Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
I'm right 50% of the time
Joined
·
899 Posts
Article in the Aspen Time (and probably the GW post)
Dispute threatens purchase of boat launch in Carbondale

The grant monies include $1 million that is to be dedicated to the purchase of the $2.5 million Koziel property, located on the Highway 82 side of the river, just below the Highway 133 bridge into Carbondale. In addition, the town was to put in $450,000, Garfield County agreed to contribute $100,000, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife is to spend $950,000 on the purchase.

The riverfront land, about 7.8 acres, includes the boat ramp, a parking area and turnaround, and an upper bench used for trailers and campers known as the Sopris RV Park.

The purchase is set to close next month, but an impasse between the town and DOW is putting the acquisition in jeopardy, according to Will. If the GOCO funds aren't spent by the end of the year, they may be lost, he said.

The DOW has asked Carbondale to agree to a restriction that would force the town to forgo a kayak park involving the Koziel property, as well as other, upstream lands also owned by the town, he said. The DOW is concerned about preserving angler parking and access to the river — its impetus for contributing to the purchase of the property.

“My concern is that we're going to lose the whole purchase over this impasse,” Will said.

“We've told [Carbondale] from the very beginning that we don't want to have a kayak park,” said Perry Will, DOW area manager in Glenwood Springs. “A water park — we've seen it before — it just dominates the parking, the facilities, everything else.”

The DOW's Will said the boat launch may be the most heavily used one by anglers in the state. Securing it for that purpose, permanently, is a division priority.

The division has been spending $25,000 annually to lease the launch for the public, he said. The site was closed for a couple of months in the summer of 2008 when a previous lease agreement expired.

The town wants to preserve the parcel for river access, but wants to accommodate kayakers as well as anglers, according to an Aug. 23 letter from the town's attorney to the DOW. Carbondale is seeking recreational water rights for a kayak park and has spent nearly $80,000 on those proceedings, said attorney Mark Hamilton of Holland & Hart.

The GOCO grant application made note of the kayak plans, he said.

The town is willing to work with the DOW on the design of any boating features in the river and to ensure parking and access is retained for anglers, according to Hamilton's letter.

“I think there's a simple solution, which is to get the property in public hands,” he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does the buzz feel about this issue? What do you all think we should do? Push for a park or manage as Fishing access?

I think we need to secure the area for all accounts and move forward with what to do with the land after it is in "public" hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Ya, get the land! figure the rest out later! If done right there could be plenty of room for anglers and playboaters, but lets sign the deal first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Basalt has plans to develop a kayak park on the Roaring Fork. Fish population and habitat sampling is underway to get an idea of the quality of the habitat in that stretch before construction begins, and then will be evaluated again post project completion. The results of this may have an impact on establishing another whitewater park. There may not be significant changes to habitat, but highly localized river use may have an impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
i dont see why anglers have a problem with a play feature. they just need to put in at the same spot as kayakers surfing. then the anglers will just float away. the kayakers stay there. what's the problem? fishermen are way too greedy when it comes to sharing rivers.
get the land and make it multiuse access.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
i dont see why anglers have a problem with a play feature. they just need to put in at the same spot as kayakers surfing. then the anglers will just float away. the kayakers stay there. what's the problem? fishermen are way too greedy when it comes to sharing rivers.
get the land and make it multiuse access.
Then why is there a 'NO FISHING" sign posted at the million dollar Glenwood whitewater park? How multi use is that? I don't think fishermen are greedy at all. In this valley, dollars provided by both hunters and fishermen have gone towards securing boat ramps at Carbondale and Westbank. The river access at Carbondale is not only used as a boat launch for floaters. It is one of the limited spots on the Roaring Fork that is open to wade fishing, so the notion that all fishermen will launch and then float away from the playboaters in naive. There will be user conflicts between fishmen and playpark boaters - period.

I am torn about the notion of a play park in Carbondale (and play parks for that matter alltogether). Just like the issue in the Frog Rock topic, there is something inherently wrong with altering the structure of a river, for whatever the reason, whether is it to make is safer (or sanitized), or diversion structures ground into the river bed to steal even more water at low flows, or the awful and tacky fish "habitat" structures put in on the Fryingpan. Look at the horrible river structure work done on the Blue below Breck. In a valley so rich in whitewater opportunities, why did they build that playpark in BV, and do it poorly at that. It's like bolting a wall that can be climbed trad, safely.

If a playpark is slated for Basalt, and one is down valley in Glenwood, does Carbondale really need to jump on? It is interesting that the town of Carbondale was just griping about having to come up with their share of money that they committed to athe launch access, but suddenly there is the surplus of $$ for playpark development.

Then again, I'm sure people were opposed to the skate park, but that place is pretty sweet.

My two cents.
 

·
I'm right 50% of the time
Joined
·
899 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I would like to see both. Carbondale has a great opportunity here to improve quality of life for many citizens. A riverfront park, boat ramp and possible play feature and eventually the possibility of a town campground.

