FLOOD08209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

XIII-2 PLANNING PROCESS Recreation Alternatives Analysis Matrix Genera 1 The process used by the consultant to arrive at the alternatives and criteria presented in the following parts of Section XIII were vitally important elements of the work. Reach 1: Chatfield Reservoi' to CoIurtline ~ey Through the course of several months, complete previews of the inventory data and mapping were presented to the local sponsors at monthly meetings, as well as to the public in three separate forums and privately to other interested groups. This continuous process of input and review by all interested and affected parties up and down the river helped to insure a complete data base on which later planning decisions could be made. ~ FISHING! ACCESS VIEWS! REC. FORM PARKS TRAILS BOATING AQUATI C SWIMMING POINTS LANOSCAPE WI LDL I FE ALTERNATIVES Al TERNATE 11 MAINTAIN ~ ~ ~ EXISTING . . . . . CONFIGURATION (00 NOTHING) ALTERNATE 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OEVELOP A REGIONAL PARK RESERVE Y study needed . no further study required First, a matrix comparing engineering alternatives to recreation forms was developed to evaluate the impact of one upon the other. A second matrix was then prepared to determine which recreation form needed further study under each preliminary recreation alternative. Aided by this data base, the consultant prepared preliminary lists of alternatives and design criteria for each reach of the river. Local sponsors were again invlted to review this material. These tools were employed because they could summarize the data-gathering and planning efforts in such a way as to allow easy and effective review by sponsors. Impact of Engineering Alternatives on Recreation Forms Reach 1: Chatfield Reservoi' to Cok.rrbi1e \Way The matrices are presented in reduced form according to reach for information purposes. ~ [NG. FORMS PARKS TRAILS BOATING FISHING! SWIMMING ACCESS VIEWS! WI lOll FE AQUATIC POINTS LANDSCAPE At TERNATIYES MAINTAIN VISUALLY EXISTING UNATTRACT- NO IMPEDES LI MITS HAMPERS! NO NO NO CONFIGURATION IMPACT PROHIBITS IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT (00 NOTHING) TIVE NATURAL TYPE ENHANCES NO NO NO NO WATERWAY VISUAL IMPACT IMPEDES LIMITS IMPROVES IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT (SOFT SOLUTION) AETHETI CS LIMITED ENHANCES IMPEDES LIMITS STRUCTURAL VISUAL NO UNLESS BOA UNLESS BOA IMPROVES NO NO HAMPERS OR IMPROVEMENTS AESTHETICS IMPACT CHUTES CHUTES IMPACT I '"'PACT PROHIB ITS BUILT BUILT VISUALLY NO HA"olPERSj NO NO NO NON- STRUCTURAL NOT IMPACT IMPlOE.S LIMITS PROHIBITS IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT ATTRACTIVE By means of this continuous process of input and evaluation, the consultant was able to pare down the tremendous amount of information and numbers of options into a meaningful document from which a realistic cost analysis could be developed.