HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.07 Findings of the Gateway Task Force.pdfAttachment "G"
. ~. . ). · Q
Report To The Carbondale Board of Trustees Findings of the Gateway Task Force Field Visit January 6, 2006
Report-Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 On Friday January 6, 2006, 6 members of the Gateway Taskforce completed a site visit to the Roaring Fork River to investigate potential
alternative locations for whitewater drop structures, boat ramps, trail locations and other elements of a proposed river park complex. Invitations to this site visit were also extended
to Carbondale staff members and principles from Alpine Angling (3 phone calls to business office, messages for Tony & Jeff; call & message to Tony at home-no responses received). Town
staff and Alpine Angling representatives did not attend the field visit. Persons present included: John Hoffman, Artie Rothman, Mike Hermes, Davis Farrar, Michael Kennedy and Peter Benedict.
The site visit was held at the direction of the Carbondale Board of Trustees to evaluate the following: I . The possibility of locating one or more whitewater drop structures downstream
of the Highway 133 Bridge. 2. Options for relocating the boat ramp to minimize potential user conflicts between float fishermen, rafters and kayakers. 3. Possible trail access and alignments
on the north and south river banks. 4. Evaluation of other issues associated with developing the primary focus of Gateway Park downstream of the Highway 133 Bridge and upstream of the
RFT A Railroad Bridge. This memorandum presents and summarizes the findings of the Taskforce's field investigation. Location of one or more whitewater drop structures downstream of the
Highway 133 BridgeIt is physically possible to construct 2 whitewater drop structures below the Highway 133 Bridge. Although river gradient is less in this area, it may be adequate for
whitewater features. This assumption must be subject to verification by white water feature designers. Drop structures should be constructed no closer than 120 feet apart. Location of
2 structures outside of the CDOT right-of-way downstream of the bridge would infringe upon the existing boat ramp frequently used by float fishermen and rafters. It is advisable to relocate
the ex isting boat ramp downstream of the drop structures to avoid use conflicts. Page 2 of X
Report -Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 Options for relocating the boat ramp to minimize potential user conflicts between float fishermen, rafters and kayakers. To minimize
potential user conflicts between users of the water features and fl oat fishermen/rafters, the boat ramp should be moved downstream away from the water features. There is a practical
limit to moving the ex isting boat ramp downstream because the elevation of the river bank increases above the river surface downstream. It appears the most reasonable location for the
boat ramp is approx imately 150 to 175 feet downstream. The boat ramp should be within easy walking distance of the parking area. Construction of the boat ramp should avoid adverse impacts
to wetlands and riparian vegetation. Ramp design should allow for easy vehicle/trailer backing to the river edge to allow for boat launch ing. Steeper ramp grades will require a paved
surface to minimize erosion and provide adequate vehicle traction. Water features should be located upstream of the wastewater treatment plant effluent discharge to eliminate potential
health issues identified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Access to the river for kayakers, tubers and pedestrians can be accomplished with a footpath to
the eddy below each water feature. Initially, the footpath can be a primitive or moderately improved path 4 to 6 feet wide. A narrow width will discourage access by vehicles. In the
long-term and to provide a sustainable access, the footpath should be hard surfaced with concrete and adequately protected at the water edge against erosion during high river flows.
Page 3 of X
Report -Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 Page 4 of R
Report _ Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 Page 5 of 8
Report-Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 Pedestrian Access. The original Gateway Park Conceptual Plan identified a possible looped trail access along the north and south river
banks with connections across the river upstream via a pedestrian bridge and downstream across the existing RFTA railroad bridge. Subsequently, the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommended
against a trail on the south riverbank that would damage the existing riparian vegetation. A trail located on the top of the bench would avoid the riverbank vegetation and problems with
high water. The trail platform would have to be located immediately adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant building walls. A trail in this location would require some type of aesthetically
pleasing security fencing to keep people out of the treatment facility. The representatives present at the field visit do not support a trail on the riverbank because of the issues with
vegetation damage and high water. The group supports a trail located on the top of the riverbank. Location of trails and water features downstream of the Highway 133 Bridge would necessitate
construction of a downstream pedestrian bridge to facilitate access and to provide a spectator observation location for the water features. Page 6 of g Possible trail location on top
of river bank to minimize adverse impacts to vegetation
Report-Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 Discussion about water feature locations below the Highway 133 Bridge compared to original Gateway Park Conceptual Design above the 133
Bridge. Location of the two whitewater features downstream of the Highway 133 Bridge is a less than ideal second best option in the opinion of the Whitewater Task Force members that
attended the field visit. It is possible to construct the whitewater features on the downstream side of the bridge, but a likely result will be more interaction between the angling community
and the whitewater recreation participants. The downstream location will encourage whitewater recreationalists to use the parking area presently frequented by commercial and noncommercial
anglers and rafters. Additional vehicles will require more and better defined parking, increase the demand for limited spaces and add to congestion during peak use periods. The original
Gateway project noted and identified a desire to separate the angling and whitewater recreation uses. In part, this objective was to be achieved with two drop structures located upstream
