HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course.A58-91 411
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 10/17/91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: A58-91
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course & Riverwalk
Project Address: Rio Grande Property - South of the Art Museum
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: City of Aspen / Parks Department
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Gary Lacy
Representative Address/Phone: 485 Arapahoe
Boulder, CO 80302 440-9268
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $870 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 2
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date 10/22/91 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date. PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption-: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn Bell School District
X City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross ' State HwyDept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing
L'�OCAOTthIOeNr::
FILE STATUS AD '
N
4.../QL h LQ c2CJ A
0, etf Cf Gt--LX/�(2:?G • C�v
:l 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: November 19, 1991
RE: Kayak Course Stream Margin Review Amendment
SUMMARY: The P&Z, at the October 22, 1991 meeting, reviewed and
approved a stream margin review for the development of a kayak
course at the Rio Grande. As part of that review staff mentioned
that some of the fill may possibly be used to build, a
pedestrian/bike path in Newbury Park behind the Eagles Club. The
path would connect Spring Street with the foot bridge that crosses
the river into Oklahoma Flats. This is an important north/south
pedestrian connection. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee
recently identified this as the number 1 trail priority for 1992.
STAFF REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 7-504 C. development is required
to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet from the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary
streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain. Staff
recommends an amendment to the October. 22, 1991 Stream Margin
review because, although this was briefly discussed during review
of the kayak course, staff was unable to provide the details of the
trail at that time and a portion of the work is within 100 feet of
the high water line.
The approximate amount of fill to be used at this time is 5, 000
cubic yards. The dimensions of the trail are: the toe of the new
embankment will be approximately 50 feet for the tr al at its
closest point; the grade of the trail is approximately 6A; and the
grade of the slope from the trail to the toe of the slope is 2: 1
with the potential for modification to 1: 1 (terraces are
envisioned) . Staff will present a map of the proposal at the
meeting.
The City Managers staff is scheduling a meeting with the. Eagles and
the neighbors to review this trail proposal.
The applicable standards for Stream Margin Review are as follows:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is
in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood
elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be
demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional
engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including,
but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site
i S
which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by
the development.
RESPONSE: No fill will be placed within the special Flood Hazard
Area. The majority of the fill will fall outside of the 100 foot
boundary from the high water line. .
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is
dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: Placement of fill in this location is intended to
enhance the trail system and is consistent with the Plan.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest
extent practicable.
RESPONSE: This project will follow the recommendations of the
Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The development of a new trail in this
location will provide access to the river and Newbury Park.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE: The fill will be stabilized and graded to prevent
erosion. The fill is far enough away from the river to ensure that
is some erosion does occur that it will not enter the river.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary.
RESPONSE: There will be no interference with the river.,
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and
a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered
or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs,
successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain.
RESPONSE: There is no work within the 100 year floodplain.
2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment with
the following conditions:
1. Prior to the removal of any trees greater than 6" caliper tree
removal permits must be obtained from the Parks Department. Any
tree removed shall be replaced on site pursuant to the Parks
Department standards.
2. All fill shall be stabilized and landscaped by the Spring of
1992.
3. Neighborhood concerns shall be resolved prior to the placement
of fill in Newbury Park.
4. Placement of fill shall in no way encroach into the 100 year
floodplain without further review.
W.j.< 1.I
3
• .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Work Session - Kraut Property
DATE: November 19, 1991
The Housing Authority has submitted a rezoning application for the
southwest corner of East Hyman and South Original Street. The
Authority seeks to rezone the parcel from Office to Affordable
Housing.
In the past, AH proposals have been initially reviewed in a work
session. This application has been scheduled for rezoning review
December 9, 1991. The Housing Authority would like this
opportunity to briefly review the Kraut rezoning proposal at this
work session prior to you review December 9.
The Authority will make a brief presentation of the proposal at the
meeting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
George Robinson, Director of Parks
DATE: November 11, 1991
RE: Informational Item - Rio Grande Kayak Course
The informational item is to inform Council about the relocation
of fill material being removed for construction of the kayak course
at the Rio Grande.
We have started the kayak course and as part of the construction
a portion of the bank of the Rio Grande parcel is being removed.
Next spring, in conjunction with the master plan, more land will
be removed for park improvements providing a better connection to
the river.
We intend to relocate a portion of the removed fill to the Recycle
site. The existing boulders, encircling the site, will be used in
the kayak course. The relocated fill will serve as a barrier
between the recycle center and the rest of the Rio Grande and
pedestrian trail below. This fill may only be temporary to be used
next spring but if it is made permanent it will be landscaped with
a dry land mix/wildflowers and trees. But the ultimate use of this
site will largely depend upon future land uses as identified in the
master plan.
The remaining fill will be used for preliminary work for a
north/south trail connecting Patsy Newbury Park with Spring Street.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee identified this trail
connection as their number one priority for 1992 completing a
north/south pedestrian.trail route. The Parks Department together
with the City Manger's office will hold a neighborhood meeting at
the Eagles Club within this week.
41,
PZM11. 19 . 91
Sara asked about stabilizing this.
Robinson: At this point in time what we are going to be doing as
far as stabilizing the fill will just putting it in here and
basically we are just going to be dumping the dirt and pushing it
back over. We are not going to have any retaining walls or
anything like this at this time. This 2 to 1 we will probably
never even get this close. We wanted to show the worst case
scenario.
Sara: You are not going to have any mud slide into the river.
Robinson: Oh, no. I don't need those problems.
Tim: What kind of an attraction do you think we are gong to be
'creating for people to start improvising and using this as a beaten
path?
Robinson: This is the reason we chose this--it is pretty much the
beaten path they are taking right now.
Tim: Are we going to have a problem by not constructing something
there that is safe or by just putting dirt someplace that then it
creates an optical beaten path.
Robinson: I hopefully would want to start this project in the
Spring. And I am sure you are aware they have all kinds of paths
there right now. And if anything, this is much more stable than
anything they are going up around now.
That is a good point. I will double check with our attorneys. We
are making it better than what they are following.
Roger: In England they post something like this as "This road is
legally closed. Drive on it at your own risk" .
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the amendment to the Kayak Course Stream
Margin Review with conditions 1 through 4 being the same as
Planning Office memo dated November 19 , 1991. (attached in record)
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine then adjourned the business portion of the meeting. Time
was 6: 45pm.
The Commission then continued with a work session on the Kraut
Affordable Housing Zone.
,) . (AO/2
aanic M. Carney, City Depu ' Clerk
15
•
•
Gary Lacy • Recreation Engineering & Planning •
485 Arapahoe • Boulder,CO 80302 • (303) 440-9268
February 11, 1992 •
' IC's
Mr. Gary Davis • FE8 t 8 1992
US Army Corps of Engineers
Western Colorado Regulatory Office "` •
402 Rood Ave. Room#142 ER
Grand Junction, CO 81501-2563
Dear Gary:
This letter is to confirm our phone conversation today regarding section 404 -
permitting for the Roaring Fork Whitewater Course in Aspen Colorado. The following
points were made:
• • The existing whitewater course (channel excavation and boulder placement), which was
constructed last fall is not in violation of section 404 regulations.
• Additional boulder placement, fill or vegetation plantings done within the whitewater
channel prior to 1992 spring runoff will not be in violation of the regulations.
• • Any work within the Roaring Fork River requiring the placement of fill to divert water to
the whitewater channel will require an individual 404 permit (2 months or more for the
process).
• Any work within the whitewater channel that requires fill done after the 1992 spring
runoff will require a 404 permit.
•
• Any other work in the Roaring Fork River(stream habitat or bank restoration) will
require.an individual or regional permit.
. I believe the City's intention is to revegetatc all cut slopes and disturbed areas this
spring prior to the runoff and complete any final minor grading/cleanup. The City is also -
planning on using the services of Aquatic and Wetland Consultants for advice on permitting
and revegetation.
If the above points are not as we discussed or are incorrect in any way, please contact
me and I will revise immediately. We look forward to working with Michael Claffey on this
project. Good luck with your new job.
Sincerely,
Gary M:Lacy
cc: George Robinson
• Rob Thompson
Leslie Lamont
Patrict Duffield
Allen Czcnkusch
•
• •
November 6, 1991
Mr. Mark Matulik
Colorado Water Conservation Board
823 State Centennial Building
1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Mr. Matulik:
The City of Aspen proposes to alter the Roaring Fork River thalweg from
Heron Park to the Mill Street Bridge in order to improve the trout habitat and
whitewater boating characteristics through this reach. A series of small
structures and riffle areas will be created without resulting in any increases
in the 100-year flood elevations.
This project has been submitted to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers for approval and issuance of a 404 Permit, under the guidelines of
the General Permit for stream habitat structure in Colorado.
This proposal is defined as a "Change in Water Course" by the City of
Aspen and requires that CWCB be notified.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
/4,i 4
Gary M. Lacy, P.E.,
Project Manager for the City of Aspen
cc. Patrick Duffield - City of Aspen
Rob Thompson - City of Aspen
Leslie Lamont - City of Aspen
\ % .
- - . iiik. • \ '
\ . , .&1`.- - W j
V6 ' ' .6 Low flow notch -
' ,2 1 Top of rock I' below - ' ,
n- Z e%tst ,ng channel •
4 invert. g,n1.' loo. oo •
' :4►nclior
z
' • ,- , • large bou
-s, int° bank
• E/,cis•hn ,` •
- ' b0uld-ers ' ,. 3' dia_ ' -
4- 2nc or ro
'� ` • , 171, • , . Crop ancho 'rocks 1024
e .� 11,,e,"",„,- — tot'` i‘
�` • (�`wr wri
ikrt ■ 4'-5 dia. boulders grouted
into channel, Averages Top of
451 ; rock elevation r 104.o
41-51 d ia, boulders grouted
ss• ` ��. $ into channel. Average tap
\, of rock elevation 101. s
•) v •
�=. �:: - r ?-,r nchor•
• r ' boulders o
Intl bank - 1 vi - '.e(\, Nt
•Existing; o
trees � �,�Ov NOT 'E,
p15TURt3 ., ,
, .
, . ,
ROARING F O R K 1 J VER 'WHIT WATER COVas&■•.
SPLIT FLOW wlei s 111=201
•
APPLICATION FOR DEP ENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0702-0036
(33 CFR 325) Expires 30 June 1986
The Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899,Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine,Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing
activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States,the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
and the transportation of dredged -naterial for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be
used in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a
public notice. Disclosure of the information requested is voluntary;however,the data requested are necessary in order to communicate
with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided,the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be
attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over
the location of the-proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by Corps) 3.NAME,ADDRESS,AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT
Gary Lacy
General Permit No. CO-OYT-0169 485 Arapahoe
Boulder, CO 80302
2. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Telephone no.during business hours
City of Aspen - Parks Dept.
130 S. Galena A/C ( ) (Residence)
Aspen, CO 81611 A/C (303 ) 440-9268 (Office)
Statement of Authorization: I hereby designate and authorize,
to act in my behalf as my
Telephone no.during business hours agent in the processing of this permit application and to furnish,upon request,
supplemental information in support of the application.
A/C( ) (Residence) SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
ABC(303 ) 920-5120 (office)
4. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
4a.ACTIVITY
The project consists of constructing small structures and riffles within the existing
river channel. The project will also include some minor bank regrading and vegetation.
plantings to improve overhead cover and bank stabilization. See attached sketches for
typical in-stream structures. Structures will be installed during low flow periods to
minimize impact on downstream areas. The structures at the upstream end of the whitewater
course will be designed to` prdvide minimum stream flow through the natural channel while
diverting the majority of higher flows to the whitewater channel.
4b. PURPOSE
The purpose is to increase in-stream pool/cover areas for trout and improve the
whitewater characteristics for boating. Presently, the fish habitat within the. channel
is less than optimal: In-stream cover is lacking and few pools are present.
4c. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL •
Large 3'-5' diameter boulders anchored into the river channel as shown. All materials
will be obtained locally. No individual structure will exceed 50 cubic yards
displacement below the high water line.
ENG FORM 4345, Apr 83 EDITION OF 1 OCT 77 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: DAEN-CWO-N)
•
5.NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING P TY OWNERS,LESSEES,ETC.,WHOSE PROPE LSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY
City of Aspen William Emde
130 S. Galena St. Advance Stainless Technologies
Aspen, CO 81611 3931 Ann Arbor
Houston, TX 71063
6.WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
Roaring Fork .River, Aspen Colorado, between Mill Street Bridge and Pedestrian
bridge below Heron Park.
7. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
ADDRESS:
Rio Grande Propery, Aspen, Colorado
Near Mill Street at Roaring Fork River
STREET, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION
Pitkin CO 81611
COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE
City of Aspen
LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE
8. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? ❑YES g NO
If answer is"Yes"give reasons,month and year the activity was completed. Indicate the existing work on the drawings.
9. List all approvals or certifications and denials received from other federal, interstate,state or local agencies for any structures,construction,
discharges or other activities described in this application.
ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL
Colorado Division of Wildlife
State Historical Society
10.Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in
this application,and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information Is true,complete,and accurate. I further certify that I possess the
authority to undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
•
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SI NATU E 0 AGE DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious or
fraudulent statement or entry,shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,or both.
Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued.
•
1
RectovED
AIL
DEC 16 St
Gary Lacy • • ; ' .n ngineering & Planning
485 Arapahoe • Boulder,CO 80302 • (303)440-9268
November 29, 1991
Mr. Alan Czenkush
Colorado Division of Wildlife
453 Prefontaine
Riffle,CO 81650
Dear Alan:
Thank you for coming to Boulder to meet with me regarding the Roaring Fork
Whitewater Course in Aspen. I think it was good to discuss the Division's concerns and to
tour the Boulder Creek Whitewater Course. The following points were agreed on to proceed
with this project.
• The split flow area at the upstream end of the course will be designed to maintain the
current minimum flow through the existing river channel (25 cfs). This will be
accomplished by constructing rock wiers on both channels with a low flow notch on the
river channel (see attached sketch).
• The City will explore ways to augment flows to the whitewater channel. This may be
accomplished by directing south bank drainage into the whitewater channel as well as
increasing river flows upstream of the project.
• The inlet to the whitewater channel will be designed to accept a majority percentage of the
river flow after the minimum flow requirement is satisfied.
• The City of Aspen,in cooperation with the Division of Wildlife,will apply for a regional
404 permit for stream habitat structures. This permit will be for any improvements in the
river channel, upstream and downstream of the whitewater course and for north bank
improvements at the art museum. No improvements are envisioned in the existing river
channel parallel to the whitewater course other than bank revegetation, (see enclosed
application).
• The schedule is to have the permit application submitted in December, 1991 and to have
construction completed in early spring 1992 prior to the natural runoff.
I am sure this project will be completed to everyone's satisfaction as long as we all
work together. Please review the enclosed application and let me know if it is acceptable to the
Division.
Since ely,
otz , ‘er
Gary M. Lacy, P.E.
cc: Leslie Lamont
George Robinson
• Mike Crenshaw
Rob Thompson
Nick Mezei
•
•
State of Colors o DEC 3 0 1991
DIVISION OF WILDL FE . ;
December 17, 1.991
•
Mr . Gary Lacy
485 Arapahoe
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Dear Gary
•
This is in response to your letter dated November 29, 1991; I did
not receive it until December 13 . ' I have discussed the Aspen project
with a number of DOW people and we share the same concerns-- namely,
that if the Division is involved: all appropriate regulatory procedures
are followed, and if a Regional General stream habitat permit is used,
that the project actually will improve aquatic habitat . As regards the
first point, I still am not sure that the drawings you have sent would
produce a "zero rise" ( i . e . , FEMA guidelines ) -condition. According to
them, the drop structure you show immediately above the iron bridge
would produce a rise, and. the uppermost structure (shown in your last
• . drawing sent, to split flows between the natural channel and the new
kayaking channel ) would too.
On the subject of that structure, - you are planning to grout a single
or double row of boulders together but the drawing: does not indicate
how you would isolate live concrete from the stream. According to the
elevations shown, you plan to build a 4 ' drop' structure on the natural
channel, with a five-foot wide notch in it, and a 6" drop structure on
the kayak channel. That is too radical a change in a channel of this
size for me to support. It would inevitably. lead to virtually the
entire flow going through the kayak channel after bedload movement is
factored in, and your drawings do not indicate that the streambanks in
new channel are adequate to contain it. It is also far beyond the
limits allowed by the habitat improvement general permit, both in
height and volume . Even if grouted, I doubt that a- structure built of
a single row of rocks in the Roaring Fork River will last very long.
Finally, structures of this type must be keyed into the bank much •
further than the two feet shown to. .prevent an end-run .
I do not agree with the statement "the whiteweter channel will be
designed to accept a majority percentage of,,the river flow after the
• minimum flow requirement is satisfied. " My point when we discussed
this was that in the context of stream habitat improvement, the flow in
the natural channel should not be reduced at all during periods of 'low
flow.
•
As far as applying for a habitat permit to build a kayak course
goes, I have talked to the Corps in Grand Junction and have come to the
conclusion that that won't work . Inasmuch as the Regional General
permit for stream stabilization has expired, I . suppose what you 're left
with is applying for an individual permit.
III s
Mr . Gary Lacy
December 17, 1991
p. 2
As you see by now, there are a number of significant concerns that
must be . addressed before the DOW can support this project . I will try
to help you solve them if you stay in touch . I missed the meeting in
Aspen because .I was waiting for you to call .
Sincerely, •
Alan Czenkusch •
. Aquatic Habitat Biologist
•
cc : Sealing, Konishi (DOW)
Mezei, Davis (CoE)
Lamont, Robinson, Crenshaw, Thompson. (City of Aspen) .
Gruenberg (TU)
Linneke (Aspen Art Museum)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,7ENT BY:COE REGULATORY 4.1 :11— 91 2:48PM ; 3032412 039205197 ;# 1
uS Army U.S. ARMY CORPS OFIg QQ
n+ w SACRAMENTO DISTRICT �1 . /' 1l
at 1325 J. Street (hat.)
sicrstrentookerict SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-2922 I
TO: h i
ae ie Telephone Ahanbr►) (Address/Office Symbol)
f de omgs•q id&S/97 ,
(Nmnq/ritit)
(Addressee TelepiuMe Number)
FROM: /41,CA ltte,
(Facsimile Telephone Number) (Addrssz✓Office $ wibol)
(Namt/Title)
SP A . g 99 .
