# Post Flood Recovery Projects



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

The problem Ian is the priority isn't recreation at this point. It's rebuilding the infustructure leave em alone an let them work I'm sure there are people aware of the situation. Go play somewhere else..


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Thanks for the useless comments Mike. Good to know that you can sit hundreds of miles away and suggest that local paddlers should do nothing to help shape the future of our flood ravaged river corridors. Talking useless shit on the internet is obviously your strong suit. 

Meanwhile, AW, myself, and local paddlers are actively working to advocate for responsible reconstruction of flood damaged river corridors. The people that understand what's going on realize that we have a huge opportunity here.

If you want to take positive action to help out with this, contact me. AW is working on this, and they need lots of help. Its a huge task that has major implications for our rivers future.

If you have useless negative comments like Mike. PM him. He loves that shit.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Certainly never hurts to raise your voice about potential concerns. Paddlers are an impacted group and the rebuilding process won't be short I imagine. Plenty of time to get your voice heard. CDOT will prioritize as they see fit. It may be worthwhile to push more on the reconstructive end where they will likely blast new rock or dredge as you mentioned for fill rock. I find it somewhat hard to believe CDOT would be interested in dredging deep channels or pulling debris out of the river. I'm sure you know dialogue can go a long way if you can get it started. Thanks for taking on the work Ian.


----------



## paulk (Apr 24, 2006)

He did mention the bridge in the water which is a hazard they should be able to fix so I agree that some non-natural flood should be a priority to ensure safety next season. Maybe we could focus on these kinds of things (rebar, road debris, etc)

It is hard to say that the river bed itself needs to be changed (being too wide to paddle). Most of our front range runs aren't exactly natural river beds anyway and trying to shape them likely isn't a priority for Cdot unless something they created could potentially harm people.


----------



## BTK. (Mar 19, 2008)

i removed my comment. i dont care enough to argue. if it gets quoted, so be it. I removed it


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

Thanks for removing your comment. The buzz really only has room for one douche bag at a time and it's quite a bit easier when there's a well-established douche bag; it simply makes it much easier to skip over those posts.

I figure this is a good idea. Recreational use is obviously not going to be CDOT’s top priority, but it may be that while they have all the equipment and personnel out there it won't be much of a difference in effort to make a repair boater friendly vs. not. 

SSV and NSV are an important part of the Lyons Games, which has become a big event for the city. The city & county do have a vested interest in recreation in this area. Not only that, but Front Range creeks see recreational traffic from the public whether they should be in there or not (esp Boulder Creek) and there are public safety issues to consider.

I did drive by the SSV run the other day with waning light. I knew there was a lot of water that moved through there, but the extent of the flooding was even more than I'd expected. They have construction equipment parked in the canyon ever 1/4 mile or so and have done extensive work already shoring up the creekside of the road. The run is going to be a lot different, and I agree that there are several spots that look questionable with respect to runability. 

I would guess that the Big Thompson & NSV may have some similar conditions but haven’t looked. Surely people have been up Boulder Canyon – are there any new hazards in the upper stretch?


----------



## erdvm1 (Oct 17, 2003)

Obviously without making your voice heard then it will never even be a consideration.
I'm and willing to put in tons of effort and time on this. It will take more than a few however.
Thanks for the forward thinking Ian.

Can we have some kind of thread or page dedicated to this which updates the people interested in helping. A place where we can get live AW updates. Possibly invite the CDOT rep, etc etc.
Im not a face booker but can create a page if you all feel this is the best way to move forward.
It will also likely keep the stupid negative Bullsh!t from inhibiting the progress...........


----------



## Jefe (Jul 27, 2007)

I have driven both the Big T and NSV. In looking at the conditions of the river corridor I would be surprised if they let river users on either of these rivers or if they will limit use to certain sections. There is still a lot of work to be done very close to the river. There are houses hanging off the banks on the Big T. Many LARGE/MASSIVE trees in the NSV. It's gonna take more than a couple guys and a chain saw to remove some of these. I would imagine at some point they will demo the houses that are half gone and hanging off the banks of the Big T. Looking at the damage it appears that large "pipes" need to be replaced on both sections of river. I know the one on NSV is the water supply for the city of longmont coming from button rock res. I also saw a lrg pipe that was destroyed in the big t. It might be the supply for the power station at the mouth of the canyon or for one of the diversion dams but I don't know for sure.

Ian if you have contacts at CDOT Can you find out if they plan on closing any sections of river while completing their work? 