of the existing Highway 133 Bridge and by relocating the existing boat ramp slightly downstream. This configuration would allow both user categories to access the river with minimal
interference. The intent of the upstream location of the whitewater features was to incorporate the existing Cowan Center PUD public open space and access on the south riverbank, utilize
the existing north side bridge abutment and tie into an upgraded Highway 82 underpass to provide safe access to the north side of the highway without the need for an at grade pedestrian
crossing. The area below the 133 bridge was to include a pedestrian loop consisting of a north and south riverbank trail section with connections across a pedestrian bridge upstream
of highway 133 and a pedestrian access across the RFT A railroad bridge downstream. Parking lot improvements were identified to accommodate more vehicles with trailers for both commercial
and noncommercial fishermen as well as rafters. Input from the community during the process identified a desire to encourage whitewater recreation parking and access at other locations
upstream. The access to parking on the north riverbank is off Highway 82 to County Road I 06 north of the Carbondale exit. This intersection is less than ideal as an access because of
its configuration at Highway 82. Additionally, this location does not encourage river users to utilize Carbondale services because it is some distance north of the community. It is likely
that a greater percentage of vehicles using this northerly access will depart north to Glenwood Springs, thereby, reducing the economic benefits to Carbondale. The location upstream
of the 133 bridge provides better spectator observation of whitewater activities because there are good river observation points and access on the north and south river banks. The south
riverbank downstream of the 133 bridge is too steep and heavily vegetated to provide access or observation areas. Additionally, DOW expressed opposition to trail construction on the
south riverbank that would alter or damage the vegetation and slope. A pedestrian bridge downstream of the 133 bridge would not easily facilitate off-highway access for pedestrians and
bicycles to the Red Hill area. CDOT has identified the downstream portion of their right-of-way as a location for a second parallel Highway 133 bridge to accommodate future traffic volumes.
Bridge construction may impinge upon a drop-structure immediately downstream outside of the right-of-way. Whether or not Carbondale decides to pursue construction of the whitewater park
facility downstream of the bridge, the Gateway Task Force strongly encourages the Town to continue pursuing acquisition of the Soderberg and Gianinetti properties on the upstream side
of the bridge. The Soderberg property offers the potential for a trout fishing pond where kids can practice casting, can fish safely and it offers another public benefit to the site.
On the site visit, the group noted that there is an irrigation diversion box on the downstream side of Highway 133 that is constructed to allow for water diversions directly back to
the river. This would allow Page 7 of R
Report-Gateway Park Field Visit January 6, 2006 wintertime maintenance of a trout pond thereby creating a year round amenity. This benefit was identified by the fishing community during
the Gateway Park scoping process. These properties are important to preserve naturally appearing Gateway to Carbondale. The acquisition cost of these properties continues to increase
with time. Also, the potential for unanticipated and undesired changes associated with these parcels also increases with time. These properties are important to the community even in
the absence of park development at the entrance to Carbondale. Conclusions. It would be possible to construct 2 whitewater drop structures downstream of the Highway 133 Bridge. This
location will require property acquisition for access on the north and south river banks. This configuration would likely result in sharing of the existing parking area on the Koziel
property by both anglers and whitewater recreationalists. This could have the effect of increasing demand for limited parking spaces and increasing the potential for conflicts between
the two major user groups. The south riverbank is effectively unavailable for river access and spectator seating/observation because of the heavy vegetation and steep riverbank. The
existing boat ramp should be moved downstream 150 to 175 feet to allow for separation of the dory and raft launching activities and kayak/tubing functions. The boat ramp location options
are limited because the elevation grade of the riverbank increases above the water surface downstream. Location of the boat ramp too far downstream will require a longer more complex
access and will adversely impact larger areas of riparian vegetation. Placement of a pedestrian bridge downstream of Highway 133 would necessitate construction of two new bridge abutments
and staircase access from the Fattor property on the south riverbank. Parking and pedestrian access would be necessitated on the west side of highway 133 adjacent to the Red Rock Diner
for river access on the south bank. A pedestrian crossing on highway 133 would be required to provide access to the existing bike trail on the east side of the highway. Pedestrian crossing
in this location would compete with significant traffic volumes at the bridge. A north access to the pedestrian bridge would have to be constructed and would require a trail connection
under the Highway 133 Bridge in order to connect to an upgraded Highway 82 underpass. Water and sewer utilities do not exist on the north side of the Roaring Fork River. There is no
opportunity for close to river level restroom facilities on the south riverbank downstream of the Highway 133 Bridge. It would be possible to construct these facilities at road grade
above the river on the Fattor property. Carbondale should continue to actively pursue acquisition of the Soderberg and Gianinetti properties upstream of the Highway 133 Bridge to maintain
a naturally appearing entrance to the community. It is also recommended that Carbondale pursue annexation of the Highway 82/133 intersection and immediately surrounding properties in
order to maintain land-use control of that location. The Gateway Task Force looks forward to discussing these findings and conclusions with the town staff and Trustees. The Task Force
hopes that this information proves to be useful to the Town as you move forward with implementation of Carbondale Gateway Park. Please feel free to contact us to schedule a time to discuss
this information. Page 8 of 8