(sender Telephone Member)
. Number of pages to follow:
(Rtltat.r. Signature)
COMMENTS:
6dJd, t*e ` Ao.A.41 / 9 t A Regulatory Unit 4
,x Viso L,Vt. &live A- Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
402 Rood Avenue, Room 142
WS
Grand Junction Colorado 81501-2563
Pe rwe,'� M elf he- d a m r/
Tel. 303j 243-1199
Ark 64/441/rtw&hoe C..ekt 4w.rl Fax. (303) 241-2358
iiii;dhe PAU A- /isp,,,, . 6, #./004://tir...) Allm 1 e/4-("hi`4
A C we':, AAA •
�oywc co••..MG � . , `.ei-!I'l Jvr,id.4,f,o., ni< C'# VS
✓ C/1C /;l it.• It.41.404:n/i4;44//djrw%b �r' je4gi1, N.s4i/K /r.P.+00-Ga+t4'4- j /14-c" A PeTtOft:G/ P uM,;< Ad 1 jPe..4s'/i` .•r ,...:.e 061t 0114 i.ie-4•4 /e/A'.4
Adn / . 4/./4.10 14✓,j.0;, 1 ida,/4.;4 n,,,,/ i 544 i40■4.-#2. geve-e.i4'/1','
OJt'te•- .54.fi f /-L v/;.., er44,1 Afro, .,,,,,.t 1/Pi+9.1i'' 74,,e,,e are oP•6ee r
_�K.o 4440.1 Prde4.l rl,1 A.44. T1'o ..e / a i CO eYT_
p 9
- GP-1Zf od P4r x 74.-e : he I. AI Ps�o t.L � P37) ..∎L bi war defipve
--
JkC.f.le'eI j 4.-4•=se(oh `✓ltci kft e-rpreld, i01 .61411 ""lie f . .
,re/.r rJ,4 r 10aieAwr /„ #4 /,r' iK (n', 4wiel4e.le), 774 °/slve■rJ
4i► Aehir ,4i it4 i,/r/oled iormja.c, 4S pair +poor►. at/Jo eon Adorh. ; _
3 1911•,,( ,- swop,*aeI wo vl,/ A A.. /%eoi vA.a/✓</ JpGriev " 6o.- 90 474,10
1 AilC/At/Wi. mo s reriy. £.full �pviliG n0.4Ce, csm.1�ri etc . ..
/h m A y Gva,,,,i 4,- ,044 ioivdi cil 14 afrre,re.4.4 4orAt ,..,w I le
,4f ILL wear rc ..i..enre.th gel 0✓t t,,
a,/, ors wli,u( .^1•dvie 'Dv.
a/d c,olc t4 p L e' "i t Lop pJ
� •s rlar�_ � 10 /e!t n �idra✓o� ArI f7lr / +rat 1.
S s CO?' piri14-411ii:, ex/e406. o,+/as A p/4 cente4.1 ./ill/440/ oleella
,,,Li'r/at-/ in .4,44"..t el v S. , /;c/✓`% - Adele/a 7 i /£esvavd
a dPrd9 d w+gki-ia460,/rlc�/�1 lip 4/'1( 9r1'Mi / is .,w/y'set�i'c6,O,t4/. ,
ri/.L. i..JJ,,.. __ I __ c. _._ . 0 . ._- - -•
12 0 to T�+ a doss-�
ifiatt&
y
Gary Lacy • Recreation Engineering & Planning
485 Arapahoe • Boulder,CO 80302 • (303)440-9268
Mr . Alan Czenkusch
Colorado Division of Wildlife
453 Prefontaine
Riffle, Colo . 81650
January 4, 1992
Dear Alan:
This letter is in response to your letter dated December 17,
1991 . I did not receive it until December 30, 1991 . (My fax
number is 440 9268) .
There will be zero rise in the 100 year flood elevation . If
you would like a copy of the Hydraulic Analysis, please let me
know. We are required to comply with the City' s stream margin
regulations regarding zero rise . If you would like a copy of
these regulations, we can obtain one for you . Over bank
excavation will compensate for in-channel Boulder placement .
Regarding the split flow structures :
* "Live" concrete will be contained by temporary coffer
dams and half of the structure will be grouted at one
time . The river channel portion of the wier may not
need to be grouted .
• The relative height of the structure in the river
channel is two to three feet with a double row of rock .
The existing drop in the whitewater channel is
approximately eighteen inches . Both are well within
structural and hydraulic limits (see attached sketch) .
* All of the flow up to 25 cfs will continue to flow in
the river channel . The five foot notch will be angled
as a "V" notch to allow for bedload movement . The flow
in the existing river channel will not be reduced
during periods of low flow.
*
See attached description of allowed habitat improvement
structures for the regional permit. The total volume
of rock to be placed will be less than 50 cy.
/Cont . . .
ye "" 0
d", Irv' { '
Gary Lacy • Recreation Engineering & Planning
485 Arapahoe• Boulder,CO 80302•(303)440-9268
We are not applying for a permit for a kayak course - it is
located in the separate channel . If the Division feels that
improvements in the existing river channel will not improve the
habitat, including the bank work at the Art Museum, then there is
no point in doing any work in the river .
Thank you for your comments; please let me know if we should
proceed with this project .
I hope the boulders for your stream habitat project at
Northstar were helpful .
Sincerely,
Ple /".Y" M. LACY P.E.GAR
CC: Mezei, Davis (COE)
Lamont, Robinson, Thompson (Aspen)
Gruenberg (TU)
Linneke (Aspen Art Museum)
P .S . I have left numerous messages for you on your answering
machine without any response .
/o m
\ ----
:„. z 4
• e
.., 1
to V
rn
� . /
,Vs'i., . i,?/"..• A / • IC
•
/) r
) \ _%C%0
y \y
4 A-1%44 4v
. '. AT- t1".. Vet. oi, .
0 0 (to , .1 wills -1Q04114#411,10 a • 04. '
7g 11■---)'—'11.1°' crT
r 0) . . 9 ' r r k 11S e) 41 5 3 x.„0 0
co
41,0 5•et ILI ' t. 5 a. -...i%:Itt-
--,-- iikli
% i . -
til m . O b , o
o o. j —C4 4 • . 0, oh
n 3 Oa " ,, QWG+ ?o T
k it 0p *4
l n� ••
--t 7 X 1k '\ 4 Crtli3 2%f:3 Or 't
O O S� O
t4." ‹? Kp 0 -% " 0- . 33 it) DI %
CI- 0 WO i 5s4ti =
4) N 3 G Z
• .9# rc
r A
,ral Permit 79-07
pendix A
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM HABITAT IMPROViENT STRUCTURES
In accordance with the terms and conditions of this General Permit and upon
receipt of a letter of compliance, the General Public is authorized to place
permanent fill material in Phase II and III waterways in the State of Colorado
in conjunction with the construction of Stream Habitat Improvement Structures.
•
The Stream Habitat Improvement Structures must be constructed of suitable
materials which conform to the guidelines promulgated pursuant to Section 404(b)
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) . The total amount of fill material
discharged riverward of the ordinary high water line for any individual struc-
ture must not exceed 50 cubic yards. Structures such as the following are
commonly use to improve stream abitat.
a. Boulder Retards: Boulders or large rocks may be placed in streams to
improve stream habitat. Placing boulders in the stream will slow the current
and dig out small pockets or pools which are used as resting and feeding areas
for fish.
b. Trash Catchers: Trash catchers may be constructed using steel fence-
posts, heavy duty hog wire or chickenwire, rocks, and brush. A small impound-
ment will form upstream, and a small pool will be scoured out below the .
structure. _ c,
c. Log and Rock Drops or Dams: Low-level dams may be constructed out of
logs or rocks. They create small impoundments upstream and small pools are
scoured out downstream by water flowing over.the dam.
d. Deflectors: Deflectors may be constructed out of logs, sheetpiling,
rock, and gravel. Deflectors speed up the current and scour out small pools.
Increased current may clean silt and sand out of gravel, improving trout
spawning habitat.
e. Digger Logs: Digger logs divert some of the normal streamflow beneath
the log which will scour out a small pool.
f. Artificial Cover: Artificial cover or overhangs may be constructed
. out of logs, wood, or rocks. Vegetational succession on top of a sodded plat-
form will restore a natural appearance. Such a development provides hiding
cover for trout.
g. Fallen Trees: Trees or brush may be placed in the stream and must be
properly anchored to prevent washing away during high flows.
•
h. Barriers: Barriers may be constructed out of wood or gabion baskets.
Barriers may be needed to isolate pure strains of fish, such as the greenback
cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki stomias.
6 •
•
•
Johnson Water
DESIGN ENGINEERS
1633 S. Vivian
October 30. 1991 Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-3706 440-9711
Gary Lacy
Recreation Engineering & Planning
485 Arapahoe Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
RE: HEC-2 Analysis of the Roaring Fork River Kayak Course at Aspen, CO.
Dear Mr. Lacy:
At your request I have analyzed the affect of the channel changes proposed for the
Roaring Fork River Kayak course on the 100 yr. flood elevations. This letter report is a
summary of the findings and methodology.
CONCLUSIONS
The construction will not cause a rise in the 100 yr. water surface if the south sidewalk
shown in section 7 on drawing 2 dated 12 Oct. 1991 the is lowered 6 inches. The
section 9 elevations on that same drawing need to be raised 6 ft. to correspond with
the mapping provided by the city of Aspen. Analysis using the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers computer program HEC-2 shows the improvement in the channel capacity.
A table of the water surface elevations is as follows:
Water Surface Water Surface
Section Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
} 40.0 7845.71 7845.71
40.2 7852:67 7852.33
40.4 7853.81 7853.26
40.7- 7857.4 7857.35
40.9 7861.86 7861.65
—,142.07 7865.49 - 7865.47
143.0 7874.7 7874.7
DATA SOURCES
This study is based on surveyed cross sections supplied by you and cross section
locations shown on your drawing one dated 12 Oct. 1991. Existing cross sections
above and below the study reach were supplied by the City of Aspen from a FEMA
study dated 08 FEB 85. The same FEMA study was used as a source for 100 yr flows
and existing channel roughness parameters. A map supplied by the city was also
used for cross section information in areas not covered by the field surveys. That map
is of poor quality in the areas of the proposed construction. Some of the contour lines
are broken or missing.
METHODOLOGY
The FEMA study cross section (140) along the upstream side of the Mill Street bridge
was used as a starting point for this study. The next 1400 ft. of the study reach was
modeled using surveyed cross section data to define what exists today. Proposed
section data was used at each of these locations to define the new conditions with the
kayak course in place. Sections 143 and 144 were used from the FEMA study so the
results would be continuous.
