Loading...
GAC Agenda Item 5 - Eben Fine Park Creek Bank Restoration Project CITY OF BOULDER GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE INFORMATION ITEM MEETING DATE: February 15, 201.2 INFORMATION ITEM: Eben Fine Park Creek Bank Restoration Project PRESENTERS: Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager Mike Lamb, Parks and Recreation Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Parks and Recreation and Greenways staff are completing the concept phase of a stream bank restoration project in Eben G. Fine Park. The project area is focused on the south bank of Boulder Creek, between the park's two pedestrian bridges, north of the northern sidewalk. See Attachment A: Project Area Map. Input on project goals and three concept designs was solicited from the public at two sets of open houses. Based on the input received, a preferred concept design and cost estimate were developed and presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and based on their feedback a preferred site plan and phasing plan were developed. See Attachment B: Preferred Alternative and Cost Estimate. ANALYSIS: The area of Eben G. Fine Park, between the park's pedestrian bridges and north of the northern sidewalk, is currently a high use area devoid of ground cover with unlimited creek access. Under these conditions native understory vegetation and habitat do not exist. The lack of ground cover is causing stream bank erosion and increased sediment loading to Boulder Creek, creating negative impacts on water quality and stream habitat and resulting in the stream bank being unappealing to park users. To address these problems, greenways staff, in coordination with parks and recreation staff is completing the concept stages of a stream bank restoration project in Eben G. Fine Park. This project will provide habitat and recreation improvements to the park area located north of the north sidewalk between the park's two pedestrian bridges through implementing the following project goats. Project Goals: • Control Erosion • Improve Water Quality • Improve Habitat • Improve Recreation Access • Enhance Park Character AGENDA ITEM # 4 PAGE I Eben Fine Park Project Area Map kv. rTM fpV ' ~ •y ;y W 'x,11 {~y{(+('y ~p~~~/~Tj~_' . Ire, gr-- J a • . .fit ~~II• ~ I N Legend Eben Fine Park Project Area 0 70 440 280 Feet Streets ! EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION AN , YON )liesroe,ATIeN Gf~EEK • , a,,zo- ~ rl ACCESS r PICNIC pop, oqp,4 PICNIC PdpS f 1~, STOI~ATIG+~I 1}GG 55 F~NCiS r ~jQ 5E~}TIN6 PICNIC POPS 5 i Y f G,EEK MAINTENANCE CMANNEtS-sos~, ACCESS - !Z' WIAF- Alm. w: PIGAIIG POP, IAA , • ~ - T~AsN 11~,EGyGI.E b/NS ~f ~ ~ ~ EXIsTIN& )t-AsH I Ar aCYCLE alNs bENCIf l s bA~ItIZEh ~ ~ , t PGAy6fLd1AN~ r I. _ • ~ . _ ° Rip f~DA~ b~s~ Tk.AI4 ,,,;t ; ~ ° 4 syco; tr 6A1,077 P41P,77' i01dJ~CT) ~ ~ 4_ _ ,1 ~ rya iSNP a 4C °s TEJNPO wood TREE MASS Al*A FENCE ~ PICNIC Toq.546S PEINANENT TA l IZ ~r'r`$' ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ r ~E~ CLA55 51~tDAD r F+,. -0 NORTH 0' 15' 30' 60' FENCE ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ \ 1\\\ I reposed {+rrr C.ny of L:xrLlcr a}L'I iJ1 ~,*ir~i! In_. l, EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION CDhtST wcr/d) T7 X1141 aANYON i r r ' M1~ _ ~ _ ~ , . _1 _ - 'mo't. _ ~ r' ` - • ~ ' ~ ~ f ~ ~/Y r - _ .e r ) s • 1. { - ~'y. fJ oQl. . . CT ARAPAHOS AVt9+~ H•m .ti c T/x _ 1 k 'I I ! e a !