painting) 27
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report PHASE II Phase II threshold issues: The completion of Phase II requires procurement of access west along the river bank slope of the Fatter property
(if access was not obtained in Phase 1), and negotiations with DOW and RFTA to place trails on their properties/license holdings. Phase II improvements: •At-grade trail •Above-grade
trail •Signage Opinion of cost ofproposed Phase II imurovements: $90.000-$140.000 Phase II alternatives/substitutions •Assume management of DOW license •Reconfigured DOW parking •Restroom
facility@DOW parking •Move/new boat ramp downstream • Landscaping •(Acquisition or management of the RV lot has not been included in the phasing and cost because of the magnitude of
that arrangement. Certainly, that property offers significant benefit to the project and the Town.) Opinion o{cost ofproposed Phase II alternate improvements: $75.000-$125.000 ZONE2
Proposed improvements in this area are limited to signage at the north side of the Pink Bridge. The signage will include "No Parking-Drop-off Zone," and "Pack it In; Pack it Out." The
costs of these improvements are nominal. Zone 2 also includes improvements to be completed by others, including trail improvements in the RFT A corridor, and noxious/invasive weed eradication
and revegetation. ZONE3 PHASE lli Phase lli threshold issues: Phase III improvements are dependent on partnerships with CRMS and the Kennedy family. The CRMS property provides an opportunity
for site access, parking, and river-level circulation, while the Kennedy property provides an opportunity for an enhanced whitewater sport venue and additional river-level circulation.
Costs assume that CRMS would provide a dedicated easement along the south bank in exchange for improvements to be funded and managed by the Town. A similar arrangement is assumed for
the Kennedy property. Phase Ill improvements: •Access road •Fencing • Parking lot •Boathouse • Restroom facility •Signage •Trails •Slalom improvements •Viewing/judging platforms Oph1ion
of cost o[proposed Phase 11! improrements: $375.000-$450.000 28
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Funding Options: Similar projects throughout the State have been funded in a variety of ways. Municipalities often pay for the projects as a capital
improvement project and budget the money appropriately. Smaller projects are often the work of active local citizens groups and non-profits that undertake grassroots fundraising campaigns.
A combination of the two is often used. Some communities have identified Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) as a potential funding source for these types of recreational improvements. The
Towns of Lyons and The City of Salida have received Local Government Grants for the construction of their recently completed whitewater parks. These were the first grant awards from
GOCO for the constmction of whitewater parks. The Local Govenu11ent Grant funds projects on a matching basis where communities are required to supply a minimum of 30% of the project
cost. This category of grant has a $150,000 maximum request. Legacy Grants, a larger pool of GOCO funding which funds projects that encompass multiple facets of GOCO's mission, may also
be an appropriate funding source for this project and have a larger maximum request. Partnerships with other regional and state organizations such as Aspen Valley Land Tmst (AVLT), Division
of Wildlife (DOW), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado (VOC), and Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers (RFOV) should be explored as methods of procuring
additional funding and reducing costs via volunteerism and materials donations. Implementation: Prior to any construction, final design will need to be completed in order to provide
details regarding all aspects of the project. To date, only conceptual level design has been completed. The first step in implementation of the in-stream improvements pm1ion of this
concephtal plan is the submittal of an Anny Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Pem1it Application. The Am1y Corps of Engineers has pennitted several similar projects in the Roaring Fork
upstream of the project site and, while this process should not present a major hurdle, it is recommended that six months be allowed for processing this pennit application. Timing, with
regards to water flows, is a critical element when considering the construction of in-stream stmctures. Late summer into the fall will present the best opporhmity to work within the
channel due to the expense of large-scale water control efforts. This time is also ideal with respect to fish spawning habits. Recreationalln-c/lannel Diversion (RICD) water right: Any
discussion of RICO rights for the Roaring Fork River should be pursued in concert with an understanding of potential impacts to water rights for the Crystal River. The intent of this
project is to not negatively impact water flows or quality in the C!ystal. That said, structures used in this design are similar to those that have qualified in Golden, Breckenridge,
and Vail under the RICO rules for an in-stream water right. This process includes identification of flows that represent a "reasonable" recreational experience on the Roaring Fork River.
These flows will need to be identified through public input and then incorporated into the final design of all in-stream structures. Part of the final design and planning process includes
input from the paddling community on what purposes the in-stream portion of this project will serve. These can include which user groups, what type and size of events, and what types
of anticipated uses for the \Vhitewater Park the Town envisions. From these combined processes a flow that represents a "reasonable" experience can be identified. Final design of the
in-stream stmctures will need to be tailored such that the amount of flow "controlled" by any fuh1re instream stmctures will match this recommended flow. All of these requirements are
a necessary part of the final design process to meet the RICD requirement that the course efficiently captures, controls, and puts to good use the flows necessary for a recreational
amenity. A discussion of the strategic advantages and disadvantages of pursuing such a water right filing should be undertaken with the town water attorney and other water law experts.
The purpose of this portion of the plan is not to offer a legal opinion of the RICD mles and their potential use in Carbondale; but rather to describe this pat1icular in-stream flow
preservation option. 29
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Conclusion: The proposed project represents a unique opportunity for the Town of Carbondale to display its commitment to its values, community, the
environment, and healthy, active, outdoor living. River bank and trail improvements along the project area will enhance access and bring the community to the banks of the Roaring Fork
for paddling, swimming, fishing, jogging and leisurely strolls. The combination of year round flow, a mild climate, and unique community provide an ideal venue for a park that invites
everyone from world-class athletes to nature enthusiasts to enjoy Carbondale's unsurpassed hospitality. The Roaring Fork River as it flows through Carbondale offers the opportunity for
development of one of the premier whitewater park and shared river based recreation COITidors in the United States. The proposed design includes in-stream whitewater improvements that
will provide accessible novice to elite level river recreation within a minute's walk of local hotels. This project has the potential to provide recreational amenities for all at the
entry to Town -a fitting gateway to Carbondale. Blue River Whitewater Park, Breckenridge, Colorado 30
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Appendix 1. Stakeholder Comments Stakeholder Comments by Category Interests Access to electric and telephone with Intemet access. Access, fishing,
fish habitat, volume of traffic (cars & people), maintaining a natural appearance, parking, maintaining a wildemess appearance, water quality (maintain or improve), trails, sharing the
river con·idor among users, trail connection to Red HilL Access. Access. Accommodating users and providing access to multiple use. Activities in the floodplain. Adjacent nonpublic lands.
Adjoining property owner. Am1y Corps of Engineers. BLM public lands & Red IIi!!. Carbondale invades his space and minds his business. COOT interchange Circulation at the intersection
-over the highway/under the highway etc. not a surface crossing. Concerns about a trail on the RR corridor. Connecting the Carbondale trail system to the Red llill trails system. Construct
riverfront trails where they allow. Damage to Pink Bridge abutments. Develop projects in Carbondale that bring in new people and dollars to improve the Carbondale economy. Does not feel
public use and private use mix. Dollars for maintenance & upkeep should be provided for by the town because RFTA funding is limited. Education about the wastewater treatment plant operation.
Education is needed on an individual level. Education. Fishing & access. Fishing is good along the south bank of the Roaring Fork River. GOCO funding review agency. How all parts of
the project will link together-Red llill etc ... llow the proposed park impacts the rest of his property and future considerations on his property. Immersion exposure to wastewater treatment
plant effluent. Impact of new regulations under I Iomeland Security Act. Impact of public use (RR corridor or waterpark) on private property. Interchange issues & Com1ty discussions.