Boulder creek above 4mile was not really affected. Most of the damage is from 4mile down. The elephant buttress section has numerous pieces of guard rail in the river and a large tree that is partly buried by the debris that flowed off the side of the mtn. 

In conclusion I would guess CDOT is going to do little to remove "natural" debris aka trees and rocks. I would hope that they at least remove the guard rail and other unnatural debris in the river. But unless you start the conversation with CDOT you never know.

Keep up the good work Ian.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Thanks for the update on the big T and NSV. The situation there sounds more dire than SSV. SSV could be paddled now if there was water, albeit with some log portages.

The CDOT PR person got back to me today. They are in the process of forming design teams for each of the major projects (7, 34, 36 etc), and will be naming project managers shortly. Once the project managers are on board, we can start the communication with them to look at the scope of the project and see whats in/out.

CDOT noted that they have no precedent for this type of massive scale work and to an extent they are figuring it out as they go. CDOT said that they have had a lot of stakeholders to deal with thus far between national parks, water agencies, local towns and counties etc. The CDOT rep was not aware of any other recreational groups wanting to get into the process as of yet.

Good news is that we are getting in at the right time. Once the design is done and they move into construction, the boat has left the dock and they won't accept any changes (been there before).

My plan from here is to engage CDOT project engineers as they get named and ask the questions we are bringing up here. What is the scope, what is the schedule, what will be closed / for how long, etc. 

It would be really nice to get some town / county political officials on our side with this.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Good up luck with that Ian like Cdot is going to foot bill for recreational development on rivers that were mever recreationally developed. they are worried about fixing the infustructure.. 

They have other things to worry about besides kayakers having there kicks again.. Sorry you don't like my opinion than whatever Cdot sands for colorado department of transportation if you didn't realize it... Would you really want some random placing rocks in the river? Don't think so

What are going to do watch them fix the entire river bed and tell them where to put the next rock? Seriously stay out of the way let them do there job the rivers weren't designed for kayaking anyways. If you can still kayak them quite crying.

It's not te end of the world when a river reclaims its banks


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Good luck Ian and don't let Mike's negativity get in the way. Working within the design phase is the only way to be heard and the right way to go about what you are trying to accomplish.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

I have to agree with Mike, I mean getting out guard rails and bridges is likely but kayaking is a seriously niche sport. Having CDOT spend money on what kayakers want is unlikely, communication on what will be closed when is a good idea though.


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

Jensjustduckie said:


> I have to agree with Mike, I mean getting out guard rails and bridges is likely but kayaking is a seriously niche sport. Having CDOT spend money on what kayakers want is unlikely, communication on what will be closed when is a good idea though.


You may be correct, but as long as safety and health have been addressed as priorities, there is no reason to not try. Hat's off to those that are doing so.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Imagine the many thousands of decisions that must be made during these rebuilding times. Some of these decisions will have nearly identical outcomes when viewed from a transportation and construction perspective but wildly different outcomes when viewed from a recreational perspective. This is why user groups are solicited for feedback when major projects are put into motion. It doesn't mean every possible decision is made in the paddlers interest. It does mean they are considered because they spoke up and let the powers at be know what is and isn't beneficial and where it's applicable. The fact that Ian even got a response in the first place indicates they are at least open to taking input. This isn't about obstruction of critical infrastructure repair or tricking the government into using tax dollars to build rapids. It's about having a say, likely a small one, in how the roads are installed the second time around and identifying areas where cleanup is required.

Drops in a bucket maybe or it may have a huge impact on the future of Colorado roadside whitewater. You won't know if you don't try and it's kind of bizarre to dump on anyone's interest in engaging their government in a respectful, relevant and constructive manner.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Sorry reality can really kick you in the ass huh. Obviously it sucks but it costs more to fix a river than build a road. Obviously the garbage is gonna come out . if you gotta portage a rock get over it the river did what was natural. 

Most of you guys were up in arms about the seive rock on the ark now you want to bulldoze the river ha..

When the snake lost a good play spot did wdot dredge the river.

Yeah it sucks is but you need to learn to accept change hate on me all you want..

I don't expect my government to build a whitewater park down the entire length of a river that's for sure


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Got word from a local from Lyons that after the flood but before road reconstruction that SSV was "littered with beautiful round boulders". CDOT cleaned out the river channel in multiple places to gather rock for road base fill on the side of the canyon and left the river channel bare and featureless. All of this was done without Army Corp of Engineering permits because they were wiaved for the temporary urgent reconstruction. I am not going to fault CDOT and project contractors for what they did. They did a great job getting communities connected and roads open. Hats off to them. 