/'~e'rl~l yVl!..Y If M1~ { it r,i _ J~1{ r//, 1 q. PaSCAPVPTION: MIN, The preferred alternative concept plan creates distributed habitat restoration st~ECTE _ CNd,7 P Z. 77 OF P-P, J-CTS ; ; - areas as well as distributed creek access and picnic areas. This concept limits large group creek access to the West end of the waterfront. Distributed access in smaller areas discourages large group-activities elsewhere: -picnic areas of varying sizes, which are separated from the creel?allow for-p1rjvdc"y - = - - ' - and variation. Distributed habitat restoration allows existing vegetation-to - , `~s., anchor habitat improvement areas along the waterfront. This concept allows for a "Naturalistic" treatment of the creek bank while allowing group recreation and private picnic areas. rrte MASS AREA - SECTION SECTIO) L SECTION f! PAO 71~ SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL DEPEND ON THE SOURCE OF AVAILABLE 1 NORTH Q' 15' 30' 60' Prepared for City of Boulder by BHA Design Inc. I/ Eben Fine Park Boulder Creek Stabilization Opinion of Probable Costs Preliminary Design Total Site Area = 35,145 sf. 9-Nov-11 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL General Requirements Construction Survey Lump 1 $ 3,00100 S 3.000.00 Temp Diversion, Devmlar, Muck Excavation Lump 1 $ 20,000.00 S 20.000.00 Tree Protection Allow 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 EMP - Construction Erosion Control LF 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Remove Existing Furnishings Lump 1 S 1,50(100 s 1,500.00 Traffic Control Lump t $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 SUBTOTAL S 38,500.00 Pedestrian Walk = 624 LF @ 3' Wide $ 27 54 /LF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 1,900 $ 1.10 $ 2,090.00 Gravel Pave Crusher Fines - 3' wide (soft trail) SF 1,872 $ 5.50 S 10.296.00 Chase Drain EA 6 $ 800.00 5 4,800.00 SUBTOTAL $ 17,186.00 Picnic Areas = 8,935 sf $ 13.00 /SF Earthwork & Sile Prep SF 8,935 S 1,10 S 9,828.50 Picnic Tables EA 6 S 2.000.00 S 12.000.00 Landscape Pockets SF 5,835 $ 8.00 S .16,680.00 Leveling Sara CY 5 S 250.00 S 1.250.00 Feature Boulders TON W $ 250.00 5 12,500.00 Stabilized Crusher Fines SF 2,500 S 2.00 $ 5.000.00 Irrigation SF 5,835 $ 1.00 $ 5,835.00 Fine Grading SF 5,835 $ 0.05 S 291.75 Concrete Header • integral Color and Stamped LF 320 S 15.00 $ 4.80000 Flagstone 1 Slab Slone (4-6" thick cut Lyons Red sandstone) SF 600 $ 30.00 $ 18,000.00 SUBTOTAL S 116,185.25 Habitat Restoration Areas = 15,780 sf $ 8.84 /SF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 15,760 $ 1,10 $ 17,358.00 Concrete Rait Fence LF 729 $ 40.00 S 29,160.00 Temporary Rope Fence wilh signs LF 382 $ 1.00 S 382.00 Tooeod 2 4" depth CY 195 $ 35.00 $ 6,825.00 Cobble Mulch (10'-18" Local Cobble Mix) SF 15,780 S 3.00 S 47.340,00 Shade Trees (native) EA 5 $ 100.00 S 500.00 Multistem Trees (nalive) E.A. 20 $ 100,00 $ 2.000.00 Shrubs - B&B (native) EA 100 $ 40.00 5 4,000.00 Perennial 1 Ornamental Grasses (nallvel EA 150 S 35.00 S 5.250.00 Nalive Seed SF 15,760 $ 0.09 $ 1.42020 Irrigation SF 15,780 $ 1,50 S 23,670.00 Fine Grading SF 15,780 $ 0.05 $ 769.00 Erasion Control Blanket SF 15,780 $ 0.05 S 789.00 SUBTOTAL $ 139,483.20 Erosion Stabilization = 6,195 sf $ 3004 /SF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 6,195 $ 1.10 $ 6,814.50 Stabilized Crusher Fines SF 1,500 S 2.00 S 3.000.00 Exposed Aggregate Concrete Wilntegral Color SF 1.500 $ 9.00 S 13.500.00 Large River Boulder TON 200 $ 250.00 $ 50,000.00 Concrete Footings (reinforcing of bottom ierrace ste?) Cy 150 $ 350.00 $ 52,500.00 Fine Grading sr 6.195 $ 0.05 S 309.75 Flagstone ! Slab Stone (stepsl4erraces) SF 2.000 $ 30.00 $ 60,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 186,124.25 Note: Does not include the following Permitting PROJECT SUBTOTAL $ 497,478.70 Utility adjustments CONTINGENCY 15;5$ 74,621.81 Mobilization (10%) $ 49,747.87 Design (12%) $ 69,697.4A PROJECT TOTAL S 861,545.82 Page 1 of 1 441 ' , J~GT~1T I U' J G, eve ~21 4 Tp. 0'G~l~ IN, 611, p1lUrz F OF, h sNrO~Ti P~',r 0,1 Pd,J/GTi a~..