The computer model of the river under both present and the future proposed
conditions gave the results listed above.
The enclosed drawing shows the changes in the flood plain. Please call if you have
any questions or need any more material for the city.
;Z:j
Orly
4 � ,r
i-'eter F. John SOn P.F.
g , ...„. .., t?.„,,..,T_ 0,..
?��
4,,,, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
' �i. U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,SACRAMENT•
n: ' ` A! ,�6�j CORPS OF ENGINEERS •
,;I�,._ m, `� 1325JSTREET t!%�vG� —
__-. SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814-2922_-�.�• • REPLY TO -/
"-_ ,••' ATTENTION OF V
September 17 , 1992
Regulatory Section ( 199275075 ) • . • . aVo ot-mett.C.c . 44`
} . , . .. . .
•Ms Donna Linnecke ��
Aspen Art Museum
( 590 North Mill Street • -tLtX
Aspen, Colorado 81611 13 06
1
Dear Ms. Linnecke:
j I am responding to your request for Department of the Army
authorization for a stream habitat improvement project in the
t small stream and pond located on the Art Museum property in
Aspen, Colorado. The project site is located in Section 7 ,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West, Pitkin County, Colorado.
s The Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District has issued
Regional General Permit Number CO-OYT-0169 (GP-12 ) to authorize
certain limited discharges of dredged and fill material
associated with stream habitat improvement projects in the state
f. of Colorado.
t. Based on our review of the information submitted, we have
determined that your project is authorized by Regional General
Permit Number CO-OYT-0169 (GP-12 ) subject to the conditions of
this permit (copy enclosed) . In the application you explained
' that approximately 20 cubic yards of material will be removed to
reconfigure the outlet channel . You should inform this office
on the methods which you will employ to stabilize this outlet •
_
channel . .
We commend your efforts to create .spawning habitat for
;- Colorado River Cutthroat trout. Please keep us informed on
the success of this project. We have assigned permit number
I, 199275075 to this project. Please reference this number .in any •
correspondence submitted to this office regarding this project.
' , ' Should you or your contractor( s ) have any questions, contact Mr.
Claffey at ( 303 ) 243-1199 .
Sincerely,
•
` Grady L. McNure
Chief, Western Colorado Regulatory
Office
,TI 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 '
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501=2563 - -- - -
-
3 Enclosure . . _" .
• •
�y .
Copies Furnished:
Dr. Gene Reetz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8WM-WQ
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
'.
Mr. Dan Collins . Subdistrict Chief, U.S Geological Survey,
Post Office Box 2027 , Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Mr. Alan Czencusch, Colorado Division of Wildlife,
453 Prefontaine, Rifle, Colorado 81650
Mr. Robert Caskey, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 711
Independence Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
L/Oity of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
•
•
r
T."
gY-
2.
r..
r 4 GULATORY UNIT 4-D#iAtap JUNCTION 11 1 k`
,o -' 0
_ AUG 10 law
1i BRIAN L. WEINER
P.O. Box 7608
San Antonio, Texas 78207
(512) 226-6820
1 CERTIFIED MAIL
i. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 7, 1992
z:
;- • Colonel Lawrence R. Sadoff
. ` U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Sir:
- This letter is in reference to the Joint public notice
no.1992200308 concerning the Roaring Fork White River Walk in
Aspen, Colorado.
I own a house at 449 Worth Spring Street on the Roaring Fork River
Immediately across the White Water Kayak course and on the main
,: channel of the Roaring Fork River. I have recently observed this
project at the stage it is presently in. I have noticed that the
new kayak course has a number of pools and is below the elevation
of the main channel of the Roaring Fork River.
I would like to object to any further changes in the main channel
of the Roaring Fork River as it now stands in front of my house and
, along the kayak course from the main channel of the Roaring Fork
- River. I would object to any widening of the kayak course or any
increase flow of water through the kayak course.
If you would ike to discuss further, please call me at (512) 226-
6820.
Sincerely,
.04.044411064 .
F Br an Weiner
BW:mp
cc: Robert Owen
Michael Claffey
i
$.
t.
T
tr
.y__.:
F
t AUG A2 4 19J
: .
1 • - ' ' • le f 1.ORs! UNI1 5'4 6,AAND JUNCTION
. v1 1
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH.P.C. 600 East Hopkins Avenue
%i,.. Suns 203
x. A Proreasrarwi Corporotron - Moen.Color000 et611
. Attorneys Attoriteyf Ai Low Ts edhone(303)925-2612
rh_ Tecopisr 13031925
J.Nicholas McGrath' N 02
Mict.oei C.`etond
August 12, 1992
1,
l Mr. Laurence R. Sadoff
US Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
E
. Re: Kayak Course
v.
ti Dear Mr. Sadoff:
This is in response to your request for comments on the City of Aspen's
`' This
diversion of water from the Roaring Fork River for a kayak course.
I represent William Emde, who owns property on the river, opposite the
tr course, I think adjacent to the point of diversion or slightly downstream. He
believes he owns property into the river,but that may be disputed by the City.
Mr. Emde's concern is that the flow of the main channel of the Roaring
Fork River, past his property.
We believe the City failed to follow procedures that it and you would
, require of private property owners before construction. Be that as it may, our
position is that adequate independence evidence should be submitted to
`, determine the appropriate elevation of the point of diversion, the elevation in
place now, and whether the flow in the main channel will be degraded in any
1.
way.
There was a good meeting here recently with Mike Gaffey, City
representatives and others. He requested certain information from the City and as
' of this date I do know if that has been provided.
,
I did receive from the City certain "split flow calculations" for the kayak
course. I am not a water engineer nor a riparian expert. But a 25 percent diversion
out of the main course year round, and 33 percent in late Spring/early Summer,
J.
seem excessive. What about low water years?That is, if one needs to measure
effects
,
r•
y.
is
'Member.Cob-(1974 Coat.(t%9).owl D.C.(t9do)bore
r
xi
• op
•
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH.P.C.
Mr. Sadoff
August 12, 1992
Page 2
one needs to do that in relation to time surely the Roaring Fork does not always
have the same volume of water in it It.would be helpful if the applicant were
required to present a report specifically discussing the effect or the diversion on
adjacent stream properties.
Sincerely,
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
J kJ4t.Gti e.G„ Pt6cat-
,
By J. Nicholas McGrath
cc Mr.William 0. Emde
Edward M. Caswall,Esq.
dd\sadof8121tr
ry
0 ,,,J
0 rki 1.44-
Richard W. Volk AU6 2 0 1992
2327 Mimosa Drive
Houston, Texas 77019
July 31, 1992
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
z. Sacramento District
1325 J Street
L Sacramento, Ca 95814
1.
Re: Pubic Notice No. 199200308
I.
Property owner of 1/2 interest in Lots 1,2 & S 1/2 of 3 Block 1
Oklahoma Flats, Aspen, Colorado
To Whom It May Concern:
t
I would like to be assured as follows:
1. That the city be held to the same standards that we the property
owners are.
i 2. That the grade control structure at the entrance to the new
channel (kayak course) be installed properly and maintained so as to
prevent the abandonment of the main channel over time. I believe this
structure should be installed so that only part of the stream flow, that is in .
excess of 100 cubic feet per second be diverted into the new channel. r'
From my direct and indirect understanding of the facts surrounding the .
actions and events of the kayak course it seem the people involved were
f; • going to install the kayak course at what ever cost. To me it was clear they
needed a permit before excavation began last fall, even though water was
I not flowing through at that time, it was their intent was that it would. Also
for the city to flagrantly remove material at the entrance of the course to
obtain more flow for the grand opening on June 11th causes me to be
concerned for the future.
If these items are addressed in your deliberations, conclusions and
a:
requirements I will be satisfied.
ii Sincerely,
fiti2PR/0
s
Richard W. Volk
b
it
,.
• I
g I recently recieved an interesting packet in the mail
t the Corp of Engineers. It contained a Public: re- i
he
of Aspens 'After the Fact Permit' apP
for
girding the City Water Se sk Course and provide
for a permit to construct a.White the river within the city
fishing and passive recreation along
limits.
to this document, the decision whether to issue the
According
probable impact of
' " based on en evaluation to the protad a imps the
z ppermit will be public
ony ictfEngin etcdeetermines it Mouidlbe contrary to the
{� district Eagine - .
it interest• including maps
reading through the 13 pages
After carefully references which should
and diagrams,
I found two very interesting
} be addressed.
Proposal itself to use the tiVer to construct
there is the Prop 'white is something
1•itst► th My interpret-
, sthin
the g the lines of rk ids. Not being an avid kayaker my
along the lines of rap as anyone can see by walking over
However, passable see lot more water
toith may course,incorrect. p Thee water
way
will the cned th than what to make goingtthrough there now. To divert
to be that water er i wtot is g
�� owners literally high and dry'
to get that water is toisingrproPtzty the main khans
it would leave the adjoining
excavated an
illoarly,
the project description cites the City in-
The City contends the snow
old fill area which WAS used as a snow 1m+P, se that the
corpeha• It e smove IS the snow dump.where is it? I propose 4. dump has been moved. melt it has,
city.
will continue to melt snow over there eand run that sediment and
debris filled water into their $65'0 money diverted to unnecessary
As a taxpayer I'm tired of seeing st
and unwanted pro]eets. Who asked in need kayak repair? That the Asps 0.00
Art Museum riverbank to wall is still the already beautiful things we have.
Y_ should taus gone to maintaining I hope
0. f Engineers grant this permit,0. Should the Army Corp p. do so. The two issues above
they get further information biloreo they only open the Chanel during
Y q
should be addressed. =a the City q open at all times so that the high water season, or will it remain ape
some of us who paid for the Chanel will be the ogee who have to
suffer with it?