Any play features would most likely be up river from the boat ramp. Wade fishing would still be possible down river from the boat ramp. No to mention that the Roaring Fork really does have some good access points for public wade fishing. On this stretch, there is the area just down from the boat ramp, access at the red barn via a short trail, and access at Iron Bridge, not to mention a couple other points in between.

What needs to happen is DOW and Cdale getting their acts together before the GOCO grant $$ vanishes.

But if it is like the skate park, people will complain, and the only ones who will have a say are the people that really want the _____. The skate park is a great example because it was designed and built by the local vert dogs, who made the city aware of what they wanted and how they wanted it built. In the end, It is a great park, but not at all what I really like to skate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
i dont see why anglers have a problem with a play feature. they just need to put in at the same spot as kayakers surfing. then the anglers will just float away. the kayakers stay there. what's the problem? fishermen are way too greedy when it comes to sharing rivers.
get the land and make it multiuse access.
The fishermen would probably say the same about kayakers - kayakers are greedy when it comes to sharing the river. :rolleyes:

The way I read the article, the concern is as much about "greed" over parking as it is the river itself. With a play park there, it stands to reason there could be more kayakers parking there than normally would. Without a play park, there may be fewer parking there, as they go elsewhere to other play parks. Again, the same could be said of fishermen though.

Maybe it needs a permit system... (kidding) About the only real solution I see is to only allow those of us rafters that are neither fishermen or kayakers to use it. :D

I think that any solution really should be some sort of blend to meet everyone's needs in some way. I think Brendo is on the right track with something for both, separated enough so they are not interfering with each other (one upstream, one downstream as he suggests). Not sure adding a campground would be such a good idea, just because that's even less space for parking and then it may not accomodate the volume. If there is enough space for that too, then that would be a great addition as well.

I would imagine they have some statistics to know roughly how many folks are currently using the space. They should be able to estimate how many more would if certain things were done. If they plan accordingly, they can come up with a solution that most can be happy with. I agree they should just acquire the land while they can, and then work towards a long term development plan once they have it. Worse case is that they have the land locked up to use as it has been, which wouldn't be a bad thing, would it?
 

·
Plunk your magic twanger!
Joined
·
1,260 Posts
I don't understand why this needs to pit the floaters against the kayakers. As it is now, the kayakers are welcome to use the access ramp to enjoy all the natural play features on the Roaring Fork. They just need to plan a shutttle like everyone else. Since Glenwood put in the whitewater park on the Colorado, kayakers seem to have forgotten about the All Day Wave and the South Canyon Wave etc.
 

·
I'm right 50% of the time
Joined
·
899 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't see a need to pit fisherpeople against white water users either. Can they not co exist? Before that, we need to have the property deeded to a lasting entity. Carbondale, the state, the county, the feds. If a private party holds title, they can close it to public use if a public entity is not leasing it - see threads from 08.

As for South Canyon, It runs a total of 2 days to 2 weeks a year. All day is a great wave if you have 2 hours. Glenwood is great if you live in Glenwood or have time to travel. Basalt will most likely be good as well, but we will have to see how it progresses.

Carbondale has a good gradient drop just upstream of the Hwy 133 bridge that would make a nice feature or 2. Said features may have a positive affect of the fishing (or not). Restriction on parking and use will be developed over time as the area is turned into a proper park. Anyway you look at it, if the property is purchased, the stakeholder groups will try to maximize their own returns.
Personally, I think we need to put aside differences and make sure that as many people as possible contact the Carbondale Town Trustees, Garfield County Representatives and the DOW and let them know that we are in favor of them expediting the land acquisition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
when a kayaker/fisherman/river user says "get the land and make it multi use" what's greedy about that?
that means let it be used by all. it would be easy to have boat access and a wave out of the same lot.
when has any kayaker or group of kayakers tried to shut down access for fisherman??? though i've definately heard of it happening the other way around.
the glenwood wave thing is new and the no fishing sign was probably reguired by the government or insurance kooks, not the kayakers.
fisherman will fish where the fishing is good and kayakers will paddle where the paddling is good.
but public land = public use. and playwaves create good fish habitat but lousy casting conditions.
 

·
Plunk your magic twanger!
Joined
·
1,260 Posts
Referring to your original question, "should we push for a park?", not at the expense of boater river access. I agree that the land needs to be secured. A play park upriver could provide great recreation for a small group of users, mostly locals. Tourists would likely go to Glenwood. Fishing and floating the Gold Medal waters of the Roaring Fork certainly brings tourist dollars.

River parks also have peak times and become unpopular at low flows. That could coincide nicely with fishing clear rivers. I don't believe the DOW is concerned about securing access for those who simply float.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
The only "no fishing" sign I have seen at the Glenwood wave is a handwritten in sharpy statement on another sign which I would say was tagged there by some kid.

I have however seen many a drift and raft set up fishing the eddys there and saw a guide from Taylor Creek catch a nice fish to show his client how it is done. Even had fish jump within paddle length of my yak while waiting in the eddy. So it would seem to me that any new feature would provide habitat.

Either way though that access point needs to be purchased by the DOW soon and we can worry about the details of a park and parking later.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top