Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />GlenwoodSprings Post Independent: July 18, 2006 -Page 5 <br />Circul.ation: 20,000 <br /> <br />RFTA's midvalley trail gets <br />past floodplain restrictions <br /> <br />BY SCOTT.CONDON <br />ASpt71 CO/Tc$pt)l1fltnt <br /> <br /> <br />A controversial section of a <br />pedestrian trail to, connect Aspen <br />and Carbondale dodged a bullet <br />Monday. <br />Garfield County officials decided <br />the Roaring Fork Transportation <br />Authorit}' can pJ'OCE'fd ,vith construe ~ <br />tion of a 4k-mUe section of trail <br />between Hooks lane and Catherine <br />Bridge. The county · asked RFfA earlier <br />this month toellher prove the trnU was <br />out of the Ooodplain or apply tor a per- <br />mit to worlcwithinthe floodplain. <br />An application review could have <br />delayed the project by 60 to 90 days <br />and jeopardized its completion this <br />faU, according to RFTA Chief Execu- <br />tive Officer Dan Blankenship, <br />RFl"A contested whether Garfield <br />County has regulatory power over <br />work in the railroad corridor. <br />IIWe really don't think we are <br />subject to oversight by the county," <br />Blankenship said. "That was our first <br />line of defense. II <br />RFfA's legal counsel on railroad <br />corridor issues, Charles Montange, <br />'wrote in the letter to Garneld Coun- <br />ty Attorney Don DeFord that the <br />railroad corridor is "raUbankedlJ <br />with the federal Surface Transporta. <br />tion Board. That agency alone can <br />regulate its activities in.the corridor, <br />induding trail construction, Mon- <br />tange wrote. RFfA contends it is <br />exempt from other federal, state and <br />local regulations. <br />Garfield County believed other- <br /> <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />wise. County Planning Director <br />Mark Bean said DeFord detennined <br />that if floodplain issues existed, <br />RFTA would have to apply for a per- <br /> <br />trail will have an adverse impact on <br />a wide variety of wildlife that has <br />flocked to the corridor since trains <br />stopped using it decades ago, Duke <br />claimed a crew's current salvage <br />e UflS tlona work on the corridor - removing <br />never resolved, RFTA was able to the old rails and ties - has already <br />show the trail is higher than the scared off everything from deer to <br />\vater level expected in a l00~year falcons that regularly used the area, <br />D.QPtl- even though it contended it , He said the community would be <br />didn't need to supply that evidence, ~j better served by constructing a paved <br />Blankenshi said. ~ trail along old Highway 82, where <br />,1J users could tie into El Jebel restau- <br />examined a survC)' of the railroad cor- rants and Crown Mountain Park. A <br />ridor and compared it to a Federal dirt trail across the river would be <br />Emergency Management Agency appropriate, according to Duke. <br />floodplainmap for the midvalley. That lilt's appropriate for a primitive <br />analysis showed the rail embankment, trail, not injecting everybody who <br />where the trail will be placed, is above wants to take a bike ride," Duke said. <br />the lOO-year floodplain, acc"Ording to RFTA officials counter that they <br />Montange's letter to DeFord. have to build the trail where they <br />Bean said the analysis was ruled possess the land - and that's the <br />adequate to allow the trail construe- railroad corridor. RITA budgeted <br />tion. $1.2 million for the Hooks lane to <br />The floodplain issue was the lat- Catherine Store stretch of trail. <br />est controversy between RFTA and RFTA's contractor, Aspen Earthmov- <br />homeowners living across the Roar- lng, is scheduled to start work this <br />ing Fork River from the proposed week. The trail Is scheduled to be <br />trail. Garfield County explored the finished by the last half of October, <br />floodplain issue after a homeowner The roughly four-mile stretch <br />lodged concerns about RFTA's trail horn Catherine Bridge to Carbon- <br />work. dale is already completed. RFTA <br />Several residents of a neighbor- eventually plans to extend the trail <br />hood on the river don't want the to Glenwood Springs. <br />trail constructed across from them. Blankenship said most people <br />Homeowner Jim Duke, one of the enthusiastically embraced the com- <br />most vocal foes;. said he filed the pletlon of the 30.mUe stretch from <br />complaint with Garfield County. Aspen to Carbondale. <br />The issue isn't about keeping a "It's just regretful it's not viewed <br />trail away from his backyard, he more positively by the people across <br />said. He believes RITA's propose4. the river, II Blankenship said. <br /> <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />