From what I have heard and seen of the rivers it is apparent that a lot of large boulders that were lying around or in the river bed were salvaged to rebuild the roadway. Too bad CDOT didn't just fill the river with blast rock things would be normal front range road side mank. The gnar on the Big Thompson has changed substantially one section had so many med and lrg round rock I couldn't even see the river. It will be interesting come run off and depending on what kind of run off we have. I think some rocks might move around in some places.

 

http://youtu.be/py0jX0bGKDM

For the people saying CDOT should just leave the river natural, the way it was after the flood. This short video of road repair in Lefthand canyon shows how the rivers were cleared to build up the roads in places.

 

That's one way to make it raftable.

 

Casper Mike's post from the Fort Collins Play Park thread....

That's some pretty good news on a good project fort fun would be a sweet spot with the addition of a park in town.
The whole reason Casper got one was to clean the oil from the ground from the old refinery.
They have ibeams running vertical along the entire south side of the river to help flush the oil from deeper ground.. The pools that create te rapids actually flush the ground water .
Casper would never had a whitewater park for recreational reasons alone. Fixing up a dirty part of the river is very attracting. specifically to people who don't understand the recreational aspect.

So, I seems it's not such an evil idea to let a bad situation be the catalyst for some recreational improvement....which is the point everyone has been trying to make all along. You just keep trying to spin it like no one gives a shit about the destruction that has reeked havoc on so many people's lives. I don't understand why you feel the need to put a negative spin on anything for which you have a dissenting opinion.

Every now and then you post some thing resembling a "peace, love and rainbow colored unicorns..." sentiment and then you flip. You're bipolar online presence is confusing, but whatever, to each his/her own. I was just struck my the dichotomy of what you've written in some of the restoration-flood threads vs what you wrote here.

 

The difference between placing a man made park in a place where human actitivity has brought a negative impact to the environment and supporting that over what nature does naturally and wanting to blow up rocks to throw in the river is different I said of coarse clean it up I'm not down for throwing blast rock in the river to make new rapids for recreational purposes alone that is a big difference Beth. Play park and creating a river are to different things...
You can support one and not the other..

Also you are dealing with a non disaster area versus a disaster area where the priorities is infustructure. You know roads which transport people food gas... I'm not down for making a bunch of fake rapids in a river that pretty much reclaimed itself. Dredge the river get real that's the difference between a park and natural disasters. If the same happened to the canyon around here I wouldn't be worried about the rapids. What happens happens. Same thing with the sieve rock on the ark I said leave it. Go around it, it's no different if what is left is a class three chute what ever

Those rivers where never natural in the first place and now that the flood washed the shit out of the river you get all mad it's not bedrock.. It was chunks of rock from when they made the roads.. So it's only fair they use it to rebuild the road

 

Nice work Ian. Keeping the communication open and positive with CDOT and other organizations that affect river access is so important. People will listen and I'm sure if it's cost effective, they will try and do what they can to lessen the impact on the waterway. Recreation is a huge part of Colorado's tourism industry and very important to all of us who live in Colorado. Let us know what we can do to help. For the people who don't think it's a good idea, you don't have to help or be involved if you don't want to, but please try not to willfully impede progress and cooperative efforts to improve both our rivers and our flood damaged roads.

 

If they bulldozer away all the FU rocks In Lefthand like that, then there won 't be any features except the crux, unless you consider wood a feature



Thanks Ian ...keep us posted on what we can do to help

 

update...

Lots of things going on right now. Some boulder folks are working on getting some playpark assistance as the city preps for runoff this year. Lyons is doing something similar.

Much of the work (rightly so) at this point in time has been focused on roads, bridges, infrastructre (water, power, septic systems etc). There are many entities from town, county, forest service, cdot, state, water conservation board, you name it. The scope and interconnectedness of what needs to be done means that many of the groups are still trying to figure out who will do what and there is no clear decision making for how things that impact multiple groups will get done.

So far we have had a positive response from Boulder County Comprehensive Creek Planning group. Kudos to Boulder county for for thinking big and getting plans in place. Town of Lyons also likes the idea of rebuilding with recreation in mind. Forest service just started a flood rehab team with a recreation focus. Multiple agencies taking steps to move in the direction of having recreational needs considered in the rebuilding process.