Thark you,
Nikki Meanings
1
g
I f7 . r .wuourrc _ JUL 3 1 19�.
nrvvi STATES DEPARTMENT OF TIBOTERIOR
', raMp
•
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE •
FLSH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ;
i9 .. Western Colorado Sub-Office ' ,.S*
.1 529 2556 Road,Suite IL113
C ° Grand kmction,CO 11505-6199
PHONE:(303)243-2778 FAX:(303)245-6933
IN REPLY REM TO:
t FWE/CO:COE-PN 1992 00308
MS 65412 GJ .
July 29, 1992
Laurence R. Sadoff, Colonel , CE
Department of the Army
_ Sacramento District Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, California 95814-2922
Re: Public Notice No. 199200308
City of Aspen - Construction of'white water kayak couse and fishing and
passive recreation along the Roaring- Fork River
Dear Colonel Sadoff:
k. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the subject Public Notice
1 and offers the following comments. These comments have been prepared under the
1 authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. as
f amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and constitute the report of the Department of the
4 Interior.
The Service concurs that there are no endangered species or critical habitat in the
• immediate project area. However, we do have other concerns.
The Service is very concerned that construction that has already `taken place may
adversely impact the hydrology of the Roaring Fork River system with consequent
m impacts on aquatic resources, riparian vegetation, fish habitat values, and
z
floodplain ecology. In particular, the Service is concerned about:
1. Whether the grade control structure at the entrance to the new channel
:: is designed such that:
a. high flows entering the channel are at the same level as before
alteration by the project i.e., the functional relationship
between the old high flow (i.e., and the river corridor ha not
} been altered).
b. the grade control structure is not destroyed or altered by
periodic flooding events, thereby allowing unregulated flows from
. the river to enter the channel.
2. Whether the depth and configuration of the constructed channel is such
r that:
_ _
4.
y •. . .. .. ®
` • Page 2
a. seepage will not occur from the Roaring Fork River into the
channel, thus causing unregulated water loss to the Roaring Fork
River.
b. a catastrophic flood event will not cause the constructed channel.
to capture the river and thereby dewater the main river channel.
3. Whether the side slope barrier separating the Roaring Fork River from
the constructed channel along the length of the channel is sufficient to
withstand periodic flood events.
« 4. Whether either the barrier or channel banks are sufficiently stabilized
to prevent periodic catastrophic flood events from washing fines and
sediment into the Roaring Fork River.
4 The Service recommends that project design, construction, and management guarantee
't that river dynamics and hydrology are not altered either in the area parallel to the
kayak course or downstream. To that end, 'the Service recommends that the City of
Aspen hire an independent hydrologist, mutually acceptable to the Service, the
1 Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of
Aspen, to evaluate the project and make recommendations if present project design is
found to be insufficient to guarantee no alterations in river dynamics or hydrology.
' The above listed agencies should review the hydrology report and recommendations and
agree upon final project construction and management parameters as a permit
condition. This agreement should provide for sufficient monitoring and reporting to
certify that permit conditions are met and river hydrology is not altered in the
future.
- The Service further recommends to the City of Aspen that, in the future, project
construction be preceded by more in-depth planning, early consultation with agencies
, that might be concerned about impacts, and sufficient attention to permitting
requirements.
x
If the Service can be of further assistance, please contact Lucy Jordan at the
letterhead address.
t
:
Sincerely,
YYY • J1
S
eith L. Rose
Assistant Colorado State Supervisor
i.
pc: CDOW, Grand Junction
CDOH, Denver (Attn: Bob Owen)
COE, Grand Junction
EPA, Denver (Attn: Sarah Fowler)
FWS/FWE, Salt Lake City
f. FWS/FWE, Golden
i
• ATiA Q�Nr 1
IAND USE APPLZ(�IC R)M4 11)
1) Project Name i►9 =P55r k 6 i V&c "'tewa]j fse
2) P r o j e c t l o c a t i o n {y 4)_G R oz v 01 / ►'t / cl .ry .
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate) .
3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # 6i-tat UP' A-spe ?arts_ myth.
6) Representative's Nam, Address & Phone # Gary /.G G' - !IS 4frilziiioz6
./ m
y . l , _ , a, Iii ,. is ►s/; r it
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
Q,rbolpmi ni umi zation Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment
Lot Split/lot of Line CMS Exemption
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures;
es;
apprmdmte sq. ft.• maker of bedrooms; any previous approvaLs granted to the
ProPerY) -
RarIc1g icr& f i? V .
•
•
9) Description of Development Application
10) Have you attached the following?
X Response to Attadaent 2, Minimum Submission ssion O tents 444 3/5 Ci iy b c[ec
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission ssion Contents-14eiii B ' Sub,,.W
Response to Attadmient 4, Review Standards for Your Application �115'1e-"7
October 14, 1991
Ms. Leslie Lamont
City of Aspen Planning Dept.
130 Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
This letter is to confirm that Mr. Gary Lacy of Recreation Engineering &
Planning is authorized to act on behalf of the City of Aspen Parks Department
in regard to the Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course and Riverwalk. His
address is 485 Arapahoe, Boulder, Colorado 80302. His phone number is (303)
440-9268.
Please contact me with ny que.t.ins.
Sincerely, //
Patrick Duffield, Aspe Park: • t.
cc: George Robinson
Gary Lacy
Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course
and Riverwalk
project Description (see the attached plan section views of the project)
This project consists of in-channel modifications, large boulder
placement, and south bank regrading on the Rio Grande Property in Aspen,
Colorado. There are numerous purposes for the project including:
1. Improvement of in-stream structure for whitewater boating,
particularly at low flows,
2. Restoration and improvement of the in-stream fish habitat and
riparian zone,
3. Increasing the flood carrying capacity of the river and reducing flood
damage potential to the north bank properti s,,- .ABC
4. Construction of a pedestrian riverwalk on the south bank for public
access to the river,
5. Remove and regrade the fill that has been dumped on the south bank
of the river to allow for improvements such as art in the park,
entertainment areas and Riverwalk cafes.
The proposed schedule for construction is to complete the project in
three phases.
Phase.I - to be completed in 1991, will be to complete the new whitewater
channel, re-shape the island, and regrade and remove fill from the
south bank for the riverwalk.
Phase II = to be completed in the spring of 1992, will be to landscape the
areas, surface the riverwalk and complete all final grading,
construction access points, boat landings, etc.
Phase III - to be ongoing, over time, which will be to construct Riverwalk
cafes, entertainment areas and structures and Art Park facilities.
The projected cost for Phase I construction is approximately $60,000.
Phase II & III are yet to be determined.
• 4110
Responses to Attachment 4 questions,
Stream Margin Review for the Roaring Fork River
Whitewater Course and Riverwalk
1. This project will not increase the base flood elevation. See the attached
hydraulic report which demonstrates, by using the HEC II computer
model, that the base flood elevation will not be raised.
2. All existing and proposed trails on the entire parcel are dedicated to
public use and are part of the parks/recreation/open space/trails plan.
3. This project will follow the recommendations of the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan.
4. No vegetation will be removed or slope grade changed that produces
erosion and sedimentation. The existing steep south bank slope will be
laid back and vegetation planted to relieve the current erosion problems.
5. The proposed development will allow runoff to be intercepted prior to
entering the Roaring Fork River.
6. The existing River Channel will not be altered or relocated.
7. Not Applicable.
8. A Section 404 Permit may be required for a minor portion of this work. A
copy of this authorization will be given to the City if this permit ia/
necessary.
km 10,6 tfhts Polerarifrwl 5stivtE tfQ,P If Tiros
Pestutts 6rtr t • w tact-Jti E-
WiJ�n1 P ben1T I.Otl-o 1{ga `+oJ
e . ••,,.,...
•
•
_ .
. ,
•
•
•
. •
..
•
•
. . .
. . .. • . . . .• ....
. .
. .. . . ..
• , . .
. •• .
•
•
.. , .
. • .. . . ....... . •• .. . . .
„ . . . .
viii t°TEvJA1 R .COURSE. • . . • '-I.- -
AND felisAWALK . ,':
rill �ja -I • NN. '•, • ' �*• ,$4 . -- ;�. . ,' �• • / ,i i/. �`,•
1 . .. •�1:!1 l! ��_ ,�t' is , . . ••
.:
• •
Johnson Water
DESIGN ENGINEERS
1633 S. Vivian
October 30. 1991 Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-3706 440-9711
Gary Lacy
Recreation Engineering & Planning
485 Arapahoe Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
RE: HEC-2 Analysis of the Roaring Fork River Kayak Course at Aspen, CO.
Dear Mr. Lacy:
At your request I have analyzed-the affect of the channel changes proposed for the
Roaring Fork River Kayak course on the 100 yr. flood elevations. This letter report is-a
summary of the findings and methodology.
CONCLUSIONS
The construction will not cause a rise in the 100 yr. water surface if the south sidewalk
shown in section 7 on drawing 2 dated 12 Oct. 1991 the is lowered 6 inches. The
•
section 9 elevations on that same drawing need to be raised 6 ft. to correspond with
the mapping provided by the city of Aspen. Analysis using the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers computer program HEC-2-shows the improvement in the channel capacity.
A table of the water surface elevations is as follows:
Water Surface Water Surface
Section Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
40.0 7845.71 7845.71
40.2 7852.67 7852.33
40.4 7853.81 7853.26
40.7 7857.4 7857.35
40.9 7861 .86 7861.65
42.0 7865.49 7865.47
143.0 7874.7 7874.7
- ,
. -
•
.----- -
...r.. •-R•ww,I./1111..,w,
-1 F
, W g'i IIIIIIIIII
! t2r-
Eg / g
o to
•
1 '
•
I .
I
I .
• I
—--- - - -:- --
• 1\1 . . . . .,_ . • , .. . .. . ..-
•
I \ Ole
•
, •
1 , .
. .
.1111 614
Ei
0
t.1 .
=
• - 1 s,..
..---- . /
.., ,,,,,.
.... ,.... .1.1r-
,--- 41
YI •
II
/.1 •- S--74"1
•4i
•
11-401,10:13 .;
eV 4 4 • •
l'• O. 41
• r# •tk..ort,) ,„'
,, et• ,,104.3.0).•„.w3.,/ ‘,.•
o 1_ < .. 1 z_
, 1 t 0
ti .r...
, .0 .. ;-• •- '• - ..
f., cp.....,c, ...,..0.);
, ci, 4.--..cy :;#1. *4.6.4
.8s 44. i
• libl • 5 •
12i 7 4 .1/ ..4..''' :Pii ..---- ',,,N, e 2
• •a ,
g- % . 43 47,, ,:, / --41r " l':-:;.■' i .3 . f Q.
, 3 , .,,_'47 , z,• -,,,`',-
b t i '4. 'Tf ' • ; .rAP f
4,` 'A,.--- , `-''':JO' tr : . 4:■ -1
tz
:
•
2
I! en. r.k 1 1- 0 .•`' • 0
.! I/ -- i,,;': -- . ( 4""v." ■ . 1; i Z .
S
0,
.,' 4V, o f, ,' Ta V
0.0 :. .....
164.,,Iiii .celia , 1! / ,,\ -,___.. ....... / .: . . •/
-4.
: tv , t--..,. 0 Immi :)
-_, ,,, 0 • - -_,,t„„, / took gm&
.. .1 1 " NC•Itt6g ' / ‹.--k /.% /
K.
z s , - -■,,,,V;:_:?±...-.:-- -
- -/t •iiii . ° ...... ,,c% „ _---,-:....,--,-i:---<---- Z 0 imin
- .,,, ,-...--1.-22■.■ . t ,
\• 0 .-••-r,,k - - / f
' - _.....4," ..at
h . 141.) fin
- -
. . , . t ...... ./Ir,,, ■ k t 4 s :', I
7 % '''. tfh., 1 'A.›. I -,-"T-?,..j . **it. k•\ .
.#7:1
\\ ' liilie,%0i''''' :\_N' '\k 1..A, i :.------.:74,4 • Api•'•, %, 7 ;
-,•1("‘■ 'ri: 1■..---../ fi\1 V # sZst4 In ' .1 In • all;11 .
. a x
'N lkco ,• tv:\• ":....‘.% .- i: V) i
0• ,:: .. . ,....e: ,47,/i:,,.,,R ,z; s .•,.‘ :,01%,- - 1 A 3
-%':.:41''.. ' i jrnt#1*W ' 1^ 0
.. c_ -n. li Ce 1 ■c b
4. . ,. ,. ,,:.-,.z..\:: I /my __,Ii, ,
, 4ty ,. s.:. __ !„, ,x( 1
4.. .z, .... .... ?„...... ,......„1.,==
ii.. . -_241. ..
,.......„1„ .._atc>N4. os
r c
N_ I
... - ....: t ,
tor . ..: •.
. ,
1 illi, : • t RIO
i ..:‘,.:. i i N.. ..
i . :4. s.,, Z wqi
..-/ ..
ova 121 — tv
• c cn V .'• \ i
• • z tr
-1 I Ila
•.\ i .; e! •■• 4,
p. .:,,
I ) ;.
. '
N ,..
•
11
0 *
igroo. ..10•111111111" ) i , . I i z a
. \
I,„ 8
/
•
P \
I a
,... f... • = el
•(.9 g
,.,
/ V.
..., \
\
. , \
0 e 3 a 8 e
. .
•
-- • - .
■
•
'
.. ,
•
1
L
CC
(1
( --
CC
0 T N
0 Z H /D
T N-
�.
*/Z i- Q Z
O Q L 'b W c9� ��
I C U O D
CI O O Q d J Z d J O U
O O J J
Z N
Z ti J ti J LL.
— — O O o
I- ~ Q-
v) v 0 O Z > 0
• Z "CO
O• G WZW M :s0
")^N ti O
—O)
CD
Nr
0 .'o
94, X X CC M
W w a Ti
/ 1 I
/ ,
I
SS' 8L
-
\ •.
0 \\ Y
C:1:::.
W
in
II i
°
c._)
U W\...-- . . •\'... n
N
Y Y — CO
Z Q W i
}- 0
CD Q Y 0
Y X rn
/..... 9 c z W >-
•
\ \\ � 2 Liii:j ''''' -
oZ �
a. cc w
oaa o
CC O (1)
a. OC Q c9
Z
\ 4
: \. , .
Ca
\ \
\ \ ..:.::'
\x\ - .. /\..x.........s.L0(---1, ..... ' ,. .. _,... . ,
N N . / \,/\(b ... ..-.
\ N / ...
0 \ \ ' / 1 ...
\ 3\ , ..
\ .
\ % ,:e
\\ , 3
\ \ )
4
\ v-: \�, �N -r�� ? 4, ?
F A
• A t- -- J
1 Zs
\ \ Op 10 t _
S 4 O �p %
\ \ ,
= JO Z
J •
3 z
/ �y
. 1 r\ \ N
. o
1
N ,
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Roaring Fork River/Rio Grande Stream Margin Review
DATE: October 22 , 1991.
SUMMARY: The Parks Department has submitted an application 'for the
construction of kayak course and pedestrian_path adjacent to the
Rio Grande property. (,Pursuant t
o....=Sect on: 7 5:0.4_,4.` Str ae m Margin
{R view�is—required, T,) The Planning Department recommends approval '`
with condit-rons
APPLICANT: City of Aspen, as represented by Gary Lacey and Patrick
Duffield.
LOCATION: Theµ;kayak course,'and;new :ara%l7bed will be constructed
�. � ;�-- ,may -
Cin the_port°ion of theRoar .ng Fork Rivers°between theme Art Museum.and
fm Rio Grande parcel.',:`
ZONING: Public, SPA Overlay
APPLICANT' S REQUEST: Stream Margin Approval for a kayak course and
new pedestrian trail bed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has reviewed the
application and has the following comments:
1. A HEC II analysis is necessary to determine that there is no
rise in Base Flood Elevation.
2 . Copies of all necessary federal and state permits relating to
work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain must be
submitted.
3 . The Colorado Water Conservation Board must be notified with
notice sent to FEMA regarding the alteration of the river channel.
4 . If slope and grade changes are made, erosion mitigation plans
must be provided to ensure that erosion and sedimentation of the
stream bank does not occur.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning and Parks Departments, in response
to City Council ' s direction to begin enhancement measures on the
portion of river next to the Rio Grande parcel, have developed a
proposal for a kayak course, re-shaping of the existing island, and
regrading and removing fill from the south bank for an eventual
riverwalk.
Construction of the kayak course will require in-channel
411 111
modifications, large boulder placement, and south bank regrading.
In addition to the development of a kayak course, the purpose of
the project is to improve in-stream fish habitat and the riparian
zone, increase flood carrying capacity of the river, and remove and
regrade fill that has been dumped on the south bank of the river
to allow for eventual riverwalk improvements. Those specific
improvements and other land uses will be better defined in the Rio
Grande Master Plan process. This phase of the Rio Grande
enhancement is anticipated to be completed in 1991.
At the October 15, 1991 Council meeting, staff presented this
proposal. Council not only overwhelmingly consented to the
submission of an application for City .Property, Council also
committed Land Fund money for the implementation of the project.
A. Stream Margin: Pursuant to Section 7-504 C. , development is
required, to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet
. from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its
•
tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain.
The applicable review standards are as follows:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is
in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood
elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be
demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional
engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including,
but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site
which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by
the development.
RESPONSE: According to the application, this project will not
increase the base flood elevation. A HEC II analysis will be
conducted to confirm that the base flood elevation will not be
raised.
2 . Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is
dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: All proposed trails and existing trails are dedicated
for public use which is consistent with the Plan.
3 . The recommendations of the. Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest
extent practicable.
RESPONSE: This project will follow the recommendations of the
Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The development of the kayak course
and excavation of the south bank is consistent with the criteria
to provide access to the river for fishermen and other interested
2
•
•
411 AO,
groups.
4 . No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE: According to the application, no vegetation removal or
slope grade changes are being made that will produce ,erosion or
sedimentation problems. The existing step south bank slope will
be laid back and vegetation planted to relieve the current erosion '
problems. The island will also be re-shaped and more vegetation
planted to enhance fish and riparian - habitat. A tree removal
permit shall be reviewed for the removal of any tree greater than
6" in caliper. The applicant shall work with the Engineering
Department to identify erosion mitigation measures during
construction.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary.
RESPONSE: The application states that the "proposed development
will allow runoff to be intercepted prior to entering the Roaring
Fork River. "
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration..or' relocationtof" a water course, and
a copy of said notice is. submitted to the—Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
RESPONSE: The. existing channels will . be modified and the actual
water°. course will be , changed. Therefore, the Board will be
notified of these changes and notice will be submitted to FEMA
• prior to any construction.
•
7 . A guarantee is provided ;in5 the event .a water course is altered
or relocated,' that .applies to the developer and his heirs,
successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying'
capacity on the' parcel'' is not diminished. .
RESPONSE: Not. applicable.
•
8 . Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain.