Interest in a possible environmental Ranger for the park that could educate and enforce. 31
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Kayak park to improve commerce. Keep as much water in the river is possible. Keep the rail corridor or available for light rail options. Liability.
Lighting. Neighbor's reaction. No motorized use. Not interested in public use of the property while he owns it. Parking is possible but needs to be investigated. Parking. Patticipation
in the process. Pedestrian & bike access on the bridge only -non-motorized use. Pedestrian access to town. Pink Bridge on both sides -parking is a problem -too many cars. Pink Bridge.
Pink Bridge. Possible pem1itting. Preservation of the pink bridge. Preserve and protect valleys rivers-Roaring Fork watershed Private property rights. Public restrooms with lift station
(on Cowan Center open space). Purchase the RV Park Question-does COOT have all the land it needs for the intersection at 82 and 133? Red II ill access at underpass -several issues: ADA,
does not meet trail requirements, location is a question. Red Hill PUD ownership & future development of that property. (The parcel is currently on the market.) River use etiquette-the
Conservancy has an existing use etiquette. Roaring Fork and Crystal rivers. RR corridor bike/pedestrian path Save the pink bridge or eliminate the bridge and put in a pedestrian bridge.
Slalom course near the Kennedy property with eddies and smaller features in between for beginners and fishermen. Slalom pole locations and a workable gate system. Stadium seating in
the event area & judging platforms. Construct similar features in the slalom course area. The Conservancy has an information packet available. The Conservancy represents various stakeholder
interests: fishem1en, rafters, kayakers, teachers & educators. The county doesn't care about the section of the road -is a County Rd. but they do not maintain it. The current County
blockage of the bridge is ugly. Trails and pedestrian access. Trails on the railroad right-of-way. Trails with security for the plant. 32
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Trails. Use of Railroad corridor for transit while preserving wildlife and environmental issues. Use of the box culvert "probably is not going to
be allowed". It does not meet code requirements. Previously worked as an unofficial access. The engineering department probably will not support use. Opening the box culvert will be
a "political decision". Use subject to existing rules and regulations. Uses of property involving public facilities. Very supportive of the Project. What is BLM1s role with this project?
-Funding, meetings, other? Whitewater events/Rodeo feature under the pedestrian bridge. Whitewater Park. Would like boaters to be able to bike to the site easily. Would like to see more
water in the Crystal River. Would like to see the river used for recreation. Would sell the entire ranch to the town if it is kept in open space or land trust. 33
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Concerns 133 Bridge must accommodate access under the bridge in east and west directions on both banks. CDOT supports this access. A water park may
hurt the fishing-fish migrate between the river and their ponds. Access & safety on the county road and crossing Highway 82 at Highway 133. Access to Red Hill. Access to the Soderberg
property is not good. There is not accident infonnation for that access at this point. Address the issue of boat ramps. All uses of the Railroad conidor are subject to approval by his
board of directors. Alternative access to the trail system other than the 133 bridge. Alternative crossings will be considered including an elevated crossing. Bridge alignment is a driving
force. The preferred expansion is to the east (upstream) of the existing 133 bridge. Bridge and intersection design need to be coordinated with the Project. Carbondale could talk to
D. 0. W. about joint management arrangements on the Koziel property. COOT supports a pedestrian crossing on the old (133) bridge abutments. CDOT will be available to discuss the issue
of a pedestrian btidge. Note of caution -if the pedestrian bridge is built & property is acquired, there is an issue with getting to the parking lot on the north side of I lighway 82.
The box culve11 is not acceptable to the COOT staff. The town will need a "good sales pitch". Charlie Moore would consider event specific access but not continuous access through his
private property. Clearly identify trails, access points using minimal signage, use maps, prevent social trails & trail braids. Concern about bringing people to the area adjacent to
the plant and having them complain about smells etc. the town would like to be proactive on this issue (education). Concerned about impacts (trespassing) to fishing ponds. Concerned
about more user impact at the intersection and use of the trail system. Conduct a fish habitat study for purposes of making a better river. Conflicts between kayakers & fishermen. Crane
& Peebles ditch by the old bridge abutment and the Glenwood ditch downstream. CRMS sewer ponds for school use & nonschool access. D. 0. W. has a preference to see the Crystal used for
kayaking instead of the Roaring Fork River. D. 0. W. has concerns about their ownership on the north river bank, use license on the RV Park property and the easement on the Gianinetti
property. D. 0. W. is not against a white water feature but is concemed about how such a feahtre may impact fishermen. D. 0. W. ownership along the river is pretty useless. Design of
water feahtres must not result in an increase in habitat for the whirling disease worm. Diamond design will have signals or rotaries or other control mechanisms. I Iighway 82 will allow
for free flow of traffic. Direction from the public on quality of discharge of the plant and funding for quality of discharge. Dogs -access for leashed animals. Dogs are covered in the
regulations. 34
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Encroachment of pedestrians on CRMS campus (main campus). Existing condition of the Pink Bridge for pedestrian access. Expansion of the use in the
river corridor can cause conflicts. Feels invaded. Fishermen on D. 0. W. property are a priority in a conflict situation. Fix vegetation on North riverbank. North riverbank includes
all of the noxious weeds listed on the states noxious weed list. There is also a patch of Tamarisk on North riverbank. Fuhtre of the intersection and how it affects access to Red Hill
and other areas. Habitat improvement-a limiting factor analysis should be perfonned first to detennine factors related to habitat improvement. Handicap access. He is neutral on the question
of access on his property with the qualification that his "instinct is to say "no" on access but would give it some thought". He would like to keep the propetty as natural as possible.
Highway 82 Crossing will be grade separated. Highway/vehicle grade separated access at, below or above the highway -there is a preference to below or above grade access. How can this
project restrict users to the south half of the river (adjacent to the Cowan open space with reference to a water feature at the old 133 Bridge abutment) to minimize conflicts? !I ow
would activity affect birds and wildlife? llow would liability work? I low would the town get folks from out of town in to the park? If the parking at the base of Red I Jill is eliminated
because of the intersection reconstmction, it should be replaced with in town safe and easy access to the parking lot. Impact of use ofCRMS property on the lease with Mark Nieslanik.
Impacts to their property upstream & fishing. Impacts to their property values. Information kiosk on the Soderberg property is a poor location. In-stream & riparian impacts/preserving
the natural habitat. It is important to address parking. Kayak courses with grouted rocks -isolate the grouted areas from live water until the grout cures. The fresh grout is very toxic.
Koziel use license is a more difficult issue because there are non-fishennen using the site. Liability. Liability. Loss of parking in the lot Red II ill had constmcted for recreational
use. Maintaining privacy and propetty security. Natural appearance. New bridge will accommodate pedestrians and could include a pedestrian way to at grade. Pedestrians will be addressed.
No parking should be allowed or the County Rd. ends at the bridge Parking. 35
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Parking. Pedestrian access is OK. Plant security. Preservation of privacy. Provide adequate parking in town on a site near the river. Public acceptance
of the plant and its function. Purchase the property at the base of Red Hill. Purchase the RV Park property. Pursue in stream flow filings on the Roaring Fork and the Crystal River.