AW is working some issues as noted in member correspondence. Matt Booth and I are working the SSV corridor. Our main focus is making sure that highway reconstruction does not negatively impact recreational needs from a kayaking, fishing, biking, climbing etc perspective. We are getting some traction, but its going to be a long term project (ie years vs. months).

When the rubber hits the road, it will come down to money. We have a plan to piggy back on CDOT permits, heavy equipment in place etc, which would add minimal incremental cost/schedule to the highway reconstruction project. We are pushing hard to get that considered. If that fails, we have fall back plans that require more time and money.

Finally... aside from the human impact, the flood probably did some positive things for the ecosystem and the river corridor. Word from one Lyons local was that after the flood SSV was strewn with nice round boulders which would have likely significntly improved SSV in spots. When the temp road was constructed in a very short time project crews essentially "mined" the creekbed for rock to make a new embankment for the road and they scoured the river bed leaving a featurless V shaped trough in some places. This is a significant man made degradation of the river that would typically not happen if planned. Project crews had normal NEPA project controls and environmental reviews waived due to the emergency to get the roads back. We are adovative that scouring the river bed by road contruction significantly impacted the whitewater kayaking recreational use as well as the fishery and ecosystem quality for the negative. We are advocating that some small portion of project money be allocated to restore and rehabilitate the impacts that the temp projects have made.

More to come, but its going to be quite a while before we have anything definitive.

 

As someone who has implemented the redesign of stream beds in Colorado I thought I'd weigh in. CDOT is a great organization. Their responsibility is local and projects are based on an engineer's direction(s). Their operators are top notch, and the engineers are well schooled. If they do the majority of the reconstruction for the recent floods I will be surprised!
Personally, I feel that understanding of river features is misunderstood without experience. Those that do not dwell in, and experience the water, are hard pressed to authentically recreate features. An understanding of natural processes can be lost with engineers. Contractors decipher instructions with best intentions. Usually these type of projects are left up to bids from contractors. I worked for a contractor that rebuilds streams and rivers, boater river knowledge helped shape how we approached projects. I feel we were able to implement natural features based on geomorphology and experience.
The rebuilding of rivers relies on how the engineers relate their knowledge with the design requirements (roads, housing, etc.) In my opinion, the more input that boaters have, the better. Hopefully we can influence river design based on experience and knowledge. Ask for a wild river, hopefully time and basic design will allow it to become as "natural" as possible.

 

Big Thompson River Coalition Master Plan

The next public input/feedback meeting for the Big Thompson Restoration master planning is June 12, 5:45 p.m. at the Thompson School District Admin Building, 800 S. Taft, Loveland CO.

This is your opportunity to say something about the future shape of the river, and although CDOT is going to do what they think is best for the highway, they do participate in the coalition behind the master planning process.

 

In as much as CDOT is one of the primary players in the restoration process, it's easy to focus on them but you also have the Federal Highway Administration and Army Corps Of Engineers just as importantly,county governments, local governments, water / municipal districts, taxing districts... etc, the list goes on. Along with private citizens concerns,though way down on the list, all have substantial stakes in this process. The idea of forming coalitions - work groups - study groups- stakeholder groups is an effective way of getting stakeholders / interested parties to the table to discuss the the restoration / rebuilding process, the ramifications of certain projects and the possibility of workarounds when opportunity presents itself. Getting educated to each stakeholders regulatory processes, long term / short term project goals and overall strategy for implementation is key to understanding where you can have the most effective input. Finding a way to establish some level of consensus building amongst group participants will go a long way toward maybe seeing the fruition of your ideas. It will cost you some time but may reap substantial rewards. I participated in the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Group a few years back for two years and out of the meetings came the basis for draft legislation for the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Plan. It's being held up with a slim chance of being passed at this point in Congressional Committee. But it was something I was passionate about, so it was worth the time, hopefully the politicians will agree. Unless you make the effort, the Bureaucracy will probably drown out your / our concerns. Start by finding a successful, knowledgeable experienced, well known, mostly objective moderator to help drive the group process.