~ % - T %r CONS - Large stabilized area at upstream end - Picnic areas close to trail - Provides varied distribution of access - Distributed creek access ST JOd,IVI S - Smaller / intimate picnic areas _ - Provides improved habitat distribution i 4 Incorporates large habitat restoration area a: LE6~N1~ AESC}~,IPT/ON: '1 The prefered alternative concept plan creates distributed habitat restoration areas as well as distributed NORTH 0 15 30 6G C creek access and picnic areas. This concept limits large group creek access to the West end of the EROSION HAarTAT RESTORATION PICNIC ANA waterfront. Distributed access in smaller areas discourages large group activities elsewhere. Picnic sTAaruaATroN flND PRese evarrON 6ATneerN~ ARegs areas of varying sizes, which are separated from the creek, allow for privacy and variation. Distributed habitat restoration allows existing vegetation to anchor habitat improvement areas along the waterfront. PEQPSTR/AN TEMPOkAItd PertMflNEMT TRAra LoNNELTraus ROPC PENLB 1eArc PCNCe This concept allows for a "Naturalistic" treatment of the creek bank while allowing group recreation and private picnic areas. _ EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION r~aJ o,~,y ~lY~ Prepared for City of Boulder by BHA Design Inc. 11/09/2011 EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION On Site Open House Results (8/10/11) General Comments: Question 1: How do you use Eben Fine Park? 1. Cycle through on way to canyon 2. Bike, use with my granddaughters - playground and wading in the creek 3. 1 live close by and visit the park several times a week 4. Passive recreation, frisbee, picnics 5. Bike and picnic 6. Infrequent, when events scheduled there. Occasionally, bike through Question 2a: How do you use Boulder Creek within this park? 1. Only for splashing on hot days 2. Tubing entry/ exit 3. For hiking and visual enjoyment 4. Passive enjoyment, possible fishing 5. For sound and beauty 6. Biking, sometimes walk Question 2b: Which park amenities do use in the project area? 1. Bike path, picnic tables 2. Bike trails, playground, walking, space for frisbee 3. Walk down to creek (access) 4. All of them - a very minimal natural and recreational facility 5. Restrooms picnic tables 6. Bike and running routes, picnic table 7. Trail Question 2c: Do you have any general comments about the project area? 1. Need to separate through traffic from local traffic 2. More green clumps with places for access, with possible soft trail through green and wider hard trail to accommodate park vehicles and address drainage issues 3. Very serene natural setting. Hard lines & urban looking features would not fit in 4. It's a great amenity for the City of Boulder 5. It's too heavily used. I support buffers and steps to conserve 6. Good concept. Make sure to get community involvement at the park 7. No thin flagstone next to creek 8. Protect tree roots, piers 9. 1 like clusters of tables 10. Large stones in / adjacent to creek 11. Nature side of spectrum Question 3a: What Pictures of the streambank do you like? (Reference numbers from photos) 1. 6, 22, 14, 11 2. Native Plants (53, 52, 47) but fencing likely to be damaged in that area. Places for people to express (11, 16, 10 33) 3. 47, 3, 4, 14, 50, 49, 22 4. Remove artful rock pyramids from creek 5. 22, 38, 42, 44 6. 52, 43, 42 7. 11, 16, 6, 7 Question 3b: What attributes cause you to prefer these photos? 1. Hardened access and double use - islands of vegetation, match materials 2. Close to creek (10), Natural look -feelings of stones under foot - much nicer than wood (11), Quiet (16) 3. Natural, would blend into park setting 4. 1 think the trails are wide enough and very pleasant 5. Stream itself has natural look and feel, upland are well protected 6. Less structure 7. 47, 42, 54 Question 3c: How can the habitat be improved and protected? 