Railroad Bridge and irrigation ditch. Respect for private propetty owners. Restrooms for users. Rule enforcement. Sediment load -riparian areas served a filtering function. Talk with
Ditch Company about impact on the irrigation ditch (with regard to construction of a white water feature under the Pink Bridge). The confluence of the two rivers is outside of the COOT
concem area. The design of the new 133 bridge should address appearance and functionality. The effluent from the wastewater treatment plant must be adequately diluted before it flows
into a kayak park where regular full immersion of a kayaker occurs. The existing bridge is still solid. The impact of shared uses The project is a good idea. The Roaring Fork is a freestone
river-root mass retains the holding habitat in the river. (Recommended book called "better trout habitat" by Chris J. lltmter). The Soderberg access permit allows for 10 vehicle trips
per day. The town (community members) will have to identify the issues for the plant and the level of service at which the plant should operate (quality of discharge). The volume of
people is a big problem. There is limited land for plant and future plant expansion as well as changes in regulations that may affect the need to expand the plant. They own to the old
(133) roadway. Trailhead access. Trails and riparian areas-potential conflicts & impacts. Trespass -people crossing the property to access the river. Trespass-users should ask permission
to cross the property. Trespass on adjoining private property. Use of the trestle to get in and out of the river. There is a good fishing hole under the bridge. User impacts on Red II
ill. Users of this area are very inconsiderate-they leave behind trash, excrement and park in a manner that blocks his access. 36
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Water feature impacts-whirling disease (stmctures that trap sediment can cause problems). Whirling disease is very important as an issue for D. 0.
W. Water quality. Waterpark events at the confluence in excess of 1000 people would require unifom1 traffic control. Events specific requirements would be determined by Dan Russen in
the access manager out of Grand Junction. As long as through traffic is not impacted CDOT is not concemed. What will become of the Red Hill parking lot? Where will the trails go? Will
non-locals have a perception that the wastewater plant is bad? Would like to see the project incorporate rehabilitation of the bridge. 37
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Mitigation Absolute control on south river bank -leave the trees and bushes alone; shade is an important factor. Access is needed to the propetty
(Kennedy) across the river. Complete a fisheries study to analyze the cun·ent baseline and evaluates how the fishery could be improved. Construct a pedestrian underpass under Highway
82 that is a safe crossing. Construct trails at River level to keep users off campus. Construction of the water feah1re upstream of the plant discharge. D. 0. W. might be interested
in a joint management of the property is Carbondale wanted to manage the property for all uses including fishing. Do not fence the railroad conidor. DOW is completing a river user survey.
Downstream separation of the kayak feature from a plant effluent to allow for mixing. Enhance the fishing habitat and "make it happen". Ensure a carefully thought-out planning effort.
Evaluate the best way of sharing uses -consider designated areas for kayaking only to minimize conflict. Fencing a long RR corridor. Fencing does not work nor does signage. Ideas will
emerge as topics are developed. Installation of an effluent diffusion piping system in the river to disperse discharge. Is Carbondale interested in purchasing the Koziel use license?
Keep signage minimal but effective. Keep the area natural Keep the project high-quality to avoid having to mitigate. Locate parking and parking improvements in a manner that minimizes
an artificial appearance. Maintain nah1rallandscaping. Make the trail decent. Minimize signage. Mitigate impacts with signage & fencing -constmct a fence & gate at the old bridge abutment
on his property. Money for bridge rehabilitation. Not specifically interested in fencing but possibly fencing might work. Fencing would take the property out of a natural condition.
Prevent trespass by having a good trail route down the river with access points for fishing, watching kayakers etc .. Signs may not work to protect the property. Slalom course-keep the
wires high above the river to avoid conflicts with casting, maintain spacing between the gate wires. The Division of Wildlife has left a bad taste with regard to enforcement. The license
is renewable and is not secure. The north river bank-it is difficult to improve the existing habitat. The railroad corridor is OK for purposes of a trail. 38
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report The south river bank-protect the trees that are there (wrap and protect the trees from beavers). The study area boundary should be pulled back to
the point where their creek enters the river. There has been an increase of trespassing and problems since the motels were constmcted. They are concerned about impacts to their fish
by trespassing fishermen. They do not know how to best protect their property (e.g. fencing, signage, enforcement). Upgrade the effluent discharge quality at the plant. Willing to have
fishing access at the high watennark on the river bank. With regard to trails and access to the river, most of these attributes exist on the opposite side of the river that serves as
a natural barrier. 39
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Acquire the bench at the base of Red Hill. Adequate infrastmcture to support the number of people who use this area -parking etc .. Annex whole park
area including the intersection into the town of Carbondale to allow for policing and land-use control. Bear proof trash containers. Bike path with waysides were people can sit and spend
time. Build the prettiest bridge in the valley and use a toll road to pay for the improvements. A toll pass could be provided. Clearly marked access points. Constmct a bouldering area
as part of the park amenities. Construct a bouldering section along the park area using artificial boulders and constmct climbing holds on the existing concrete walls. Constmct an all
age park with handicapped access, shade, places to sit, water fountains, places to watch activities. Constmct playgrounds & picnic areas. Crystal River-trails and loops to town. Linking
both rivers would be great. Does not want people "wondering inn. Education -educate users about the park, its function and the riparian zone. Education of the users to avoid conflicts.
Enforcement of the mles. Fishing access. Good trash collection. Information kiosks. Innovations in wastewater treatment -elimination of odor. Install signage. Install signs and have
active enforcement. Keep the park minimalist. Keep wild & natural. Law enforcement by the town so that the burden does not fall on private owners. Link the parts together to make a good
public benefit. Linking is vety important. Making information sources available & understanding of options available for treatment. Multiuse area-picnicking, fishing, hiking etc. etc
.. Ongoing maintenance of items constmcted. Park and ride for RFTA. Parking & access-avoid backing people up on Cowan Dr. Parking close by for boaters. Private owners in Sutank. Purchase
of land for parking and users of the Park. Put lights, flags and railings and pedestrian access all on the bridge. 40
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Replacement of the RFTA/carpoollot that used to be located at the site of the Red Hill animal hospital. Restrooms-including changing rooms. Restrooms.
Running potable water. Separate put in and take out to separate the uses. Signs to draw people's attention to all of the previous mentioned concerns. The major emphasis of the project
should be behind the Cowan Center. The project is a good idea. There is public access on the roaring Fork River at the RV Park through DOW license. Toilet facilities. Toilets. Trails
for older people. Trails. Tubing. Weaver ditch-make it an attraction for example a water feature put in an old flume. Well thought out design that benefits as many members of the public
as possible. Wetlands treatment-possible pond. Whitewater features. Would like to see more public use of these facilities than private use. 41
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Access-133/82-need to speak with Karen Rowe, Steve Olson, Dan Russe11. Address conflicts between drift boats and kayaker's and who has the right-of-way.
Carbondale should fix Carbondale first. CDOT will keep price in mind but aesthetics are important as is pedestlian crossing and bicycle crossing. COOT works on funding and scheduling
& Carbondale most likely would purchase (Soderberg) because of timing of funds. Charles Myers is the CDOT traffic engineer dealing with the 133/82 intersection. He is located in Grand
Junction. Concem about shared boat ramp access. Possibly separate the access points between kayakers and fishem1en. Connection to Red Hill. Don't tum the whole stretch of river into
a kayaker section. Floating the river is a "perfect11 use. How will access be provided around all four sides of the 133 bridge? If it is done poorly it will devaluate the lands. If this
project is done properly it will enhance the area. Impacted parties should be consulted and involved. Issue of privacy. Jim Nail is the person to speak with about the number of pedestrian
crossings required to justify a separated crossing. Jim Nall is the person to speak with about timing at the traffic signals for pedestrians. Kayak Park would concentrate users. Keep
COOT involved. Lack of County response on road and bridge maintenance, from the Sheriffs Department etc. Parks & benches. Plant effluent may extend some distance downstream before there
is adequate mixing with the river flows. Private landowners will be a challenge. Red Hill and the parking lot on the north side of Highway 82usage does not currently warrant a grade
separated crossing. COOT would like the town to takeover maintenance of a pedestrian crossing. Shared concept of the river is vety important. Soderberg property is key to COOT and Carbondale.