CDOT is going to have to do major reconstruction on the temp road to get hwy 7 fixed. We will advocate for the basic safety stuff. We will also advocate for restoring the river to a degree to enhance recreation and river ecosystem and habitat. I have reached out to Trout Unlimited seeking a parntership to get the river channel rehabilitated. We can do this, but in the end it will take support. Folks in colorado understand that recreation and the river environment are key pieces of our economy and our lifestyle and that they have merit. 

To those who are naysayers... it never hurts to ask. If we don't ask we get nothing by default. If we ask and we get what we want, it could be a phenomenal success. Even if CDOT doesn't rehabilitate SSV, it doesn't mean that is the end of the story. There have been dozens of river recreation projects, mostly on playparks and on fishing habitat. My dream is to think big and rehabilitate a 2 mile section of class V river and bring back to life my favorite class V after work run on the front range. There are creative ways to get things done.

I've been told before that what I wanted to do was impossible, only to make it happen and get it done. Folks without the vision or motivation to try to get new things done will never change the game.

To the negative Nancy's I would suggest that you quit posting and leave this up to folks who want to take positive action.

Thanks to all the folks that have emailed / PM'd / posted who have shown support. We have a ground swell of support rallying around these issues.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

How can any kayaker be against *asking* CDOT to consider recreational uses? CDOT has every right to say no or ignore our request, but as Ian mentioned it doesn't hurt to ask. 

This is a harmless and reasonable request that Ian and others are suggesting. If you don't like it feel free to not participate in their efforts. 

Or I guess you could continue to talk shit about the few people who actually work hard to improve the situation for kayakers on the front range.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

My problem with Cdot is they are not engineers they are people working machine that will move the rocks which most of which will not have any experience in hydronamics simple. It's a liability for Cdot


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

caspermike said:


> Most of you guys were up in arms about the seive rock on the ark now you want to bulldoze the river ha..
> 
> Yeah it sucks is but you need to learn to accept change hate on me all you want..
> 
> I don't expect my government to build a whitewater park down the entire length of a river that's for sure


Exactly. Rivers change, massive floods mess stuff up, eventually the yearly pulse of the river will fill in the sieves and such and the rivers will look like they did once before, probably not in our lifetime though.


----------



## coloclimber512 (Aug 29, 2009)

caspermike said:


> hydronamics


You mean Hydrodynamics?

hydrodynamics - definition of hydrodynamics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



caspermike said:


> My problem with Cdot is they are not engineers they are people working machine that will move the rocks


This is why it is so important for the community to give ideas and their thoughts. As Ian has mentioned earlier there have already been changes to the river system due getting the roads back open. That is to be expected. What would be nice is to see the engineers take the feedback and consider the recreational side of things the best they can. That way the SSV or other affected river corridors wont see many changes for the worst. Everyone knows that their main priority is to get the road back into safe condition and continue the clean up process. But if you don't speak up now, when the project is complete and things are completely different it will be to late to act. Never hurts to ask.....


----------



## yukon cornelious (Jul 21, 2008)

You never know maybe CDOT has some engineers that love front range class v runs that will take an interest in getting as much work done in the river channel as possible.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Take the feedback and consider the recreational side of things? Hahaha yeah and who's paying for this. It's nice thoughts but work isn't free


----------



## TonyM (Apr 17, 2006)

Props to you Ian for getting on this. If Cdot is willing to listen and possibly consider recreational interests then I am all for it. It would be great to have a voice in the planning process. If possible have them put a clean 30 footer in there with a nice recovery pool. Thanks!


----------



## Phillips (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks for all your hard work Ian. You never know what your influence will be unless you try. Power in numbers guys. We all are on the same team!

Peace
Kent


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

Nice work Ian opening up the lines of communication with another public agency regarding boater concerns.

I would suggest framing our interest as a safety issue. Railings, rebar, etc, in rivers can be a hazard to a whole range of users like tubers, swimmers, and people who fall in. While CDOT's mission is (unfortunately) not making sweet rapids for us to kayak, safety in the river corridor arguably is. It would probably be most productive by starting with these issues. 

I also second the clean 30 footer. It would make the front range a bit less lame.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

I do a lot of work for MDT here in Montana and following the 2011 floods up here we have had a lot of reconstruction projects, mostly bridge replacements (no entire channel realignments or road rebuilds) but in my opinion a great avenue to pursue is the USCOE permitting process. The temporary disturbances mentioned to shore up and rebuild roadways will need to be addressed, at least we usually needed to here. 