1. Provide varied and hardened access 2. Needs areas close to the creek for walking or jogging, but areas where tubes or waders can access that will be separate - heavier traffic areas, quiet areas, picnic area should be moved. Perhaps snuggled in areas of more greenery 3. Split rail fence around areas to be protected would help add visual delineation on ground. I liked the faux wood or natural stone pavers for this. Would be nice to leave existing boulders along the creek in place 4. Remove mature vegetation along creek path 5. In areas of vegetation loss, plant larger sandbar willows with temporary protection from trampling. 6. If structures, emphasize natural materials 7. 22, 41, 40, 29 END OF REPORT EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION On Site Open House Results (8/23/11 & 8/30/11) General Comments: 1. No areas should use mortar based on the issues we have at the seating area at the Muni. 2. 1 think it is good to provide multiple access points and spread out the picnic areas based on the fact residential uses of this site like multiple access points based on the variety of users. 3. Drop your tube in, eat lunch, leave it alone. A is great, don't protect wildlife with fences, use city ord # and notice. Pave naturally picnic area, flow into creek stonework/boulders. 4. Signage on no bbq's or allow bbq on no drinking as well. 5. More recreation access/ may allow habitat a better chance to become established. 6. Prefer more natural type landscaping. 7. Habitat is in more defendable segments. 8. With this or any model, we need to discourage people from cycling on and off the path. 9. No bike area! Bike racks at edge of area. Signs to sloe down while riding through area. 10. 1 do think barriers need to be man made and sturdy. 11. Creates large recreation access, separate from picnic area. River access. Separate picnic areas allow big groups to be separated from small groups. 12. (Concept C) Feels more like a natural river bank that Concept A and I like the distributed picnic areas. 13. Keep the dirt surface. 14. Mixing recreation with habitat. Mixing picnic with habitat. 15. 1 like concept B because I feel it will be hard to keep separate picnic areas separate. However I feel if you use proper and large enough barriers than concept C could be good. 16. 1 think large fence/barriers are needed for Concept C more than Concept B, but I can see the need for spaced out picnic areas, but it's a concern of spread. I think you could separate B out into smaller groups of tables to singles, all within the designated area, add bushes to create a visual barrier. 17. Control erosion and make stream access more inviting. 18. Although I favor Concept C, I realize it would discriminate against larger family groups who use it now. 19. 1 prefer the mix of large and small picnic areas with the natural habitat mixed in throughout the area. 20. Larger picnic area to encourage community gathering but incorporate native plant habitat restoration to reduce soil erosion. 21. Recreation is mixed with habitat restoration. 22. Stone pavers potentially if integrated (with bouders) somehow. 23. Great opportunity, happy to see plans for future improvements - keep it rustic in keeping with 2 existing structures. 24. Nicer river access. 25. Great concepts and plans, Wonderful venue for gathering information. People tend to spread out unless visiting park as a group. 26. Need way to keep things clean, new picnic tables. Nicer picnic options may need even more picnic area. 27. More Boulders for sure. River boulders for sure. More art installations and interactive/active segments to the river. I think more habitat areas with art installations would be very helpful and beautiful to this area in general. 28. Wicked Wave like Missoula MT. Get a scrap ship and make it a toy that the creek can rage around. 29. The more natural the better. When the creek looks like no one has made changes to it its so much more beautiful, The same goes for the surroundings. 