Submerging the discharge pipe is a way to defuse the plant effluent in the riverbed as opposed to a surface point source discharge. The interchange design needs to accommodate RT A.
The park concept is a good idea. The plant "pukes outn occasionally and this is a reality. I low do we deal with that? The project should detennine how to get water to the north side
of the river for growing trees. The town should incorporate the Crystal River as it is as significant as the Roaring Fork. The town should pursue annexation of the property and the intersection
at 82 & 133. There has been increase in fishennen and boaters. 42
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report This project is a good idea. This region is more sensitive to pedestrians and aesthetics than other regions of the state. Trees and vegetation grow
on the south bank of the river because of existing irrigation. The north side has no trees. Very strong interest in public access to the River corridor and other areas. Viewing platforms.
What are we going to do with parking? (Key issue). What are we going to do with the bridge? Will follow the process as it moves forward. Will investigate how quickly discharge mixes
in river water to levels save for immersion activities and forward infonnation to the town/consultants. Will the users be willing to pay for improvements? Would like to see the park
as a community asset but the upstream properties would be impacted. 43
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Appendix 2. Evaluation of River Flows: Mean of Monthly Streamflows For the Roaring Fork River near Emma, CO 1600 -1400 . 1200 -1000 ' ~ 800 u 600
400 200 0 __ 0_ .D .D., D. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Figure 1. Mean of Month~y Streamflows for the Roaring Fork River near Emma, Colorado (Source: www.usgs.gov) The l lydrograph
for the Roaring Fork near Emma, Colorado shows monthly mean flows for the last five years. The period of record for this data begins in 1998. The data is therefore not representative
of expected average streamflows. llowever, based on comparisons with other gauging stations on the Roaring fork these flows can be used as an indicator of average monthly flows in low
to medium flow years. These flows are more than adequate for year round whitewater performance and navigabi lity. The lowest mean flows over this period are approximately 250 cubic feet/second
(cfs) and the highest approximate ly 1400 cfs. A more in-depth investigation relating flows at the proposed proj ect area with flows of the Roaring Fork in Glenwood Springs (Note: flow
data for an extended period are available for the Roaring Fork at Glenwood Springs, CO) will be required for the detailed design phase. The critical design constraints for the low flow
periods would be navigabi lity for all types of crafts (including drift boats) while input from local whitewater enthusiasts will help to pinpoint critical flow rates for recreational
paddling. As indicated earlier in the report, the proposed project area includes a short reach of the Clystal Rivers. Flowrates in the Crystal River are therefore pertinent to this study.
Figure 2 shows the flowrates in the Clystal River near Redstone, CO: en u.. u Mean of Monthly Streamflows for the Crystal River near Redstone, CO 1400 1200 r-: 1000 ~ 800 600 400 200
0 r= c::J am I jLI{ -,-~L [lliJ [1)---,----CJ_ I:::L 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month 44
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Figure 2. Flowrates in the Clystal River near Redstone, CO Figure 2 shows that there are, largely, insufficient flows in the Crystal to provide for
year round paddling. llowever, all flows will augment the already adequate flowrates in the Roaring Fork. For the months between April and August the contribution from the Crystal will
significantly affect the flowrates in the Roaring Fork. This data suggests that whitewater improvements in the Crystal will provide meaningful recreation for only a portion of the year.
Note that flows in the Crystal River are recorded in Carbondale, however, the period of record is too short to provide meaningful insight into the flows in the Crystal. Preliminary comparisons
for the years of record suggest that the relationship between flows in Redstone and flows in Carbondale is complicated. Detailed design will require investigation into the relationship
between the flows in the Ctystal at Redstone and the flows in the Crystal at Carbondale. Peak streamflows have a s ignificant affect on the final design of in-stream modifications. Figure
3 shows the peak streamflows for the Roaring Fork at Glenwood Springs, CO and the Crystal River at Redstone, CO. Due to the insignificant period of record no meaningful peak streamflow
data can be deduced !Tom flows recorded either on the Roaring Fork at Emma, CO or on the Crystal at Carbondale, CO USGS 09085000 ROARIIIG FORK RIVER AT GLENitOOO SPRINGS, CO. 20000 "0
c: 0 (.) II) en c.. 15000 II) 0.. .&.) II) II) '""' 0 •.-4 10000 .Q ¢ ¢ :I (.) ¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¢¢ ¢ c: •.-4 ¢ ¢ :'J 0 5000 ~ '"a":' II) II) c.. .&.) 1.1"1 0 ¢ ¢¢ ¢ «:> ¢ ¢ <f> 0 ¢ 0 oo 0 0 1910
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1900 OATES: 06/14/1906 to 06/02/2001 Figure 3. Peak Strean!flow data for the Roaring Fork at Glenwood Springs, CO 0 w ¢ 0 1990 ¢ 2000 45
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report USGS 09081600 CRYSTAL RIVER AB AVALANCHE C, HEAR REDSTONE, CO. 4500 0 "cC 4000 0 0 (J Q) 0 t.... 3500 0 Q) Q. 0 ..J 3000 0 ¢ Q) 0 Q) 0 0 0 """ ¢
0 0 ¢ ..(.J. 2500 0 0 .c ¢ 0 :I ¢ 0 0 ¢ (J ¢ 0 0 0 c 2000 0 0 .... ¢ :.) 0 "' ) ' 0 0 <> <:> <~ ~ :J ..0... . 1500 ¢ ¢ ¢ """ .c, 0 0 Q) t.... 1000 ..J (./"j 500 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
1985 1990 1995 2000 DATES: 06/02/1956 to 06/02/2001 Figure 4. Peak streamflow data for the Crystal River near Redstone, CO Figures 3 and 4 reveal that the Roaring Fork has reached a
peak flow of approximately 14,000 cfs in recent history with all 100-year flood events less than 19,000 cfs. The Crystal River's peak flows represent approximately 4,000 cfs of the total
flow. Modifications at the Highway 133 site can expect flows of less than 15,000 and modifications at the Slalom Site can expect flows of less than 19,000 during significant flood events.
Tributaries that contribute to the Roaring Fork downstream of the Slalom Site are Cattle Creek, Three-mile Creek and Four-mile Creek. 46
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Appendix 3. Design of In-Stream Structures One primary feature for use in flow control and the creation of whitewater features is the "U"-structure.