RESPONSE: A Section 404 Permit may be required for a minor portion
of this work. Prior to any excavation and construction this permit
shall be 'secured if necessary. . •
RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends approval of the stream margin
review to reconstruct the channel for a whitewater course, re-
shaping the island, planting of new vegetation, and regrading the
south bank with the following conditions:
3
•
1. Prior to construction:
a. the applicant shall provide a set of drawings stamped by the
engineer who performed the hydraulic analysis and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Engineering Department;
Cb' an__erosion mitigation plan shall be approved by the Engineering
Department and the plan--shalAl include, but not limited to,
revegetation of disturbled areas;
c. tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department
before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. Every
effort should be made to relocate on site the trees that must be
disturbed;
d. necessary 404 Permits shall be obtained and provided to the
Engineering Department; and .
e. the Colorado Water Conservatio1 Board shall be notified of •
changes to the river channel.:\ �c trir
2 . All representations that have been made in the application and
during the presents ion shall be adhered to.
illu -n
-.,,.7.-,-,- , • . __. ) 6,\ 01)
S 0 I 1 ' . , i _4:
4 „ -----c1„. ■ - ,
, , , ,
. , .
, ,. N& , ,
( , NO
- i i . ;---GLAi--4,..t ) - / / /
1, \ - - 4, -te-±„L„
- �
I�-.
, / �V V�l ���� Jf /).l Uv-bUI '
, --t-L
• 47‹y. 4 ,Li...„:, 11
• ,* 1
4
•
411 111
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: George Robinson, Parks Department
Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: October 15, 1991
RE: Roaring Fork River Channel Enhancement
SUMMARY: Staff submitted a memorandum for your review at the
September 23 , 1991 Council meeting. The memo briefly outlined the
proposed river enhancement work that has begun for the portion of
river adjacent to the Rio Grande parcel. This work has commenced
pursuant to Council's direction regarding the Rio Grande master
plan effort. .
This memo will summarize the proposed river channel work including
an estimated budget and time frame for the planning and work.
Staff will make a presentation at the Council meeting illustrating
the actual work proposed.
PROPOSAL: The River Enhancement Committee has been working with
the Parks Department and Gary Lacey (a consultant from Boulder who
has been working on other trail efforts) to develop a proposal for
the river channel and the south bank along the Rio Grande parcel.
The proposal includes a readjustment to the river channel that will
place boulders in key locations in the river to form a drop-pool-
drop-pool effect. There are two islands on the south side of the
river that were created at the time of flood control work in 1985.
The long narrow island up-river from the Art. Museum will be
completely removed and the periodically dry channel area between
the island and the bank will be used as a walking path.
BUDGET: Recent cost estimates have been submitted to the
Engineering Department.
Engineering and Plan Review - $9800. 00, to. include design of
proposal, plan review, HEC II analysis, 404 permitting
process, stream margin review, construction supervision.
Implementation of Project - $60,000. 00, actual tasks will be
presented at Council meeting.
The Parks Department anticipates savings in the 1991 budget from
the engineer and legal monies out of the trails program. This
savings could be used to cover the Engineering and Plan Review
costs.
III III
In addition to City funds for the cost of the Implementation phase,
staff is exploring other funding sources. Several organizations
have expressed a willingness to help. For example the north bank
enhancement work (next to the Art Museum) is being funded in part
by DOW, Trout Unlimited and the state lottery.
TIME FRAME: A stream margin application has been prepared for this
phase of river work and is ready to be submitted once Council
consents to river work on City property. A quick submittal may
enable the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the application
at their October 22 meeting.
The Army Corps Section 404 review and HEC II analysis can occur
simultaneously with stream margin review. The construction bid
process can also occur during plan review. It is therefore
anticipated that construction may begin at the end of October
provided the entire amount of money for the project is budgeted for
this project.
Prior to construction, staff plans to organize a neighborhood
informational meeting to present proposals to adjacent property
owners.
):6
OMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council direct the City
n ger to transfer the money saved. from the 1.991 Trails program
o fund the Engineering and Plan phase of this project.
aff also recommends that Council consent to the submittal of a
tream margin application for necessary river work in the Roaring
Fork River and south bank work along the Rio grande parcel.
Staff also recommends that Council allocate from the Land Fund
budget the estimated $60, 000 needed for completion of the river
channel work and south bank excavation and stabilization work.
Although we recommend that Council proceed immediately with this
funding, Council may wish to review the $60, 000 during the Parks
Department's 1992 budget presentation scheduled for October 24 .
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENT:
Proposed plans
2
TEL : Oct 14 ,91 15 :38 No . 003 P . 02
• •
Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course
and Riverwalk
Project Descrlptien (see the attached plan: section views of the project)
This project consists of in-channel modifications, large boulder
placement, and south bank regrading on the Rio Grande Property in Aspen.,
Colorado. There are numerous purposes for the project including:
1. Improvement of in-stream structure for whitewater boating,
particularly at low flows,
2. Restoration and improvement of the in-stream fish habitat and
riparian zone,
3. Increasing the flood carrying capacity of the river and reducing flood
damage potential to the north bank properties,
4. Construction of a pedestrian riverwalk on the south bank for public
access to the river,
5. Remove and regrado the fill that has been dumped on the south bank.
of the river to mellow for improvements such as art in the park,
entertainment areas and Riverwalk cafes.
The proposed schedule for construction is to complete the project in
three phases.
f3'� o be completed in 1991, will be to complete the new whitewater
c annul, re-shape the island, and regrade and remove fill from the
south bank for the riverwalk.
Phase II - to be completed in the spring of 1992, will be to landscape the
areas, surface the riverwalk and complete all final grading,
construction access points, boat landings, etc.
Phase TTI - to be ongoing, over time, which will be to construct Riverwalk
cafes, entertainment areas and structures and Art Park facilities.
The projected cost for Phase I construction is approximately $60,000.
Phase II & III are yet to be determined.
• _
•
•
I
i
!
II
I I.
. • � I ,
1
ed
l I ,
•
1 "V I
f \:' 1 fir..
/ 6... ,
C.. \\e- 4 dozo 4 .
,it, 7i. 0. 3 s.aL7 I _iil
1/ 1,10 „
A . .\t-') , . ti
i ;
siN 4.-1/4.4,40 • .47. . ,. . c.2- 4,, :
• ,••••.•.
, . ,,, „r.,,,..„ ..,., ......r .,. A..,..,
. ..
�v ?Y1
:. . Ill
• ...,, 3
1 Ai . sr I *-.. ...
y r•
, i
c' ', . eti •1 i // , s-.•..... --.....A • . i / i
/Y. 01, o L
r.,-. --. /--......._ .
, ,•-ok I / A ___ . . . .i
, - •0 • -Vri - . •ftNi.,■:-• .
AI
�� I : el .:-.... rialtilt -4 il
\i r 4 . "-'-. Elk, It m
V Y1 1- 1,..4t,,,... :d..:. :•!,..i,,;:.'./,,iiti,po i #,2:...\.:-% 1. c .....,iiv-._ __- J
4,141%t
,„, ,. 41/
,7.....‘,., ;.,i 9 ._, I ,. ...1•.-'.1 .,
I . \".1101 . //' kil:d '
\oti Z, 4., _:_..__...h,._.....,,,_
0 NiMPOr *N.. . ..1.-.;;, ‘
p:.—Irio..� ., I •.\ I ' .
t 0 ''',"/... .. 11. . . t IIIII .
: : ... -.c
i Ili
• 21 .. • . r )8
100, .. ) i
•0"1". 1770.0i4. \ . .
■
—'s' $ R i Y
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: September 23 , 1991
RE: Rio Grande SPA - Roaring Fork River Enhancement
The purpose of this memo is to update Council about river
enhancement measures proposed for the stretch of river adjacent to
the Rio Grande Parcel. As part of the Rio Grande SPA review,
Council directed staff to begin upgrading this portion of the river
prior to finalizing the master plan for the remaining land area of
the Rio Grande SPA parcel. A River Enhancement Committee,
comprised of community residents with a specific interest in the
river (including Art Park and Theatre representatives) , has begun
to formulate ideas for the river channel and north and south banks.
The Committee has identified three phases of work: north bank
refurbishment, river channel alterations including the islands, and
south bank regrading.
North Bank: The Art Museum with Trout Unlimited and the
Department of Wildlife have proposed to refurbish the north
bank of the river next to the Art Museum. Using donated
money, volunteer labor and an in-kind equipment donation from
the Public Works Department, this phase of river enhancement
will take out the "rip rap" (cement blocks, rebar etc. ) that
was installed in 1985 to prevent further erosion of the bank
during high water. The "rip rap" will be replaced with a
vertical rock wall with a flat terrace at the river's edge.
The terrace will be planted with riparian vegetation such as
willow shoots and native choke cherry trees. Stream Margin
Review is required from the Engineering and Planning
Departments. This phase of the project is ready to move
forward as soon as the Stream Margin Review is completed. The
participants expect to begin work in mid-October. The project
should be completed within 2-3 days.
River Channel: In response to the support for a kayak course
and in an effort to enhance the south side of the river, the
River Enhancement Committee has started to plan a river
channel alteration. The readjustment will include actual
placement of boulders in key locations in the river to form
a drop-pool-drop-pool effect. There are two islands on the
south side of the river that were created at the time of flood
control work in 1985. The long narrow island up-river from
the Art Museum will be completely removed and the periodically
dry channel area between the island and the bank will be used
as a walking path. Staff is working with Gary Lacy to
identify a budget for the project. Stream Margin review
(including 404 permits and Army Corps. review) is necessary
as well as consent from Council to work in the River. Staff
is also planning to organize a neighborhood informational
meeting to present proposals to adjacent property owners.?
Staff is exploring financial assistance from several
organizations that have expressed a willingness to help.
Staff intends to provide a budget and plans for your review
at the October 14, 1991 Council meeting.
South Bank: Conceptual review has traditionally included a
proposal to regrade the south bank of the river. Removing the
fill would enable park users to access the river, better
accommodation of a foot path, and increase visibility of the
river from the upper portion of the Rio Grande parcel. An
idea for the excavated fill is to reuse the dirt to build a
foot/bike path into Patsy Newbury park from the corner of
Spring Street and Rio Grande Drive. Plans for terracing the
south bank and building a foot path on the Rio Grande parcel
are still being formulated. The Committee anticipates
excavation to begin next spring and will review those plans
with Council when appropriate.
2
ATTACH' 1
• IAND USE APPLICATION MEM •
1) Project Name g:0ori '-Pr 1C. .6il,&r CL✓•se; River-Loa/L.
2) Project location Pi U Grail s DI47 01 Mu. v .
p F
(indicate street address, lot & block member, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning 4) lot Size
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # 6114 O A-S (tai. 6i.,P'iS
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Gary y hocV - 4 65-`/1t f1ele,,
7) Type of Application (please Bieck all that apply) :
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual IUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
Conda ininnni nation Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allot rent
IAt Split/Int Line X26 Exemption
Adjustment
8) Description of :Existing Uses (number t er and type of existing structures;
ur es;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
property) .
Pa *5 `'�1/ 'r
9) Description of Development Application
10) Have you attached the following?
X • Response to Attachment 2, Minimum i mun Suns i ssion Contents 444 3/5" 0'1`f b f.kces,
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents-J B *3 kV S '140rr�
Response to Attachment 4, .Review Standards for Your. Application
• •
i
October 14, 1991
Ms. Leslie Lamont
City of Aspen Planning Dept.
130 Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
This letter is to confirm that Mr. Gary Lacy of Recreation Engineering &
Planning is authorized to act on behalf of the City of Aspen Parks Department
in regard to the Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course and Riverwalk. His
' address is 485 Arapahoe, Boulder, Colorado 80302. His phone number is (303)
440-9268.
Please contact me with ny que
Sincerely,
ePatrick Duffield, As k Park- pt.
cc: George Robinson
Gary Lacy
Roaring Fork River Whitewater Course
and Riverwalk
Project Description (see the attached plan; section views of the project)
This project consists of in-channel modifications, large boulder
placement, and south bank regrading on the Rio Grande Property in Aspen,
Colorado. There are numerous purposes for the project including:
1. Improvement of in-stream structure for whitewater boating,
particularly at low flows,
2. Restoration and improvement of the in-stream fish habitat and
riparian zone,
3. Increasing the flood carrying capacity of the river and reducing flood
damage potential to the north bank properties,
4. Construction of a.pedestrian riverwalk on the south bank for public
access to the river,
5. Remove and regrade the fill that has been dumped on the south bank
of the river to allow for improvements such as art in the park,
entertainment areas and Riverwalk cafes.
The proposed schedule for construction is to complete the project in
three phases.
Phase I - to be completed in 1991, will be to complete the new whitewater
channel, re-shape the island, and regrade and remove fill from the
south bank for the riverwalk.
Phase II - to be completed in the spring of 1992, will be to landscape the
areas, surface the riverwalk and complete all final grading,
construction access points, boat landings, etc.
Phase III - to be ongoing, over time, which will be to construct Riverwalk
cafes, entertainment areas and structures and Art Park facilities.
The projected cost for Phase I construction is approximately $60,000.
Phase II & III are yet to be determined.
•
W H rTEvJATE ft. .COURSE - ,"1. •
AND RINIBAWALK
•
FIliii , . 1 ..N. y •'I lilt /i •A \" _,. t : •,. /.
„;n r� "' ► G, L 6/
•
-17! I'I I'' r In, . ' 41 • ".. 1 ''• • ;rs k • ! ... . . ri • • .' l V_;O , ' .ill iII II r!!!!. • : + 1: 1 jI ; `�'
SI . 'S ► ill, �► "C., .r ., �
•1,• ra'nnr ii>N q ,1 / ";NnN I V ,:, 'r,,f �' 17'. 'i..:1:......l llnl ���� r, Ill NII � ur .� i
D n/iin 91!► rrr�N• 1,; .r 1uuNl uNNNr r"r,� ' ,G' lE;ry� , �': ..�
rrnnn GI iiii Nl�I IN N`n !� n' 1IN J ��. . �� ■�■..•r111 `f::; .fir. t �. ..:‘�R lldl ,�I i v maim N/u --- 1.0.x4., �ulmul� '.' ,� 1 �. `
t loot-— l v— 41,4; ul► urn „ .. !II O ,4 .."∎
l” ', ±,,14r 1111 L ,,1 '�'.� II�n� .,ll infi al �Nr:. rn •Al . • ,I: I ( :
,' � A, I�1.1 V rule* n IIi1 NINI --
1 n , MJr e n nut �171HG
�/f`''i �'hna �Illl 1 nh�l '~Ill mu"; �lib II _aL'' •l..Ir ��:.,!'�i j`, �' `,•' i II !lillrirl Iii yrr'rlll ; ;;/ �' '''1, 'u' 1:;: f
' N,NNI //1r�1 pull "� r lln' 'r' '_ 7�• l 7 r , I . . ,I/ s1 �n I�' rn rl (r,r,, • f.i;r it—.. �, r�. t. J 42.108 il 101. ZOOM jilirkiiiiimileb,off ,...%N Ap/'44-•...:. ...-. Is..."....14.;1,.: ...., "tpiitk .
•
•
w / t I to .,. Cr �_1!
'41 v:...15012
rs,\ , littro Rai \.,4! •.. , ,,..V.. 4.7"i.-•
,,. V'/AlliTA •
. . ', A- -.1,1;:,=. .. .. '- : 7,• '. '.:: ...:.,:.'.....'•'', •-•-■-,......
. •&P''‘ '''.
•
, ... • . i ,: , \ ..... . . ;., . ... ',' .,''? •
•
'V ICI NITY.`.MAP - , ° ` •
•may ,, �y ,� -
. '. ;. .. . r.t n 1000... .. r
s ..:rA. ... . .. r ..• •`s•_..l.Jl..%:.:"_ .._.... •.`"i e'. i a. .. Y. '_�.' : ,' •. ...-.. teaI .•..f ?/.. •J.l, J-''..e.:1•'• f .•r
,.•VC
•
Responses to Attachment 4 questions,
Stream Margin Review for the Roaring Fork River
Whitewater Course and Riverwalk
1. This project will not increase the base flood elevation. See the attached
hydraulic report which demonstrates, by using the HEC II computer
model, that the base flood elevation will not be raised.
2. All existing and proposed trails on the entire parcel are dedicated to
public use and are part of the parks/recreation/open space/trails plan.
3. This project will follow the recommendations of the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan.
4. No vegetation will be removed or slope grade changed that produces
erosion and sedimentation. The existing steep south bank slope will be
laid back and vegetation planted to relieve the current erosion problems.
5. The proposed development will allow runoff to be intercepted prior to
entering the Roaring Fork River.
6. The existing River Channel will not be altered or relocated.
7. Not Applicable.
8. A Section 404 Permit may be required for a minor portion of this work. A
copy of this authorization will be given to the City if this permit is
necessary.
, .
I
D11. :-
, • 1
41 -40
•
a TO .
_:I ' ' .1 •
‘.
4-.
. 1 - • 3 c;_p .
-- z ,,_ 4,4,• -3_ il
t U
• . b. o -r-A....i -.< Y.l.E E g)
. ,. „...,
I .
h.-.
'5-- (-- E. •
, ---1
I . .,
o
I
• C'--'e'.
. 72-si
al c) \
-e-31 _0, • .. _ ,,..... .41
. ,
/
\ , . . .rti eil
, . LT T •
,
.• 1 L . .
‘
\ ;77
SQ) 130 j ' ‘ • IV-w(-/- 0 i
. 1 I
.2 v /
, -.......... .1 , .
,- -_8 vt.%:::■;\ . 'v
,.....
,,,.. . Ll-
.,. - ,
v)
..„... / z
Q) 0 __....... ,..
.., I /‘s il .4000mim. . ci
V co
N-,.... ,.....;.0. .....—__
.-
,.„............ _
..,..
•,,,„ • ......,......
....m. J
."."`-a/ - •
7.,,i i' .'"411111111111F1 I-
,
-`-- D
1
61 1 .r i 01..■ U
70 t r " ai
Os '
A.N"i .ii k - ----■ X —
• i 41.
aj.. ._
116 sl '■ ' CI."• •'
/ 1 1
sz.-- ciZ
Lll §4a a (.4,•:t i'l'.''./
4
'1
.. i
0
...
...c •, ,, v
/ •
ma,•.', • ..
.,„
I .
\11/1".......0 . .
. . \ vs tl,
• • . . \ .
. . 0 . 0 •. .
�- gt , •
. ,<. ' g.
+Q► ' . v Low flow notch
�' Top of,rock I' below
\I•j. slrti ex t sting channel
4 invert. s.M." t oo. oo Anchhor
• �� tar b' ,- , ge ou Ide
�% - Exisfiin .. - intro bank
- 4 ", 3 dia.
anchor ro
"� (Top aft ancho rocks 1024
Ville 3 -- Oa A w
� Cd` ` "IP�~ riwi ri 1 ' A )
` 4'-5' dia, boulders grouted
into channel, Average. Top of
\ .
451
• rock elevation = 104.o
• 4'-S' dia. bou Iders grouted
into channel. 4Yera9e tap
• of rock elevation 101 s'
j ,c--,P,- 3 �/ •
f - , A nch0r"
%-' large boulders lb !`'o
�nt'b bank • ��NT N
lSt1'n� � ` 0�,, c4�
-trees 'A-
DO DO NOT • A .Ear
Disrurui
/i , N
ROARING FORK 1Z1%ER WHIM WATER C0 't2
SPLIT- FLOW WIERS 111=201