Several things to think about is that MDT had huge plans to restore large stretches of river/streams associated with bridge replacements, their rationale was to gain stream mitigation credits with USCOE for use on future projects. Ultimately their budgets were stretched so thin with the number of projects that in almost every case, they abandoned the restoration plans and simply replaced the bridge and did nothing to the stream (other than in the immediate vicinity of the bridges). This includes leaving debris in the stream if it couldn't be reached with a machine from the project site. If you can get CDOT to think stream mitigation credits they may be more interested in spending money outside of the right-of-way, but be warned that they will undoubtedly plan big and scale back as budgets are realized, it's the nature of the beast.

Secondly, MDT has a lot of engineers, they design many of their projects in-house and typically contract out large or problematic projects that will tax their own resources too much, but ultimately their engineers review and approve nearly every design aspect we submit. I am certain the CDOT operates similarly and has an army of engineers on staff. 

Caspermike was searching for the term hydraulics, (Hydraulics - encyclopedia article about Hydraulics.). Hydraulic engineer's perfom much of the design work to engineer stable stream streches through impacted areas (bridges, roadside bank armoring, etc.) Im sure CDOT has hydraulic engineers that work with rest of the design team to build structures and roadways that will withstand "normal" flood events (100 year, etc.) not the stuff you guys saw this year.

I think it's great to get involved in the design process and it will make a difference in the end. All of our projects here include public meetings and comment sessions where interested parties can voice their opinions to project management and the design team. Many comments are ridiculous and are probably simply ignored, but others when well thought out and articulated often get consideration. But I do think it's important to have realistic expectations, this rebuild process will be lengthy and expensive and CDOT's primary responsibility is to build a good, stable road. The environmental concernes, while important and mandatory thanks to the clean water act, are secondary. You will need to think of creative ways to get channel alterations/restoration incorporated into design in my opinion, especially in areas not directly affected by road reconstruction.

One last thing to think about: Coarse woody debris (the scourge of boaters) is incredibly important to the biologic and geomorphic health of mountain streams, advocating the removal of such will quickly get you on the bad side of the project biologist, so think of creative ways to keep wood in the stream while keeping it safe to boat.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Great comments from folks with good ideas. Lots of fks are working this on multiple front including boulder playpark, Lyons town and play park, up canyon construction, and up canyon stream bed enhancement. 

No one has done this before so its a mad scramble to figure it out be we are making progress. No one is nieve to the challenges or schedules or budgets but we will try and get what we can done. Definitely a long haul project. 

Key players are mobilizing and engaging CDOT, politicos etc. 

If you don't think Cdot had engineers you are clueless, which we knew already but way to prove it for the 5000th time publicly. 

Colorado has world reknown whitewater design engineering firms that are already in the game. 

Will keep the buzz up to speed. We will likely need some public support and fundraising in the future.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

glenn said:


> Imagine the many thousands of decisions that must be made during these rebuilding times. Some of these decisions will have nearly identical outcomes when viewed from a transportation and construction perspective but wildly different outcomes when viewed from a recreational perspective...


Don't forget cost and schedule. CDOT will surely do what is quickest and least expensive, all things being equal (transportation and construction).

All they can do is say no however, so go for it.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Obviously they have engineers Ian but what caused the problems to the areas that were fixed that you brought up. sounds like a really good engineer !!

Like I said the people placing and moving rocks aren't the people in the office with the degree.. Good luck but be realistic kayaking isn't what the world revolves around and when it's not just one canyon that's fucked you have to keep one foot on earth, best of luck.. 

Keep realistic expectations otherwise you look like a space codet to anybody who doesn't understand kayaking good luck.

As a far as being clueless I don't expect Cdot to dredge the riverbed cause you lost your class 5 run waah waaah. All on the taxpayers dime due to natural causes. Yeah I'm clueless ian

How much does it cost to rebuild a destroyed highway how much for several?


----------



## huck it (Jul 23, 2011)

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.


----------



## huck it (Jul 23, 2011)

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.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

That's one way to make it raftable.


----------



## ednaout (Jun 3, 2005)

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.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

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


----------



## chepora (Feb 6, 2008)

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.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

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


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

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.


----------



## phillersk (Apr 24, 2006)

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.


----------



## troutbend (Aug 1, 2010)

*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.


----------