These types of structures are placed across the width of the channel, and anchored into the banks and stream-bed. The construction of a portion of this structure is shown in Figure I
. This feature is used to create a river wide "drop" and can be used to constrict lower flows to increase the velocity and power of the water. "U" drops are designed to have a " low
flow" area, "high flow" area, stepped wing for flood flows and spectator seating at the normal range of flows. These types of structures are built with a slope between 8: 1-10: I that
provide concentrated flow, the creation of a wave-form and a self-scouring plunge pool located below the structure. The crest of these structures is placed at or below the existing channel
invert in order to prevent impact on the 1 00-year floodplain. The structure also features elevated wings that are positioned along both riverbanks. These wings provide an eddy for easy
recirculation to the wave. These types of structures are intended to be navigable for a wide variety of river craft, including drift boats, at a wide range of flows, while simultaneously
providing "play-boating" and surfing opp011unities at the ir base. "U" drops are designed to be passable by fish species and provide critical aquatic habitat through the creation and
maintenance of the plunge pools. Figure 1. A top view of a 3-D computer model of a U-structure demonstrates its arched design. This structure is very stable and will accommodate high
volume/high velocity flows. The structure features an arched shape laid in the plane defined by the riverbed with its footing sunk into the riverbank, as shown in Figure I, to bear these
loads. The arch is a classic support structure that dates back to Roman c ivilization. This structure has two properties that make it desirable for in-stream use. The first is that it
is extremely strong and stable. This structure can sustain very high and very imbalanced loads without becoming unstable. The second property of arches that makes them desirable for
in-stream use is that all stresses induced in the arch due to extemal loading on the top face are compressive. 47
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Q Dit~ction of Flow Figure 2. A section view ojflle apex ojfhe U-sfrucfure. Figure 2 shows a section view of the apex of the arch. This Figure shows
that the arch is sunk into the riverbed such that the crest of the structure, which is the highest point on the upstream side, is even with the existing riverbed. Setting the stmcture
even with the existing riverbed has two effects. First it ensures that the un-constricted river level is no higher than the existing river level and secondly it ensures that there arc
no dynamic fluid forces on the structure due to current flow. Sinking the arch in the riverbed also supports the stmcture laterally and prevents torsion on the stmcture. A base rock,
also shown in Figure 2, is shown at the downstream end of the structure. The base rock is sunk into the cobble and is keyed into the rock that forms the structure in order to reinforce
the structure and to protect the structure from erosion caused by eddy currents. All of the structures included in this project arc designed such that the river is usable at a variety
of water levels. This is particularly tme for the U-structure, which is not only designed to be usable at any level, but also to give predictable flow rates and head at a variety of
levels. Figure 3 shows a profile view of the Ustructure looking upstream. Thi s view highlights the versatile design of these stmctures. The low flow channel can be designed to provide
deep passage and a usable hydraulic feature during typical low flows. During the mid-range flows the low flow channel and part of the high flow would be submerged. During nm-off the
high flow channel would create a larger, more usable hydraulic feature (a hydrauli c jump or wave train), and at extreme flood the river will overflow the shoulders of the stmcture.
The width of the low, high, and overflow channels can be tai lored to specific flow histories. Figure 3 shows the general layout of these stmctures. 48
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Ovedlow Channel Figure 8. The downstream view of the U-structure shows how it is designed to accommodate vaiJiing.flow levels. The downstream side
of the shoulders of the U-structure, as shown in Figure 3, are stepped to provide seating during normal flows and to prevent the formation of dangerous hydraulics during extreme fl ooding.
Low Flow The project is designed to f1mction at a variety of flow rates including off-season minimum lows. Water at low flow rates will be controlled and diverted throughout the feature.
The low flow rate for which the Whitewater Park is designed is based on basic hydraulic formulas coupled with a working knowledge of this segment of the river and its characteristics.
The structures are hydraulically and structurally sound, with anchors into the bed and banks of the river. The stmctures and their elevation/configuration were des igned to provide depth
for boating during low flows, even when the whitewater wave features are not present. This depth is extremely predictable. Figure 4 shows the low flow channel in a similar structure
in Gunnison, CO. This channel, which was designed to hold 250 cfs, is shown in Figure 4 at this level. Note that the flow is accurately contained by this channel and that the head is
even with the crest of the high flow channel. The predictability of this head allows the structures to be designed such that river rise during flood s ituations is ex tremely predictable
and therefore able to be contained by the structure. 49
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Repmi Figure 4. A U-structure at the Gunnison Whitewater Park shown at a flow rate of approximately 250 c:fs lligher Flows The project is designed to be
usable at a ll flow rates and ideal at average flow leve ls. The structures that will create these features are hydraulically and structurally sound, with anchors into the bed and banks
of the river. At extremely high flows the structure will remain structurally sound as the water overtops the s tructure. The structures are contoured to the ex isting riverbed such that,
in these high water situations, the I 00-year flood plain is not impacted. Determining the Depth of Flow The specific dimensions of the U-structure are tailored by the designer to create
the desired in stream features. One of the most important variables that is controlled is the depth. The depth is described by the Weir Equation, which can be expressed as, (I) Where
C is an empirically determined constant, b is the river width as defined in the analysis section and h is the height of the flow. The Weir Equation can be used to determine the approximate
depth of the flow in the specific channels. The Offset Double Deflector Offset current deflectors: Current deflectors are often built in sets of two: the Offset Double De flector (ODD).
Their primary purpose is to move the focus of the river's flow to the center of the channel while creating eddy pools or slack water along the banks. These types of s tructures are often
incorporated into Slalom Courses and create outstanding fish habitat. The ODD is designed to constrict and direct the flow. Figure 5 shows a top view of a typical ODD: 50
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Direction of Flow l Figure 5. Top view of offset double deflector The offset double deflector is made from similar materials and construction methods
as the U-structure. The structure is constructed from interlocked rock and is grouted if needed. A rock base is sunk into the riverbed below the scour level for support and erosion protection.
The ODD is typically terraced to provide similar flow control properties to the U-structure. The deflectors are set apart such that the first level of terrace bounds the low flow channel,
the floor of which is made up of the riverbed itself. Subsequent levels of the ODD bound higher flow channels in a similar manner to the U-structure without significantly reducing the
capacity of the riverbed. An elevated front view of the ODD, which illustrates the design, is shown in Figure 6: Figure 6. Elevated view of the offset double deflector lookingfrom downstream
to upstream. These structures provide a deeper and more powerful low flow channel at lower flows. As the flows increase these s tructures constrict and accelerate the water often creating
strong eddy lines below the structures and a mid-stream wave. The angle of the deflectors and slope of the riverbed can be used to direct the flow and wave train in order to ensure that
the powerful flows are directed in an appropri ate direction . 51
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Biological opinion on potential effects of the Carbondale Whitewater Park on trout in the Roaring Fork River Appendix 4. Fish Habitat Report Final
Report September 15, 2003 Submitted to: Recreational Engineering and Planning, Inc. Boulder, CO Prepared by: Claire C. McGrath Fisheries Biologist 52
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................
............................ 3 2.0 Whitewater park impacts on physical habitat and salmonid fish .............................................................................. 4 3.0
Fisheries impacts at proposed project in Carbondale, Roaring Fork River, Colorado .............................................. 6 3.1 Physical habitat and aquatic communities in the
Roaring Fork River...... . ......................................... 6 3.2 Proposed whitewater park sites and project description .....................................................................
...... 6 3.3 Potential effects of the whitewater park on trout ...................................................................................... 9 4.0 Sun1n1ary and reco1nrnendations
............................................................................................................................... I 0 5.0 Literature Cited ..............................................
.......................................................................................................... 12 figures Figure I. Figure 2. Figure 3. Appendix Site I, location for first
instream stmcture, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal River ........ 7 Site !,location for second instream stmcture, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal River,
............................................................................................................................................ 8 Site 2, location of proposed slalom course
on Roaring Fork River ............................................................... 8 Appendix A. Author lnfonnation ................................................................................
................................................. 14 53
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................
............................. 3 2.0 Whitewater park impacts on physical habitat and sahnonid fish .............................................................................. 4 3.0
Fisheries impacts at proposed project in Carbondale, Roaring Fork River, Colorado .............................................. 6 3.1 Physical habitat and aquatic communities in the
Roaring Fork River. ....................................................... 6 3.2 Proposed whitewater park sites and project description ..............................................................
.............. 6 3.3 Potential effects of the whitewater park on trout ....................................................................................... 9 4.0 Sun11nary and reconunendations
............................................................................................................................... IO 5.0 Literature Cited ...............................................
......................................................................................................... l2 Figures Figure I. Figure 2. Figure 3. Appendix Site !,location for first
instream structure, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal River ........ 7 Site 1, location for second instream structure, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal
River, ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Site 2, location of proposed slalom
course on Roaring Fork River ............................................................... 8 Appendix A. Author Inforn1ation ........................................................................
......................................................... 14 53
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................
............................. 3 2.0 Whitewater park impacts on physical habitat and salmonid fish .............................................................................. 4 3.0
Fisheries impacts at proposed project in Carbondale, Roaring Fork River, Colorado .............................................. 6 3.1 Physical habitat and aquatic communities in the
Roaring Fork River ........................................................ 6 3.2 Proposed whitewater park sites and project description ..............................................................
.............. 6 3.3 Potential effects of the whitewater park on trout ....................................................................................... 9 4.0 Sun1n1ary and recon1n1endations
............................................................................................................................... I 0 5.0 Literature Cited ..............................................
.......................................................................................................... 12 Figures Figure I. Figure 2. Figure 3. Appendix Site I, location for first
instream structure, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal River ........ 7 Site 1, location for second in stream structure, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal
River, ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Site 2, location of proposed slalom
course on Roaring Fork River ............................................................... 8 Appendix A. Author lnfonnation .........................................................................
........................................................ 14 53
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Repmt I. Introduction A whitewater park consists of one or more manmade stmctures in a stream, which create hydraulic features used by whitewater enthusiasts.
During the past twenty years, boating at whitewater parks has become a popular recreational activity. Nationwide, at least thirty whitewater parks have been built, with twelve in Colorado.
Whitewater parks can contribute notably to local economies when recreational users and associated tourists patronize local businesses. In addition, whitewater parks often are incorporated
into larger river restoration projects aimed at enhancing the aesthetic, recreational, and ecological value of river corridors. Whitewater park structures are built using boulders and
cement, affixed precisely onto the streambed and designed to mimic natural river features. "U" drop stmctures create waves and holes with associated plunge pools. Current deflectors
redirect fast flowing water to mid-channel areas and create lateral eddies along the banks. Single and clustered boulders create lateral and mid-channel eddies. Individual instream structures
may be intended to create specific hydraulic features during low, medium, or high flow conditions. In addition to instream stmctures, stream bank stabilization, riparian revegetation,
and footpath constmction is commonly included in whitewater park design. Some banks may be re-graded and terraced using anchored boulders, which prevent erosion while providing river
access and streamside seating. Whitewater parks alter habitat for aquatic biota, including macroinvertebrates and fish. Instream stmctures can alter streambed substrate composition,
water depth and velocity, and cover. Bank stabilization can influence channel morphology, decrease sediment influx to the stream, and reduce cover that might otherwise be provided by
undercut banks. Riparian revegetation, especially with woody species, can increase shading, cover, and inputs of detritus to the stream. Despite these apparent relationships, after a
thorough literature review I found no studies to date that evaluate the effects of whitewater parks on stream biota. In this repmt J: 1) assess potential effects of whitewater parks
on salmonid fishes, in a general context (Section 2); and 2) provide a site-specific evaluation of potential effects of the proposed whitewater park in Carbondale, Colorado, on trout
in the Roaring River (Section 3); and 3) recommend strategies for fisheries conservation to whitewater park engineers (Section 4). To determine potential effects of whitewater parks
on trout fisheries, I reviewed literahtre from the fields of fish population biology and stream restoration ecology. A site-specific evaluation and conservation recommendations for the
Carbondale Whitewater Park were completed by I) reviewing infonnation available on Roaring River fisheries and ecology, and 2) assessing the proposed whitewater park plans in the context
of physical habitat characteristics of the project site and the relevant fisheries literahtre. 2. Whitcwntcr pnrk impacts on physical hnbitat and snlmonid fish No scientific shtdies
to date address the effects of whitewater parks on stream fishes. However, instream structures are commonly used to improve fish habitat in streams, and researchers have evaluated their
effect on salmonid fishes. Below is a literature review evaluation effects ofinstream structures on salmon ids, most specifically addressing the question: how do whitewater parks affect
stream salmon ids? Salmonid fishes, which include salmon, trout and char, have a variety of physical habitat requirements throughout their life cycle. Stream-dwelling populations occupy
clean, cold, well-aerated waters that provide abundant oxygen. Spawning occurs in coarse gravel substrate with swiftly-flowing water that delivers oxygen to and removes waste products
from incubating eggs. After hatching and emergence from the gravel, fly inhabit side channels, backwaters, and slow-moving lateral areas with abundant cover. As they grow, juvenile and
adult fish move to deeper habitat, and become fiercely territorial. A dominance hierarchy develops, with the largest, most aggressive individuals occupying the most energeticallyfavorable
habitats: low-velocity areas near faster currents that provide abundant drifting insects, the major food source for most salmon ids (Armstrong et al. 2003, Hendry et al. 2003, Hunter
1991, Mitchell et al. 1998). Prefened positions also tend to be near cover, which can be provided by woody debris, boulders. whitewater, undercut banks, or instream or overhanging vegetation
(Allouche 2002, Fausch and White 1981 ). Deep pools with cover provide excellent habitat for sa1monids (Greenberg et al. 2001 ). Pool habitat is particularly important during the winter,
when anchor ice can fonn in shallow riffles, and during periods 54
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report of particularly high or low flow. Though individual species requirements vary, in general, deep pools and instrearn cover frequently are cited as
the most important habitat attributes determining salmonid abundance (Ailouche 2002, Armstrong et al. 2003, Hunter 1991 ). Often, streams become channelized as a result of human activities.
In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, channelized streams often are morphologically unstable, biologically unproductive, and lack habitat diversity (Zika and Peter 2002). To
improve salmonid habitat, resource managers sometimes add instream structures that increase habitat heterogeneity. Structures used for stream restoration include overpour stmctures (dams,
weirs, and rock-filled gabions), current deflectors, boulders, and cover structures such as large woody debris. Instream structures may aerate water via surface htrbulence, increase
deposition of fine particles, provide improved habitat for invertebrates, offer cover for fishes, and, in the case of overpour structures, create self-scouring pools (Gowan and Fausch
1995, Hendty et al. 2003, House and Boehne 1985, Hunter 1991, Mitchell et al. 1998, Muhar 1996, Negishi and Richardson 2003, Rani et al. 2002, van Zyll de Jong et al. 1997, Zika and
Peter 2002). Research demonstrates that, in response to placement of instream struchtres, salmonids may increase in abundance (Gowan and Fausch 1996, Hendry et a!. 2003, Hunter 1991,
van Zyll de Jong et a!. 1997) and/or move to occupy newly-created habitats (House and Boehne 1985, Shuler 1994). Habitat requirements can vary with life stages and season. Deep pools
are particularly important during low-flow conditions, while during high-flows, instream structures dampen high-velocities and provide flow refugia for fish (Binns 1994, Gore and Hamilton
1996, Mitchell et al. 1988, Scruton 1996, van Zyll de Jong et al. 1997). Cover is most critical for juvenile salmonids during winter, when interstitial spaces between cobbles and boulders
provide thennal refugia (Allouche 2002, Mitchell et al. 1998). Even simple boulder placement can provide efficient feeding sites for salmonids, producing fish with better body condition,
and, as a result, increased overwinter survival rates (Shuler 1994). Though not primarily intended to provide salmonid habitat, whitewater park instream stmctures produce hydraulic effects
similar to stmctures built for stream restoration. Whitewater park U-drops are overpour structures that create self-scouring plunge pools, providing two important features for salmon
ids, deep pool habitat and whitewater cover. Current deflectors reduce bank erosion and undercutting, however, the decrease in cover for fish due to less undercutting is offset by the
cover provided by the deflector itself Current deflectors also create lateral eddies or slack water in their wake. Placement of boulders in the channel increases habitat heterogeneity
for fish and invertebrates, offers protective cover for juvenile salmonids, provides resting areas during high flows, and creates energetically efficient feeding areas for drift feeding
fish (Armstrong et al. 2003). The similar design of whitewater park structures and restoration structures strongly suggests that whitewater park instream structures provide beneficial
habitat for both juvenile and adult salmonids. Although whitewater park stmctures provide excellent sahnonid habitat, an increase in salmonid abundance or a shift in habitat use to newly
created habitats is not assured. Salmonid populations do not always increase after placement of instream stmctures for restoration purposes (Binns 1994, Pretty 2003, Rani et al. 2002).
This result may occur at sites where habitat attributes such as depth and cover are not the factors limiting salmonid populations. For example, cold temperatures in high elevation streams
can limit reproduction and survival of juveniles, while in other areas, competition from introduced species or predation might limit populations (AIIouche 2002, llunter 1991, Milner
et al. 2003). Use of created habitats may occur only during certain seasons (Rani 2002); Binns (1994) found that brook trout used pools created by instream stmctures during periods of
low flow, but with moderate flows, trout occurred throughout available habitats. If only a few instream structures are built, the small change in amount of high quality habitat may not
result in higher density offish populations. Finally, in the case of whitewater parks, disturbance from whitewater boaters could cause salrnonid emigration from the whitewater park area
during periods of high use. 55
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report 3. Potential fisheries impacts at proposed project in Carbondale, Roaring Fork River, Colorado 3.1 Physical habitat and aquatic commtmities in the
Roaring Fork River Mean stream discharge in the Roaring Fork River can range from approximately 400 to 4000 cfs, with peak flow occurring as a result of snowmelt runoff. Operation of
Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan River, a tributary to the Roaring Fork, has resulted in higher base flows and lower peak flows than occurred predam. Additionally, peak flow has shifted
rrom late spring/early summer snowmelt to late summer/early fa ll. Boulder and cobble substrates dominate throughout the river. Trout habitat is abundant below Carbondale, with 57% of
habitat classified as pool and run, compared to only 30% classified as pool or run in the river upstream of Carbondale. Only 0.5% of substrate in the river was class ified as spawning
gravel. Healthy populations ofperiphyton and very high densities of benthic macroinvertebrates occur and comprise a s trong base to the fi sheries food web (Ptacek et al. 2003, Simons,
Li and Associates Inc. 1983). The river has a high-quality trout fishery, with abundant brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefi sh. Mottled sculpin and bluehead sucker a lso
occur in the river (Ptacek et al. 2003, Simons, Li and Associates 1983). 3.2 Proposed wllitewater park sites and project description The proposed sites for the whitewater park on the
Roaring Fork River are near Carbondale, Colorado (Michael llarvey, personal communication). At Site I, two instream drop structures are proposed near Carbondale, where llighway I 33
passes over the river (Figures 1-2). Site 2, which is the proposed location for a slalom course, occurs immediately downstream of the confluence of the C1ystal and Roaring Fork Rivers
(Figure 3). Substrate at both locations is dominated by cobble and boulder. Site I consists of a low-gradient, cobbledominated riffle with fast, uniform flow. Streambed substrate is
scoured, with few, if any, gravels or fines. Near the Highway I 33 bridge abutments (Figure 2), a right-bank eddy forms a scour pool, and a few large boulders provide cover for fish.
Othe1wise, the channel displays little habitat heterogeneity, fast flow, and almost no cover or resting areas for fi sh. Riparian vegetation at Site I is dominated by deciduous and coniferous
trees on the left bank, and grasses, shrubs, and bare ground on the right bank. Photos were taken mid-day (I I am -I pm) and illustrate canopy shadi ng of the river. Some bank erosion
is evident on the right bank upstream of Highway I 33. Site 2 provides higher quality fish habitat than does Site I. A large, deep eddy exists along the right bank to mid-channel. Along
the left bank and downstream of the large eddy, is a deeper, cobble-dominated, lowgradient riffle with high water velocity. Much more heterogeneity in water depth occurs at Site 2 than
at Site I. Some larger boulders provide resting spots for trout. Deciduous and coniferous trees dominate the riparian vegetation on both banks; and similar to Site I, approximately half
of the channel was shaded by tall trees at mid-day (Figure 3). Some riparian areas consist ofunvegetated, loose boulder and cobble banks. Figure I. Site I. locationforjirst instream
stmcture, Roaring Fork Ri1·er above COI!fluence 1rith O:rstal River. Photo taken(rom left hank looking ups tream. 56
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Figure 2. Site I, location for second instream structure, Roaring Fork River above confluence with Crystal River. Photo taken from left bank looking
downstream, bridge is Highway 133. F1gurc 3. Site 2. location of proposed slalom course on Roaring Fork River. Confluence of Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers in view upstream of site.
Photo taken from right bank looking upstream. 57
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report 3.3 Potential effects of the whitewater park on trout During construction of instream stmctures, increased sedimentation and streambed disturbance
will likely reduce invertebrate and fish density in the locality of the whitewater park. However, trout are highly mobile, and will readily recolonize accessible areas of high-quality
habitat (Gowan and Fausch 1995, 1996). Deep pools and bankside eddies created by U-drop overpour structures will improve trout habitat at Site I, by providing cover (boulder and whitewater),
resting and feeding areas. At both sites, but particularly at Site 1, placement oflarge boulders in the active channel would improve habitat heterogeneity, and supply resting spots and
cover for trout. Riparian revegetation would improve streambank stability, and shmbby, overhanging vegetation could provide cover for fish at the channel margins. Use of the whitewater
park by boaters may scare trout away from pools created by overpour structures, or from bankside areas with human high usage. High recreational use periods will likely be during summer
high flows, when the instream structures are intended to create hydraulic features that whitewater boaters use. Trout will be more likely to use the pool habitat created by instream
structures during the winter, due to habitat limitations resulting from low flow conditions, and cold temperatures that can cause anchor ice formation in shallow riffles. During winter,
when pool habitat is most critical and often limiting for trout populations, very little use by whitewater boaters would be expected. Instream drop and boulder structures, and riparian
revegetation efforts will improve fish habitat; however, a related increase in trout population density is not necessarily predicted. Data that describe specifically which resources
limit trout populations in the Roaring Fork River are unavailable. In addition, the spatial extent of the proposed whitewater park project is small, approximately 2000 linear feet (Michael
Harvey, personal communication). Likely, trout will move to constmcted pool and deep eddy habitat during winter low flow periods, and may move away from these areas during high flow,
higher usage periods. At any scale larger than that of the whitewater park, a significant increase or decrease in trout population density in the Roaring Fork River, caused by whitewater
park construction or usage, is not expected. 4. Summary and recommendations Whitewater parks alter river habitat in many ways. Effects on physical habitat for trout include I) increased
number and volume of scour pools created by U-drop stmctures, 2) increased availability of eddies and increased variability in flow velocity created by large-boulder placement and U-drop
stmctures, and 3) increased cover available to fish in the form oflarge boulders and whitewater. In addition, riparian revegetation is often included in whitewater park design, and can
provide cover to fish if vegetation overhangs the wetted channel. Riparian revegetation also stabilizes the stream bank, which can reduce cover otherwise provided by undercut banks,
but may also decrease sedimentation by controlling erosion. Overall, whitewater parks tend to increase habitat complexity, thereby improving trout habitat. The effects a whitewater park
on trout fisheries will depend on the characteristics of the site and ecological factors limiting trout populations. When factors other than physical habitat characteristics are limiting,
such as predation or disease, increasing habitat quality or pool volume is unlikely to affect trout populations. If trout are limited by habitat, trout will likely use new, high-quality
habitats created by instream stmchtres. In particular, increased use of pools by trout in whitewater parks is most likely to occur during winter low-flow periods, when pool habitat is
most critical. Trout may leave these areas during the summer, when recreational usage peaks. In the Roaring Fork River, a project the scale of the proposed Carbondale Whitewater Park
is not expected to significantly affect density of trout, either positively or negatively. Whitewater parks should be constmcted with aquatic and fisheries conservation concerns as a
primary concern. The following recommendations are proposed to enhance fisheries conservation efforts on the Roaring Fork River: I) River access should be limited to a few clearly-marked
access locations, to limit bank erosion and/or trampling of spawning or nursery areas. Planting thick brushy species such as willow can discourage usage of undesirable access areas.
2) Scm ton ( 1996) described a salmonid stream restoration project, and documented that pools constructed with artificial undercut bank stmch1res had a greater biomass of large brook
trout than 58
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report pools constructed without the artificial cover. Whitewater park designers might consider incorporating cover for fish into the design of overpour
stmctures. For example, open-ended, 4-6 inch diameter PVC piping could be placed into the cement stmcture, creating artificial caves. This would encourage fish to use cover within the
pool area, instead of leaving the pool, when whitewater boaters are present. To determine if trout use this type of artificial cover, snorkel surveys could be conducted after whitewater
park constmction is complete. 3) Consider placing attractive signs in parking areas or along the river, to educate whitewater boaters, fishem1en, and other users about ecology of the
site and minimum impact skills. 59
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report 5. Literature Cited Allouche, S. 2002. Nature and functions of cover for riverine fish. Bull. Fr. Peche Piscic. 365/366:297-324. Am1strong, J.D.,
P.S. Kemp, G.J.A. Kennedy, M. ladle, and N.J. Milner. 2003. Habitat requirements of Atlantic salmon and brown trout in rivers and streams. Fisheries Research 32:143-170. Binns, N.A.
1994. Long-term responses of trout and macrohabitats to habitat management in a Wyoming headwater stream. North American Joumal of Fisheries Management 14:87-98. Fausch, K.D., and R.J.
White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salve/inusfontino/is) and brown trout (Salmo fruita) for positions in a Michigan stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqtmtic Sciences
50:1220-1227. Gore, J.A., and S.W. Hamilton. 1996. Comparison of flow-related habitat evaluations downstream of lowhead weirs on small and large fluvial ecosystems. Regulated Rivers:
Research & Management 12:459-469. Gowan, C, and K.D. Fausch. 1995. Trout responses to habitat manipulation in streams at individual and population scales. Federal Aid Project F-88-R
Final Report, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fish Research Section, Fort Collins, CO. Gowan, C., and K.D. Fausch. 1996. Long-tem1 demographic responses of trout populations to habitat
manipulation in six Colorado streams. Ecological Applications 6(3):931-946. Greenberg, L.A., T. Steinwall, and II. Persson. 2001. Effect of depth and substrate on use of stream pools
by brown trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:699-705. Harvey, M. Recreational Engineering and Planning, Inc. Personal communication, July 2003. Hendry, K., D. Cragg-lline,
M. O'Grady, H. Sambrook, and A. Stephen. 2003. Management of habitat of rehabilitation and enhancement ofsalmonids stocks. Fisheries Research 62:171-192. House, R.A., and P.L. Boehne.
1985. Evaluation ofinstream enhancement stmchtres for salmonids spawning and rearing in a coastal Oregon stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:283-295. I Iunter, C.J.
1 991 . Better trout habitat: a guide to stream restoration and management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Milner, N.J., J.M. Elliott, J.D. Annstrong, R. Gardiner, J.S. Welton, and M.
Ladle. 2003. The natural control of salmon and trout populations in streams. Fisheries Research 62:111-125. Mitchell, J., R.S. McKinley, G. Power, and D.A. Scmton. 1998. Evaluation of
Atlantic salmon parr responses to habitat improvement stmctures in an experimental channel in Newfoundland, Canada. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 14:25-39. Muhar, S. 1996.
llabitat improvement of Austrian rivers with regard to different scales. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12:471-482. Negishi, J.N., and J.S. Richardson. 2003. Responses of organic
matter and macroinvertebrates to placements of boulder clusters in a small stream of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Joumal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:24 7-258.
60
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Pretty, J.L., S.S.C. Harrison, D.J. Shepherd, C. Smith, A. G. Hildrew, and R.D. Hey. 2003. River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the
benefit of instream structures. Joumal of Applied Ecology 40:251-265. Ptacek, J.A., D.E. Rees, and W.J. Miller. 2003. Final Report: A study of the ecological processes on the Fryingpan
and Roaring Fork Rivers related to operation ofRuedi Reservoir. June 30.2003, Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. Rani, P., T.J. Beechie, R.E. Bilby, F.E. Leonetti,
M.M. Pollock, and G.R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American
Joumal of Fisheries Management 22: 1-20. Scmton, D. 1996. Evaluation of the constmction of artificial fluvial salmonids habitat in a habitat compensation project, Newfoundland, Canada.
Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12:171-183. Shuler, S.W., R.B. Nehring, and K.D. Fausch. 1994. Diel habitat selection by brown trout in the Rio Grande River, Colorado, after
placement of boulder structures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:99-111. Simons, Li and Associates, Inc. 1983. Fryingpan-Arkansas Projecgt, Ruedi Reservoir, Colorado,
Round 2 Water Sale, Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. van Zyll de Jong, M.C., I. G. Cowx, and D.A. Scmton. 1997. An evaluation ofinstream
habitat restoration techniques on salmonids populations in a Newfoundland stream, Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 13:603-614. Zika, U., and A. Peter. 2002. The introduction of
woody debris into a channelized stream: effect on trout populations and habitat. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 18:355-366. 61
Carbondale Gateway Park Final Report Appendix A. Author Information Claire C. McGrath, Fisheries Biologist (B.A., M.S.) Contact Information: CENTER FOR LIMNOLOGY, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE
FOR RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER, CO 80309-0216 PHONE: 303-492-2776 EMAIL: CLAIRE.MCGRATH@COLORADO.EDU Education: Ph.D. Candidate-Ecology and Evolutim1a1y
Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder. M.S.-Environmental Science, Western Washington University, 1998. B.A.-Biology, Oberlin College, 1993. Research and Professional Experience:
Ms. Claire C. McGrath has seven years experience conducting aquatic habitat inventories and salmonid distribution studies as a graduate research assistant and a consulting biologist
in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Northwest regions. She is experienced in various standard techniques for stream reach inventory, channel stability evaluation, Rosgen stream channel
classification, llankin-Reeves inventory, and snorkel and electrofishing surveys for describing salmonid distribution. Presently, Ms. McGrath is a doctoral candidate at the University
of Colorado, where she investigates ecological interactions between native and non-native trouts in streams in the Rocky Mountains. In her current research, Ms. McGrath works cooperatively
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. ller primary research interest is the quantification and mitigation of anthropogenic
disturbances to river ecosystems. Specific interests include geomorphologic and ecological effects of hydrologic alteration, invasive species ecology, and fisheries management. 62