30. Just make it look natural. I think the best thing you could do for all of these is make it look and feel natural. By natural I mean that it does not look out of place. 31. Passive habitat protection. Local materials. Rethink the sidewalk, slow down traffic. Boulders. Bring light into structures. Not contrived, admit the impact. Functional and simple. Cheap and good looking. 32. 1 don't think any of the concepts provide enough picnic area. 33. Native plants as barrier. 34. Plant some FRUIT TREES! 35. 1 like the idea of a natural look blended in with urban art. 36. Educate the public about these purposes and values, we need environmental education. I value the great kid friendly beach and swimming hole below the pedestrian bridge but rocky access is dangerous. Better rocks and access would be good. 37. More privacy in option c. 38. Option b keeps picnic area in a containable context. 39. The nature the better, people come to do their own thing, discourage masses. 40. Removing the parking lots would reduce pressure. Netting off the habitat areas works well in Alaska. 41. Prefer less formal design that blends with the natural setting. 42. Care needs to be given to competing funding needs but subject to that turning an eyesore and overused area into more planned but carefree and user friendly is to be applauded. 43. 1 feel that Concept C works the best in light of the current usage of the park and recreation(al) use of the creek. 44. Save the stone chair. 45. 1 like the pocket picnic areas that allow for privacy and interaction with the creek and park areas. 46. 1 like a mix of bring your own and picnic tables. 47. Prefer natural looking and emphasis on habitat. END OF REPORT EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION On Site Open House Results (8/23/11 & 8/30/11) Image Boards Vote Tally Image # Votes 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 1 1 9 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 13 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 16 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 18 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 4 1111 20 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 3 1 1 1 24 2 1 1 25 2 1 1 26 0 27 1 1 28 0 29 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 1 32 3 1 1 33 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 3 111 36 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 2 1 1 38 5 11111 39 5 1 1 1 1 1 40 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 3 1 1 1 42 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 46 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47 3 1 48 4 1111 49 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 2 1 1 51 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 2 1 1 54 5 1 1 1 1 1 55 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 56 5 11111 57 4 1111 58 4 1111 Concept Design Options Concept A 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Concept B 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Concept C 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION Image Preferences (Open House # 2): Surfaces: r - e Yew ~ t AW 1 _ E N `i f Organic/Naturalized Stream Bank - 416 River Boulders - #7 Stone Pavers - #11 Picnic/Gathering Areas: ter: • ~ ~'S ~ I #18 #20 Stream Interaction: _ w~ ;•R ~,:a ,.yam' Y~~r 4 r~-• ~ ~ T•, ' - iR "i fir' ~ ~~4~fr~' ~r v~~r rv _ :-7 #40 Habitat Protection and Restoration: t , River Boulders - #42 t x; •~'J r dry - ' 41. M . }M_ ISM '1T1 - r•'+. ~ 4r: - y ' J - -w1ll~ ;}r 7 Foothills Riparian Zone - #46 Rustic Fencing: lot sa, 456 452 CONCO-WT 4 V t r vji~ ~41 L 4 "r 4 99 ARAPAI-10f AWNUF lU r IIIII„ yU 114?14~ r d 1.5 7 U155 PL.~y~l~.4Gf~tp V 10 A@APA-OC AVCNll~_ _r- (NOT P10PIT or PFz.4JECT) "Va PA121 OS CONS & Distinct use zones limit disturbance -Limited recreational access - Large habitat restoration node - Requires large fenced portion 1,EST 1~Ods Q - Reduced environmental impact - High concentration of uses 'I II Similar to current use pattern - May not effectively limit access from creek - - Large "non-monitored" area li CAE ENA AESC2,/PT/dN: NORTH 0' I 0 G( Concept A creates distinct use zones for specific activities. This concept allows for active use in the West third of the waterfront by incorporating reinforced surfaces, ample seating areas, and easy recre- kECl~ ATlONht NAnITAT "S70P,A7I6N PICNIC AND PED8sT2lAN R£~ss AND P"SERV ATlOU 6ATN~filN6 AREAS TRAIL CONNECTIONS 1 ational access to Boulder Creek. The center third of the waterfront is designated as a picnic area having specific picnic sites and more discrete water access. The East third of the water font is designated as a habitat restoration/preservation area with limited creek access. EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION cc1, ilk Preferred fer Ciry o! Boulder by BHA Design Inc 8, GD~~lG~~'T .S VjA " J - f 1V f j.. r~ 1 YfiY r I:f 1 ~F ~ - y -i i ~ ! ! ! 3 ~ .l I _ 1- rlh i.~ry"'AfIQ!' :er y - ''r~5' 11V NuE s tl lS 02 DO 5 (OT P,4P T OP P)IMVP-CTS ~ ~ ~ ~ - Pi~.dS CONS Hie _ - Provides natural distribution of access - Picnic area close to trail - Reduces impact of picnic area - Smaller patches of habitat STOd.IV1S _ - Provides more habitat distribution - Limited large group recreation areas - Incorporates large habitat restoration area -I - M ; i y - More emergency accessibility 1 \P\K'~N6 - AXAPAffOe=14VI5• c n /t 7L7~ L6~NA Ar~SC1~./PT/ON: NORTH Of 15' 30 6( Concept B creates distributed habitat restoration areas as well as distributed recreation access points. EC>zeyrro t NkerrgT ►sra ~qT/ou 'PICNIC ANa PEA~STRIAN This concept allows for limited waterfront access by incorporating reinforced surfaces in smaller areas access ANPPISBRVAT/ON 6ATNERIN6 ARE95 TRAlLGdNNECTIONS which discourages large group activities. The picnic area is separated from the creek. Habitat restora- tion is priority and allows existing vegetation to anchor habitat improvement areas along the waterfront. This concept allows for a "Naturalistic" treatment of the creek bank while keeping the picnic area con- centrated in one area. CC,,,A.i EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION _ - - - i~`T y - - - - ~ -l~7 Prepared fcr C hr a` oa!dr. by BHA Design Inc 8 P7- G Cl_-, ~tyow~ j' AV Nt fs u.;t5 • PLA Y167 P.auNA 4 B^e 16. PINa PA$tK CN )r PgAi~T of PP. ,oL acr) ILI, :y , _ ~Cr. Peas CONS X : S~{GT rl - Large Recreation area at upstream end - Picnic areas close to trail -CN>, Provides natural distribution of access - Smaller patches of habitat , Smaller / intimate picnic areas - Distributed creek access - EST ~.aams - - Provides improved habitat distribution 4. Incorporates large habitat restoration area Most emergency accessibility 1 `1111 P~t~.~ru~~~~\1\\\ti\\ - 1V/r• Al n 71 ~ im NORTH Cr 15' 30' G( ASSCAVPT/aN: Concept C creates distributed habitat restoration areas as well as distributed recreation access and RELR eATlbN NAAlTAT RESTORATION P/CN1C AND PEDkSTRrAN picnic areas. This concept limits large group recreation to the West end of the waterfront. Distributed Access AND PRESBRVATIOM 6AT/1e91N6 AREAS TRAI[ CONNECTIONS access in smaller areas discourages large group activities elsewhere. Picnic areas of varying sizes and separated from the creek allow for more privacy and variation. Distributed habitat restoration allows existing vegetation to anchor habitat improvement areas along the waterfront. This concept allows for a "Naturalistic" treatment of the creek bank while allowing group recreation and private picnic areas. y cc, EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION Prepa red for City of Boulder by BHA Design Inc